"The government's billion-dollar program to help people prepare for the transition to digital television has run out of money, potentially leaving millions of viewers without coupons to buy converter boxes they need to keep their analog TV sets working after the switch."
Thus began Washington Post staffer Kim Hart's January 6 Business section front-pager, "TV Converter Program Runs Out of Funding." Hart promptly went into noting that "[m]embers of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program," yet took no effort in her 13-paragraph story to find critics of the program who could say, in effect, "See, I told you so."
"This is typical of a government that doesn’t measure real results to determine a project’s success," Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Vice President David Williams told NewsBusters via e-mail:
CAGW has been very critical of the implementation of the transition and the FCC has mishandled this transition from day one. More concerned about getting the message out then providing citizens with the proper hardware, the FCC seemingly forgot, or failed to plan for actual implementation of the switch. In October, 2008, Citizens Against Government Waste named FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Porker of the Month for using FCC funds to sponsor a NASCAR driver from his home state to advertise the transition from analog to digital. The car crashed in it’s first race of sponsorship.
What's more, in February 2005, before the voucher program became public policy, CAGW President Tom Schatz scoffed at the notion of spending tax dollars for converter boxes:
The market will find a way to accommodate these 20 million households in a variety of ways, including converters, rebates, and other low-cost incentives. Some in Congress are proposing a subsidy for low-income households to purchase digital television sets. But that is like asking the government to buy everyone a DVD player because Blockbuster no longer rents VHS tapes.
Hart did find a liberal Democrat, Rep. Edward Markey -- ACU lifetime score: 5.20% conservative -- to issue the typical lament that not enough money was being thrown at the problem. The Bush administration "created a mess by not admitting that there was not sufficient funding until the very last minute," the Massachusetts Democrat complained.
Photo of Hart via WashingtonPost.com
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Can someone please tell me
January 6, 2009 - 16:56 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwhy the government be involved in providing financial assistance for people to access TELEVISION????
ABC, CBS, NBC
January 6, 2009 - 17:04 ET by JDWHow will the elderly watch the evening news?
Why not simply apply one's 'tax refund'?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Whatever else you think, your mother and my mother are both mothers
My Question Exactly
January 7, 2009 - 21:03 ET by BlueCat57And how many people didn't need a box spent my tax dollars to buy one?
To answer your question... to keep 'em off the streets
January 6, 2009 - 17:14 ET by jazboJohn Lennon did have an accurate line about "they" keeping us drugged with sex and TV. The majority of unemployed daytime TV addicts are not people that the govt wants wandering around the streets looking for trouble. There's enough of them already. You can fill in the blanks from here...
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
it's not about keeping them off the streets
January 6, 2009 - 17:46 ET by UndercoverConservativeit's to keep themindoctrinated, voting for the One, approving of all the Democratic Party, Oprah, and MTV support. To quell the riots by making people believe their rights are secured. To fill them with misinformation.
Next step-it will be considered "child abuse" to not have cable television. After that, it becomes *illegal* to not posess a working television receiver.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
^ Also a good point.
January 6, 2009 - 17:53 ET by jazboThose who believe in nothing will believe anything.
Why?
January 6, 2009 - 19:34 ET by LajawWhy do people watch TV? It is a waste of time.
Tell me why
January 6, 2009 - 17:38 ET by NorthCoasterTell me why some government beauracrat decided to digitalize the TV broadcast spectrum in a way that older TVs won't recognize the signal?
It's all unneccesary obsolesence. Just like decreeing that incandescent bulbs will become obsolete.
The analog bandwidth can be
January 6, 2009 - 17:41 ET by HermanoThe analog bandwidth can be put to better use if it is allocated for digital signals. Therefore, the military and others will have more communications wavelengths available. Bottom line - you get more "channels" in digital mode than analog.
O Lord, Thou givest us everything, at the price of an effort. - Leonardo Da Vinci
I guess they are now
January 6, 2009 - 17:39 ET by HermanoI guess they are now worried about the general public who were too busy doing other things than taking the five minutes on the website to order the bloody vouchers. OK, I am exaggerating. It only took me about 3-1/2 minutes to order mine. They put an expiration date on the voucher cards. They may have enough money from the $1.34B or so they put in place; it will just be a little longer for some people to get their converters.
But the program is a waste.
O Lord, Thou givest us everything, at the price of an effort. - Leonardo Da Vinci
I fail to see the
January 6, 2009 - 17:46 ET by SpockI fail to see the problem. I don't know anyone still using "rabbit ears" to get their signal so I imagine the actual number of people "in need" is better described as "damn few". And of those few still recieving TV over the air, I imagine most of those would probably adjust to life without TV very easily.
I say this because anyone still using over the air signals isn't really interested in spending $$$ on TV (else they would have Satillite or Cable) and therefore are not really worried about lossing something they really don't care that much about in the first place.
Spock, while I agree with
January 6, 2009 - 17:54 ET by bassndudeSpock, while I agree with you for the most part, there are parts of this country where folks just watch the news, and storm warnings. Much of their day is taken up with the cows and the horses and the hogs, chickens and what ever. Now for those folks, who like to be informed about encrouching tornados and the local news and farm reports in the mornings, it is important. I have a few kinfolks down in the SE part of our state. There is no cable down there. None. So the only way they get their news if over the air. They just are to good to go down there and talk to those people. After all. They might git their high hills in cow poop.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Same in my part of the
January 6, 2009 - 18:01 ET by bigtimerSame in my part of the country, a lot of the area, if you don't have satellite, you did have plenty of warning for at least a year now to get your converter box, there will be complaining still..why we didn't know a thing about it will be the mantra from the left...including my ex, who I have told him about this...he won't do anything until he loses television.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT
January 6, 2009 - 18:33 ET by NorthCoasterIt's the same here on the north coast of Ohio in between Cleveland and Toledo. This area is pretty well built up but much of it is still farm land. There is no cable running down many roads because it doesn't pay to hook up just one or two houses. The satellite service is great in areas without trrees, but when you need the signal the most, during storms and blizzards, the signal is blocked by the precepitation.
NC...Same in my area
January 6, 2009 - 18:49 ET by bigtimerNC...Same in my area regarding the trees...we has a pretty good place for years, but new trees came up, we moved it to another location, which has been a bad decision, won't go into, but I felt it would be because of winter, needless to say, I have been outside more than once, including today brushing it off....what I can reach of it that is...without using ladder.
My ex, is in an open area, he is just too stubborn to get satellite..so he better get his converter...or else he'll miss his abc, nbc, cbs and PBS shows, plus local stations, which in his area is Bosie...which are also liberal like our local stations in my area, Spokane, Wa.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Believe it or not, cable is
January 6, 2009 - 18:42 ET by SpockBelieve it or not, cable is not available where I live either. However, I do subscribe to Dish Network and I pay a little extra to get my local channels on it too because, like your friends and family, its important to me.
However, being a honest working man, like most conservatives are, I would have no problem paying the $50 bucks or so to buy my own converter.
I still figure that 98% of the people not getting TV after the cutover will be blue voters, so again, I fail to see the problem =)
"But that is like asking
January 6, 2009 - 18:10 ET by mattm"But that is like asking the government to buy everyone a DVD player because Blockbuster no longer rents VHS tapes."
I don't totally agree with that. The government is mandating the change, so an argument can be made for some level of funding. Then again, it also can be argued that the government engages in unfunded mandates all the time.
I lean toward the TV networks and affilliates paying for the converters, or TV sets, if they so choose.
Well, is it that the
January 6, 2009 - 18:47 ET by Ken ShepherdWell, is it that the networks WANTED digital for so long but the government forbade it, or is it that the government wants digital for the networks but they didn't want to go along with it.
I think it's more the former. The networks have and want to use the technology, it's been government regs mandating analog holding them back. Plus the digital switch frees up analog for auction which is $$$ the FCC pulls into federal coffers without tax hikes.
It's a regulatory move I find to be rational and give the low cost of "compliance" for the consumer, there's no good reason for a federal hand-out.
Comedy of errors
January 6, 2009 - 19:23 ET by cruiserAfter years of paying taxes to the Feds, I was finally able to access some of my tax money through a Federal program. Unlike many people, I am not a person who has to have the latest techno gadgetry. I had two TVs that were not up to date. Even though I have satellite reception, the day may come when I might want to, or have to use "rabbit ears". Thus last August I called for my two coupons. Then the fun began , every retailer in my area had a six page or more waiting list. By the time the retailers received the boxes and my turn came the coupons would have expired. Finally I ordered mine on line. That plan worked, but I knew that those who waited around till January would be in trouble. after all it was a Federal program. Do I feel guilty for taking the coupon? Hell no. I didn't pass the legislation out dating my TVs. For once I'm on the receiving end of my tax money.
I knew this was coming in 1997
January 6, 2009 - 20:18 ET by JeffWeimerWhen the drop dead date was 2006. There is NO EXCUSE - and TV is NOT THAT IMPORTANT. Get cable, get a coupon (they're still out there), or get the cash for crying out loud. This is not the end of the world. If you have a TV, you have a "place", and you have to spend money to keep it. If you are too close to the edge to keep your TV signal, maybe you don't need to be in front of the TV.
The last time a person I know who relied on the true airwaves for TV was in 1996. I'm sure there are some still out there who need this converter - but the word has been out for YEARS, and it was extended. There has been plenty of time to take care of it. Anyone behind the 8-ball on this needs no sympathy.
And in any case, this will work itself out as compatible TVs come down in price.
Anyone think these
January 7, 2009 - 02:01 ET by ckc1227Anyone think these converter boxes cost twice what they normally would cost because of all the "free" government money that was out there to use? Uh, I do. And once the "free" money is gone, those prices will come down almost to the level that people are paying when using the rebate card.....or they would come down. I'm sure they'll find more money for the program though.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
The government forced this
January 7, 2009 - 03:01 ET by RR GOPThe government forced this transition upon the country. On one hand, people with no cable would then have to buy a converter box because they have to if they want to watch TV-thanks to Uncle Sam.
What if the government said, "Next year all radio will be digital."
I guess most folks won't mind buying a converter box for their cars and home radios, or just having to replace them altogether-I would mind, though.
What if in 1988 the FCC said, "Next year all videocasettes and VCRs will be in Beta format.?
So, the other hand is, 'why should I pay for someone else's ability to watch TV'?
But the crux of the matter to me is why should the government be mandating this in the first place? It is not fair for the government to dicate policies that force consumers to spend their money on replacing/modifying something that works fine the way it is already.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Who's laughing at...
January 7, 2009 - 18:42 ET by BlueCat57Who's laughing at the Amish now?