Why Uncle Sam might buy you a TV

zdnet anchordesk ^ | December 20, 2002 | David Coursey

[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.

[gitmo]

I guess we'll be giving out "TV Stamps" soon.

[spectre]

Here is my problem:

I go to Sears, Circuit City, etc. and view a satellite signal showing an HDTV program. Next to that HDTV monitor I watch the SAME program on a Non-HDTV set.

I cannot see the thousand dollar difference in picture quality. I WANT to see the difference but it just is not there.

[winodog]

So you have to have a special high digital TV to recieve this signal? Does it really make that big a difference in the pic?
And the new DVD disc's work the same way? You need a HDTV to play them?
Does this mean that if I go buy a HDTV then my new VHS player will not work on it? So not only do I have to buy a new TV but then I have to buy a HDTV disc player to watch movies or will I still be able to use my VHS but I wont get the better pic?
Also I assume that when I hook up my new HDTV to my cable I automaticaly recieve the new HD pic?
I know thats a lot of questions but I have not really paid much attention to that stuff. The one eyed hypnotist that I purchased 15 years ago still works great and I even have the same remote clicker. My buddy who was with me when I bought the TV (it was a big deal at the time)still cannot believe that I have had it that long and the picture is so great. He watches a lot of TV so I consider him a expert and I feel good about my purchase of 15 years ago and the quality when he comes over. And every time he says I cant believe you still have that and it works so well.

[lelio]

Want to jump start HDTV? Reduce the cost to obtain a frequency. Require them to be use it or loose it.
Also there has to be a more compelling reason to get HDTV than a clearer picture. You mean I can watch Friends and see the sweat on Joey's face? Sign me up!

[csvset]

TV stamps , eh? This man was all for it.

Close digital divide with teachers and “infostamp” vouchers

Q: How would you insure that minority communities gain access to technology? A: First, I would give 10,000 scholarships a year to people who would teach in an urban or rural school district in the areas of computer science, math, science or foreign languages. The next thing I would do is something I call “infostamps” which empowers people to acquire the equipment they need to be a part of the digital revolution. We have food stamps. We need infostamps to be able to accomplish this objective. Source: Democrat debate in Harlem, NYC Feb 21, 2000

Issues 2000

[gitmo]

Also there has to be a more compelling reason to get HDTV than a clearer picture. You mean I can watch Friends and see the sweat on Joey's face? Sign me up!

The most compelling reason would be to put something on that would make me want to see it clearer. I'm perfectly happy with my analog tv, although occasionally I would like a big-screen for certain movies.

[motzman]

Most likely, the program your watching is not in 1080i HD format, so it just looks like a good DVD (at least that's been my experience in these stores manned by pimple-faced clown pants wearers...)

Having seen true HDTV images while the technology was being developed a few years ago (I was in the business, it's a loooong story), I can tell you a true HD image blows away NTSC, no matter how "nice" the TV is.

[meyer]

How about if they just quit stealing my tax dollars in the first place. I'll decide when and if I want a TV.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"I cannot see the thousand dollar difference in picture quality"

Look at a HDTV set showing a feed shot on high definition equipment, and I guarantee you will see the difference! There is not much difference if you're watching a show that was shot with analog or even digital equipment, but the extra resolution of HDTV is close to seeing a movie in the theater.

[God is good]

Tax credits are not Uncle Sam's money. Tax credits are OUR money!!

[gitmo]

How can you afford a TV if the government doesn't give you the money? You're obviously babbling incoherently.

[general_re]

Most likely, the program your watching is not in 1080i HD format, so it just looks like a good DVD (at least that's been my experience in these stores manned by pimple-faced clown pants wearers...)

Exactly so. If you want a true idea of what they look like, find a high-end specialty store in your area for your window-shopping, not Sears or Circuit City, and tell them you want to see a 1080i broadcast.

I don't know how hyper-critical you are, but I was visiting a friend of mine a while back ("Mr. Early Adopter", we call him), and he has an HDTV monitor, with the HBO HDTV feed from DirecTV. And watching an episode of "Band of Brothers" in 1080i and Dolby 5.1 was just amazing. Maybe better than film. No, definitely even better than film in a theater. Really.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

How about if they just quit stealing my tax dollars in the first place. I'll decide when and if I want a TV.

Hear Hear!

Also I have no doubt that getting some sort of tax credit would require a large amount of paperwork that I don't have time to fill out anyway because I have to work such long hours to pay my taxes in the first place.

[raybbr]

"Twenty-million sets...."

That's got to get the people in Japan and Korea all hot and bothered.

[Las Vegas Dave]

The most compelling reason would be to put something on that would make me want to see it clearer

Want a better picture? Switch to the DISH, I did last Saturday, horizontal lines of resolution from 400 to 525 lines, near DVD quality, standard broadcast from your local stations anout 280 horizontal lines of resolution.

Our existing cable system is good, but the DISH picture quality is much better, plus 169 stations (including the music only).

(Freepmail me if you want more info.)

[mvpel]

We specifically spent less on our analog TV set about three or four years ago, with the anticipation that we'd get a high-definition set once the prices came down. The main problem they have now is that they're trying to soak the early adopters, by offering only Cadillac models of HDTV tuners like the flat-screens or jumbotrons.

When they put a high-definition tuner in a $200 Gold Star 15" set, that's when you'll start to see them flying off the shelves.

[motzman]

I don't know how hyper-critical you are, but I was visiting a friend of mine a while back ("Mr. Early Adopter", we call him), and he has an HDTV monitor, with the HBO HDTV feed from DirecTV. And watching an episode of "Band of Brothers" in 1080i and Dolby 5.1 was just amazing. Maybe better than film. No, definitely even better than film in a theater. Really.

But it's going to get much better than that. When these "movies" (hard for me to say "film" anymore) are being produced, the lighting, angles, make-up, etc. are all designed to look best on the lowest common denominator. When NTSC goes away, and the lowest common denominator becomes HD (not necessarily HD 108i, though) look for a dramitc improve in visual quality, as lighting, make-up, angles, etc. will be modified to take full advantage of the format.

Besides the economic issues, the fact that there is very little dedicated HD content for the consumer to view is holding back acceptance. 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.

I'll say no more; I have confidentiality agreements to adhere to...;)

[BrucefromMtVernon]

I've never owned a television. In fact, I have nothing to do with television, period. I stopped watching TV at the age of 21 on account of the lies emanating from the talking heads, along with the garbage and filth being dished out by Hollywood. And yet there are people who get most of their news from television, along with the laplog press (like that piece of used toilet paper which we know as The Washington Post).

[davisfh]

"How about if they just quit stealing my tax dollars in the first place. I'll decide when and if I want a TV. "

"From each according to his need. To each according to his ability."

[Mr. Bird]

I know thats a lot of questions but I have not really paid much attention to that stuff. The one eyed hypnotist that I purchased 15 years ago still works great and I even have the same remote clicker

There's the reason. Until the television is more integrated with the other info technologies we use, the majority of people won't be bothered to upgrade. A better picture is not enticing enough. But add internet, Tivo-like capabilities, wireless/cell phone, PDA, gaming, and other characteristics to the equation, and you have yourself a winner.

I'm pretty sure this stuff is around the corner, but I'm not an early adopter so I'll just wait....