# Senator Sanders I-Vt proposes $80 Rooftop Antenna Coupon



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

Yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer printed a long story about the proposed $80.00 rooftop antenna coupon. Senator Bernard Saunders I-Vt and Rep. Rick Boucher D-Va both indicated they were receiving complaints that many people with indoor antennas that can not receive the same number of channels they have been viewing for many years. They indicated the legislation could be part of the Economic Stimulus plan which was introduced Dec 11. Both said it would create jobs. Boucher said he saw the problem first hand in Britain where millions with rabbit ear antennas are losing channels after the switch. He said 15% of the people in the area he visited had to upgrade antennas.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Gee, Imagine that... someone in Washington has finally figured out that the signal reception maps are worthless!



samhevener said:


> Yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer printed a long story about the proposed $80.00 rooftop antenna coupon. Senator Bernard Saunders I-Vt and Rep. Rick Boucher D-Va both indicated they were receiving complaints that many people with indoor antennas that can not receive the same number of channels they have been viewing for many years. They indicated the legislation could be part of the Economic Stimulus plan which was introduced Dec 11. Both said it would create jobs. Boucher said he saw the problem first hand in Britain where millions with rabbit ear antennas are losing channels after the switch. He said 15% of the people in the area he visited had to upgrade antennas.


----------



## NorfolkBruh (Jun 9, 2007)

that should be fascinating because the fund used for those $40 coupons is BROKE! source: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090102/D95F7PD86.html Est. 8 million households still eligible and the fund will not be able to pay for the boxes themselves... how in the WORLD do these 2 expect to subsudize antennas??

Norfolk


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

samhevener said:


> Yesterday's Cleveland Plain Dealer printed a long story about the proposed $80.00 rooftop antenna coupon. Senator Bernard Saunders I-Vt and Rep. Rick Boucher D-Va both indicated they were receiving complaints that many people with indoor antennas that can not receive the same number of channels they have been viewing for many years. They indicated the legislation could be part of the Economic Stimulus plan which was introduced Dec 11. Both said it would create jobs. Boucher said he saw the problem first hand in Britain where millions with rabbit ear antennas are losing channels after the switch. He said 15% of the people in the area he visited had to upgrade antennas.


Honestly, that would create people like me, who's indoor antenna works fine for ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS to buy a rooftop antenna (saving $80) to get even more stations, like PBS HD and subchannels (which I can't get using indoor in Raleigh). I would not buy a rooftop antenna just for PBS, but since I would get $80 off, I would do it! I don't think that's the point of such legislation, and would be a waste of money.


----------



## netconcepts (Jan 20, 2007)

While I am not a real fan of Bernie of Vt. Some of this makes sense. However, most rural households in Vt have an outdoor antenna already that would be suitable to use. I would suspect that many in other rural areas that are in the fringe now would need assistance as well. 
I remember growing up that a few miles down a road could mean no reception because a large hill is blocking or reflecting the main signal from Mount Mansfield.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

NorfolkBruh said:


> that should be fascinating because the fund used for those $40 coupons is BROKE! source: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090102/D95F7PD86.html Est. 8 million households still eligible and the fund will not be able to pay for the boxes themselves... how in the WORLD do these 2 expect to subsudize antennas??
> 
> Norfolk


The auction of the airwaves being freed up from the transition netted about $19 billion. There's plenty of money, it just needs to be reallocated.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

What gets me, is that people will not know until after 2/17/09 if they can get more or less channels OTA.

Remember that there are numerous digital stations that are changing RF channels at midnight on 2/18/09. So, just because you can't get a digital station now, doesn't mean you won't after the transition.

Plus, there will be a few stations that initially will not be at their final full power allocation. That may take days to weeks to complete.

It's still premature to determine what exactly the full impact will be.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Plus, many areas have deed restrictions (such as in my development) forbidding outside antennas. I get by with my antennas in the attic, but would get better signals with them (especially of the Philly stations) on the roof outside.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

n3ntj said:


> Plus, many areas have deed restrictions (such as in my development) forbidding outside antennas. I get by with my antennas in the attic, but would get better signals with them (especially of the Philly stations) on the roof outside.


Read the link my sig and tell the HOA to get stuffed on dishes and OTA antennas. (OTARD link)


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

am i alone in thinking that TV reception is a privilege?

hell while they're at it, how about kicking in money to buy everyone a new HDTV so they can enjoy HD broadcasts. 

So what they changed the standards? Buy what you need to see it or be left in the dark. 

Maybe that sounds harsh, but there's no good reason for the gov't to spend money to make sure everyone can watch television. Read a book or something.

Okay I'm done now. :grin:


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

Brant, I have to agree with you on that even though it does sound alittle harsh. It seems to me that the money going in to all this transition crap could be better used elsewhere!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Me three... as I've posted similarly in other threads. In fact, I used to jokingly say why are we having the government only spring for converter boxes... they should buy the antenna, the TV, and chip in for rent and electricity too!

Give an inch, take a mile... so I shouldn't be surprised there is actually someone seriously suggesting the government spring for antennas too.

Good grief. How about we fix the homeless, hungry, and those in need of medical care first before we worry about people who have all that being able to watch TV!


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

If we can afford to give billions of dollars to corporations that pay some of their top people 10 or 20 million dollars a year, we can afford to give $80.00 to someone with an income of only $15,000 to $35,000 a year.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

samhevener said:


> *If we can afford *to give billions of dollars to corporations that pay some of their top people 10 or 20 million dollars a year


"We" can't afford it. That's the problem.

Our government, with the tacit consent of "the people", has been spending beyond its means for decades.

I would hope that anyone or entity that gets bailed out, also gets some thick strings attached, cutting CEO pay, etc.

Back to topic...Since day one, the broadcast is free OTA, for direct reception by the public. It's has been up to the person wanting it to obtain the proper equipment to get it. TV reception is not a necessity, nor right.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

I was under the impression that years ago the courts and Congress decided radio and/or TV broadcasting was included under "Freedom of the Press" in our Constitution. The first of our "Bill of Rights". "Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of the press......"


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

samhevener said:


> I was under the impression that years ago the courts and Congress decided radio and/or TV broadcasting was included under "Freedom of the Press" in our Constitution. The first of our "Bill of Rights". "Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of the press......"


And just HOW does that relate to the government providing $80 coupons for antennas ?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

samhevener said:


> I was under the impression that years ago the courts and Congress decided radio and/or TV broadcasting was included under "Freedom of the Press" in our Constitution. The first of our "Bill of Rights". "Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of the press......"


Until such time that the Supreme Court interprets that very important amendment to say that each person has the right to receive broadcast television without any investment of his or her own, I don't think that apply.

As was said to me a long time ago, "Just because the press is free doesn't mean the newspaper's free."


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

samhevener said:


> I was under the impression that years ago the courts and Congress decided radio and/or TV broadcasting was included under "Freedom of the Press" in our Constitution. The first of our "Bill of Rights". "Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of the press......"


I don't think that was it I believe that one of the requirements Congress originally laid out for obtaining an exclusive license to broadcast on a specific portion of the public airwaves was that the licensee had to provide a free over-the-air signal with it.

I don't think the First Amendment had anything to do with it. Especially since they also had to abide by FCC requirements concerning acceptable content and mandated content.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

samhevener said:


> I was under the impression that years ago the courts and Congress decided radio and/or TV broadcasting was included under "Freedom of the Press" in our Constitution. The first of our "Bill of Rights". "Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of the press......"


Absolutely..."freedom of the press" is the to right to formulate, express, and publish/disseminate opinions and ideas, even if they are not in agreement with our government.

It does not guarantee that those opinions and ideas will be heard, however.

Back to topic...This has nothing to do with ANY obligation on the government's behalf to provide reception equipment. What's next, subsidized satellite for those outside of OTA coverage areas?


----------



## mark44 (Dec 23, 2008)

I didn't get a free airconditioning system in my car and truck and house when they banned r-12 for consumer use!
I redeemed my two coupons like four months ago! 
Heck, I'm not gonna get my Social Security, might as well take advantage of all the stimulus while I still can! :hurah:


----------



## Matman (Mar 24, 2008)

For about the 100000000000000000000th time in my life, I apologize for Bernie Sanders.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

Matman said:


> For about the 100000000000000000000th time in my life, I apologize for Bernie Sanders.


no need to. unless you voted for him. :grin:


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

mark44 said:


> I didn't get a free airconditioning system in my car and truck and house when they banned r-12 for consumer use!
> I redeemed my two coupons like four months ago!
> Heck, I'm not gonna get my Social Security, might as well take advantage of all the stimulus while I still can! :hurah:


I still have some old R-12 about 20 cans
Back to topic, Alot of People can't use outdoor antenna's due to restrictions or LOS issues.So this $80 antenna coupon thing is just a joke and a way to add to our now $1.2 TRILLION $ deficet


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jimmyv2000 said:


> Alot of People can't use outdoor antenna's due to restrictions or LOS issues.


First, OTARD takes care of most restrictions on TV antennas.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Second, if you have an OTA LOS/reception issue...then you wouldn't be using an antenna with analog TV now, that would need to be upgraded.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

My experience seems to be just the opposite. I can't get a decent NTSC (analog) OTA signal at all, but I can get ATSC (digital) OTA just fine.


----------



## mark44 (Dec 23, 2008)

What's nice about the digital tuner is the picture on all channels is perfect and equal. No variation between channels. However, the down side is the "ALL OR NONE" with digital signals. While with analog, the degree of picture quality can vary, you can still watch it. With the digital, any thing disrutpting the data stream beyond a threshold and "BLANK" or so much pixelation/blocking it's unwatchable. And, I'm not sure wether the analog is more omnidirectional or the digiatal?


----------

