Posted on 12/21/2002 10:16:02 AM PST by gitmo
How would you like Uncle Sam to help you buy a digital television? Would a $500 government rebate be enough to get you into the store? A TV industry analyst believes that, for many Americans, it would, and that tax credits may be the very best way to solve the chicken-and-egg problem that has stymied acceptance of next-generation digital TV.
YOU MAY THINK it odd that the federal government would even consider paying for a hunk of your new TV set. After all, it's not like the government doesn't have other things to do with the money. But money is precisely what this is all about.
When the feds authorized digital television, they assumed that existing television stations would abandon their old analog frequencies for the new digital channels. But that hasn't happened, and the 10-year timetable envisioned for the transition is now out the window.
That's a problem, because the government has already spent the money it raised by auctioning off the frequencies that were to be vacated by the TV stations. They auctioned off those frequencies, in part, to telecom companies who were going to use the spectrum to offer new digital services.
Now, we could talk about what a lunatic idea frequency auctions are, and how they haven't worked out nearly as well as proponents promised. But the fact remains that $16 billion in auction proceeds are already included in federal budget projections.
IT'S UNLIKELY that money will be in the federal coffers as soon as Congress hoped. Until broadcasters give up their chunks of spectrum and switch to digital, the auction bidders aren't likely to pay up. If digital television adoption doesn't speed up soon, there's the possibility the transition from analog to digital won't be complete for another 20 years. It was supposed to be over and done with by the middle part of this decade.
Phil Swann, editor of TVPredictions.com and a frequent guest on my radio program, is the force behind the $500 rebate idea. He thinks it's better to convince people to buy new televisions than to force digital TV tuners on them. That latter plan is just what the FCC has ordered consumer electronics manufacturers to do, beginning with big-screen TVs in 2004.
Like many people, I sort of gag on the idea of tax dollars being used to help people buy television sets. I'd rather see the money do something useful, like feed hungry kids or provide decent mental health care. Of course, I'm not the idiot who linked the federal budget to getting people onto digital television, so I'm clearly out of step.
OF COURSE, $16 billion isn't much--especially spread out over several years--when the federal budget deficit has been predicted by some analysts to top $200 billion (plus the cost of whatever happens in Iraq). But every little bit will help when we're talking about either raising taxes or cutting programs.
Should any of that $16 billion be used as rebates to get people to switch to digital TV? Well, at $500 a set, a million digital televisions would cost a half-billion dollars. Twenty million sets--which you'd think would be enough to jumpstart the transition--would cost $10 billion. I can't imagine we'd actually spend that much, but the math illustrates just how expensive this program could be.
In the digital age, the government could have important new roles to play beyond protecting our shores and delivering the mail. But should paying for television sets be one of them? In order to protect much-needed--and already budgeted--revenue, it may have to be. We'll see.
One can hope. But I don't think that A-list theatrical movies are necessarily shot with later TV broadcast in mind, and so an HDTV telecine conversion of a well made film yields surprisingly good results. Of course, it also depends on the network - those grotty b*st*rds over at ABC are apparently planning on not going any better than 720p. Which means Monday Night Football is not all it could be ;)
I'm sorry, but "Everybody Loves Raymond" isn't any funnier in HD, and is lit, blocked, and shot in a way to maximize NTSC viewing.
No, it isn't - might be funnier if they canceled it altogether, though ;)
But you're right, and that's why I think the push is going to be in terms of theatrical films and sporting events....
Also, do you have any doubts that the "rebate" will be applied unequally, and will not be given to those that have paid the most taxes in the first place. Once again, MY paycheck being used to buy THEIR votes.
Actually, I think you got the "from" and "to" part backwards. :^)
Anyway, even Marx would have trouble establishing need in the case of a high-definition TV.
Are you busy the first week of April next year? If you can spare the time, wrangle a show pass to the NAB in Las Vegas. (FReepmail me in a couple of months and I'll arrange one for you.)
You'll see the difference on the floor of the NAB, I guarantee. (I can't guarantee you won't lose your shorts in Las Vegas, though. It can be an expensive trip.)
Back on topic, though: The sets you are looking at are not set up properly, even if they were capable of displaying the pix accurately in the first place. Usually, convergence is way off, not to mention basic chroma, phase, contrast and blacks are set wrong.
No doubts. Besides, should people who have financial problems in the first place be encouraged to spend their money on something that will only depreciate in value?
I have minor problems with tax credits for houses and tuition that actually do have some long term benefit, I have big problems with a program like this.
LOL. I'm always available for private conversations ;)
Also for your amusement, What's the deal with FREEPERS who don't watch T.V.
We can't do that, comrade. What if you make the "wrong" decision? Better to let us take care of these things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.