Why do so many commenters fail to recognize what this program is about? To speak to Redeye's comments, and preempt some of the other comments I've seen before: This isn't some hand-out. This isn't funded by tax payers. This has nothing to do with welfare.
This is about the government taking an action (shutting off analog broadcasts) that makes things many people own (analog TV's) suddenly much less useful. Meanwhile, the government is *making money* from the shut-off by selling off the freed up airwave spectrum. The $40 coupons are funded by a *small fraction* of the money the government will be taking in.
Perhaps many commenters don't also realize: it was less than 2 years ago that the government mandated that all new TV's must have digital tuners. I've only seen televised warnings about the digital changeover for the last few months. Sure, I've known about the change for several years, but not everybody reads internet tech sites. Many people see TV's as *expensive* items that should last over 10 years. I can remember having regularly-used black-and-white TV's at my house around 1990...and my parents sold them at a garage sale sometime after that -- even those 25-30? year old TV's still had value.
So, maybe you think paying for cable/satellite (cough, $300 to $1000 dollars every year, cough*) or buying a new TV every few years ("analog" sets might only be 2 years old, as I said above) is normal/easy/the thing to do, but not everybody does. Some people prefer to get their TV for free, OTA. Some people would also prefer that perfectly good analog/CRT TV's not just be dumped into the landfill because they suddenly become significantly less useful for many people.
When the government TAKES AWAY FUNCTIONALITY FROM SOMETHING PEOPLE OWN, AND MAKES MONEY IN THE PROCESS, it is natural to compensate the people who are hurt by it.
Finally, this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Buying new technology because "the government says so" or "everybody else is doing it" has nothing to do with being responsible. Anybody who suggests people should be expected "be responsible" by throwing away money for a new TV or cable/satellite service haven't really thought out the "financial responsibility" thing very far.
To go a step further, would you call it "personal responsibility" if the government said tomorrow that every car on the road in a year must be electric? Would you feel good about having to foot the bill for some electric-conversion kit or for a new car (whilst not being able to sell your 2-year old but now-useless gas car)? What if, while you were footing that bill, I told you the government was making 10's of billions of dollars by forcing you to switch to electric cars? Sure, electric cars are the way of the future and they're likely better for the environment, etc... but why should that mean you're out $10,000 in the value of your car and the government is raking in money?
“Measuring 21.5 inches each, with 1920 x 1080 resolution, 1,000:1 contrast ratio, and optical multitouch technology under their chunky bezels, these two models represent the biggest mainstream push for touchscreen computing yet.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why do so many commenters fail to recognize what this program is about? To speak to Redeye's comments, and preempt some of the other comments I've seen before: This isn't some hand-out. This isn't funded by tax payers. This has nothing to do with welfare.
This is about the government taking an action (shutting off analog broadcasts) that makes things many people own (analog TV's) suddenly much less useful. Meanwhile, the government is *making money* from the shut-off by selling off the freed up airwave spectrum. The $40 coupons are funded by a *small fraction* of the money the government will be taking in.
Perhaps many commenters don't also realize: it was less than 2 years ago that the government mandated that all new TV's must have digital tuners. I've only seen televised warnings about the digital changeover for the last few months. Sure, I've known about the change for several years, but not everybody reads internet tech sites. Many people see TV's as *expensive* items that should last over 10 years. I can remember having regularly-used black-and-white TV's at my house around 1990...and my parents sold them at a garage sale sometime after that -- even those 25-30? year old TV's still had value.
So, maybe you think paying for cable/satellite (cough, $300 to $1000 dollars every year, cough*) or buying a new TV every few years ("analog" sets might only be 2 years old, as I said above) is normal/easy/the thing to do, but not everybody does. Some people prefer to get their TV for free, OTA. Some people would also prefer that perfectly good analog/CRT TV's not just be dumped into the landfill because they suddenly become significantly less useful for many people.
When the government TAKES AWAY FUNCTIONALITY FROM SOMETHING PEOPLE OWN, AND MAKES MONEY IN THE PROCESS, it is natural to compensate the people who are hurt by it.
Finally, this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Buying new technology because "the government says so" or "everybody else is doing it" has nothing to do with being responsible. Anybody who suggests people should be expected "be responsible" by throwing away money for a new TV or cable/satellite service haven't really thought out the "financial responsibility" thing very far.
To go a step further, would you call it "personal responsibility" if the government said tomorrow that every car on the road in a year must be electric? Would you feel good about having to foot the bill for some electric-conversion kit or for a new car (whilst not being able to sell your 2-year old but now-useless gas car)? What if, while you were footing that bill, I told you the government was making 10's of billions of dollars by forcing you to switch to electric cars? Sure, electric cars are the way of the future and they're likely better for the environment, etc... but why should that mean you're out $10,000 in the value of your car and the government is raking in money?