My R/W B-I-L (a GOP judge) makes asinine comment at dinner table.

[DemoTex]

My brother-in-law is a GOP judge in Georgia. We had Thanksgiving dinner at my gay brother's place in Atlanta yesterday. There were about 20 of us in the room (75% Dems, 25% hard-core Repubs) having dessert when the conversation turned to digital and HDTV television. My sister had asked me about digital conversion boxes. I told her I knew absolutely nothing about the subject.

That's when my B-I-L said, out of the blue, "The government is paying $80 per set for all poor people to get a digital converter for their TV sets."

"WHAT!?", sez I.

He repeats, "The U.S. Government is paying $80 per set for all of the poor people in this country to have digital converters for all of their TV sets. Most have more than one, you know."

"No, I didn't know," I said, sarcasm dripping. "Where did you hear that shit? Rush? Fox?"

"Well, that's what people are saying," sez the judge.

"JESUS CHRIST!," I yelled, "You need to look that crap up on Snopes."

"What's Snopes?" asks the judge.

:eyes:

[eallen]

1. Snopes is a liberal website.

At least, that's what the freepers are saying.

I don't deny it. Paying attention to facts is a liberal practice.

[DemoTex]

3. Paying attention to rumor and disingenuous innuendo is a R/W practice!

And they damn sure get plenty of practice. Know what I mean?

[NMDemDist2]

2. well, seems he was correct

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015137-2162r.htm

Congress signals subsidy for TVs

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005

The federal government wants to pay for some U.S. residents to be able to watch television -- the only question is how much.
The Senate's budget bill, which passed last week, contains a $3 billion subsidy for owners of televisions that are not ready to handle the eventual transition to digital television.

The House budget bill, which ran into trouble Thursday but which will be on the floor this week, contains slightly less than $1 billion.
Both bills set a date when broadcasters must return their current licenses and instead broadcast a digital signal on a different part of the electronic spectrum.

The subsidy would go to pay for converter boxes, which would take the digital signal from the broadcasters and convert it so that it can be displayed by analog TVs. Televisions hooked up to cable or satellite would not need the converters, nor would televisions capable of receiving a digital signal.

"There are enough low-income Americans that would have difficulty coming up with the $40 or the $50 for a conversion box, so we want to help them out on a one-time basis," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, who is pushing for finishing the transfer to digital broadcasting.
"Since it's a federal law that we're saying you have to broadcast digitally, and we have lots of TV sets in this country that are still good that aren't digitally capable, I think it's reasonable to have a modest subsidy on a one-time basis," he said.

[Buck Turgidson]

6. He is correct. And it may be a bad deal.

Citing the 80 million analog television sets owned by consumers that will go dark after the digital TV transition, consumers groups today urged the House Commerce Committee to oppose a measure that would sharply limit funding to keep those TV sets working after the digital transition.

The current House proposal ($830 million) covers only one-fourth of the 42 million American households that rely on over-the-air signals for viewing. Last week, the Senate passed its version of the bill, setting aside $3 billion from the $10 billion raised by the auction of public airwaves to help offset the cost of converter boxes needed to keep those TVs working.

Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and US PIRG urged the panel, when it votes Wednesday, to set aside adequate funding from the spectrum auction to fully fund a compensation and education program that ensures consumers won’t be hit in the pocketbook during the DTV transition.

“By compensating consumers, Congress isn’t giving them anything; it merely holds them harmless from a government mandate that would otherwise make their perfectly good personal property virtually useless,” the groups wrote in a letter to the committee.

“No consumer should bear the costs of the digital transition, particularly given the ample funding raised by the spectrum auction,” the groups said.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/002788.html

[DemoTex]

9. Well I'll be damned!

Too bad B-I-L didn't cite the Washington Times. That is a slight cut above Rush and Fox. I'll call and apologize stat!

However, it is :tinfoilhat: time: Is TV such an ineluctable propaganda machine that the GOP Congress would vote those kinds of funds - risking the ire of the base (like my pissed-off B-I-L) - to make sure the poor keep tuned-in electronically and tuned-out intellectually? I think I know the answer.

[tx_dem41]

4. I don't think he was lying, except he might have overshot the amount...

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/newswire/2004/06/02/rtr1392566.html

This is an older article, so I'm not sure if the bill passed or not.

[salin]

5. Response...

why was congress MANDATING that all tvs become digital? Why were they mandating that folks hard spent money on tvs would be suddenly obsolete - DUE TO CONGRESS, not due to demand of the market place?

That if there is any govt involvement in helping the poor convert - it is not to the benefit of the Poor - it is to the benefit of tv manufacturers, and cable outlets to sell more products (replace your tv with a fabulous NEW hdtv - digital...) and more services (up the cost for digital service for the cable companies). To pass such legislation and HUGE forced giveaway of consumer dollars to the manfucaturers and cable companies - was to guaranteee that suddenly a chunk of the population would not have access to tv at all - that is unacceptable on several fronts - but for advertisers (there is always a profit motive) who pray on lower income families ... they wouldn't have access anymore to those consumers... so to make the giveaway (ala make the co.s richer) palatable -- and to ensure that profits from advertisers are not cut into with the switch to digital... make a provision to ensure that older tvs in lower income homes can be converted...

Ask him why he THINKS that congress would pass such a measure if it isn't the above logic.

[NMDemDist2]

8. seems they need (want) the broadcast spectrum for emergencies and

cell phones

hence the move to digital tvs

[salin]

13. I believe that the passage of the law preceding the pervasiveness of

cell phones. Or at least the initial pushing for the legislation (if not the timing of the passage.)

[Mairead]

12. I think you nailed it

Goddess preserve Capitalism from people who, without the drug of tv, might start thinking and maybe get politically active instead.

[rman]

7. "people say" ; that's Fox-quality sourcing of 'news'

However, it has been in the msm news that Congress wants all digital TV everywhere in the US by not-so-very-long-in-the-future. No mention of govt paying for it though. Presumably a search on google will turn up some references.

(I can't help thinking that all digital TV everywhere is a requirement for "1984"-style 2-way TV...)

[Neocondriac]

10. Of course they do.......

The Neocons can't have the poorest people in this country out of the "propaganda" loop. If they're not drinking the kool-aide too they might just get angry and say revolt and systematically eliminate the current scourge.They just can't afford that.

[baldguy]

11. The government does require cable, satellite & broadcasters

to NOT make analog sets unable to receive HDTV signals. Providing converters to people without HD sets is one solution.

Considering that these multi-billion dollar corporations got the rights to use the HDTV spectrum for *FREE* from the govt - thereby allowing them to make billions more in profits, giving giving an $80 box ($30 wholesale) to their viewers for each teevee is a small thing to ask.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. My thread on this topic a couple days ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5438007

[xchrom]

15. well, it's a republican controlled, house, senate, and executive branch.

so if they want to spend money that way -- it's on them -- make them wear it.