I thought the plan by Congress to end analog television transmissions by April 2009 and spend up to $3 billion subsidizing the purchase of digital converter boxes sounded a bit goofy when I first read about it. Here is columnist George Will’s take on the legislation, which he has dubbed No Couch Potato Left Behind: “Americans have such an entitlement mentality, they seem to think that every pleasure — e.g., digital television — should be a collective right, meaning a federally funded entitlement.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
18 Comments
The switch to digital from analog is a boondoggle in the first place. At least at this point in time digital on a large screen plasma, lcd, or projection TV is noticeably inferior to analog – rounded edges are not smooth but consist of small “steps” of horizontal and vertical lines; gradations of color aren’t smooth and continuous, but come from a limited palette…you can see where one color ends and another begins.
So, what does digital do for us? To me, the picture is no better; frankly it’s worse. Digital requires more of the lmited frequency spectrum than analog does…another bad point.
Some rhings are perfect for “digital” technology, some for analog. TV right now is better with analog.
So, the government legislates an unnecessary change to what appears to me to be a poorer technology and that switch requires us all to buy new TVs or converter boxes. This is just dandy. But requiring higher fuel standards on autos, which is demonstrably a good thing, is a gross violation of “free markets” because it might require some of us to buy new vehicles we don’t even want. Go figure.
LOL! Sounds like Congress to me.
Just a thought..maybe even Congress can see the difference between an $80 converter box and a $20,000 car?
Brian, you might want to do some reading before you “demonstrate” that higher fuel economy standards are a good thing. You night want to read a CBO study from 2002 titled “Reducing Gasoline Consumption: Three Policy Options.” It concludes, as others have, that the easiest and most likely way automakers will improve fuel economy is to do as they have in the past, by creating more small and lighter cars. Which — and if you read the CBO report, you’ll see it is not totally conclusive that this would happen, but it seems most likely that it would — will lead to more traffic accident deaths. A few quotes: “But it did conclude that similar decreases in the size and weight of future vehicles would be likely to produce similar fatality results.” “That change would help reverse the growing disparity in vehicle weights that many experts feel has been a primary contributor to the apparent safety cost of CAFE regulation.”
Steve,
You might want to read up on some technologies already out there that involve no reduction in safety or car size but have 5-15% types of effects on fuel consumption, like 1) continuously variable transmissions, or 2) selective “shutdown” of certain cylinders when not needed. Both have been available for years. CanAm Bombardier had a continuously variable transmission on a motorcycle years ago. There haved been test models available from some of the Japanese firms for a while now. Other potential technologies include some trype of recovery of energy during braking (flywheels for example).
Yes, the continuously variable transmission and recapture of energy during braking are features of the Toyota Prius, among others.
But like experts say, the easiest way to improve fuel economy is to reduce weight.
By the way, many of the people who advocate higher fuel economy standards do so believing that there should be no “blood for oil.” But the higher traffic deaths from lighter cars gives us just that — lives traded for oil.
Steve,
A lot of traffic deaths are due to municipalities not following standard safety procedures for setting speed limits, erecting warning signs, etc.
For example, sections of the US Code and the 1966 Highway Safety Act establish a book called the “Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices”. This book establishes the standards that all states must comply with if they accept any federal money for their transportation needs.
One of the requirements for setting speed limits is that a traffic engineering survey be done on the section of roadway in question to determine, via scientific methods, what the safest speed on that roadway is (it should be the 85th percentile speed barring other factors). This has been determined to be the speed that minimizes property damage, injuries, and fatalities.
In fact, most municipalities don’t follow these safety regulations. They set speed limits via ordinance. Wichita is a classic example.
As others have pointed out, there are lots of laws on the books to protect people – from corporate misbehavior, police overstepping, etc. Here’s one more example of laws on the books that are just ignored in spite of the safety aspects around them.
I guess you’d be in favor of us all driving Abrams tanks, then (just kidding).
Brian,When your Prius is T-boned by some joker in an armored Hummer, it’s going to come out the loser. However, when you get in a wreck with a vehicle of similar mass, there’s not nearly the inertia to overcome.Way too many SUV’s are owned by people who will never take them off-road, or need all that capacity, but just want that macho status.Maybe, in order to buy one, you should have to document a clear need for such a vehicle, and if you can’t, pay a 50% image tax on top of the purchase price. That would cut down the number of gas guzzling tanks on the road, undercut the excuses for high insurance premiums, and save a lot of gas and lives!
Jed,
Absolutely!! Don’t get me wrong. Vehicle size does matter (I’ve heard something like that before but I can’t remember where ;-})
But traffic deaths are also reduced by slowing vehicles down – 55 mph is safer than 70 mph, in any vehicle.
We accept a certain level of risk to drive. And we balance that risk in our minds against what we perceive are our most important needs – like higher speed limits to get places faster.
My point was that there are things that can be done, even to a Hummer, to improve its gas mileage, like giving it a continuously variable transmission.
My other point was that traffic deaths are not solely the result of lighter vehicles. States and municipalities need to start obeying the safety rules laid out by the government..and manufacturers need to come to some ageement on things like a standard bumper height off of the ground.
It makes no sense to claim that we need to be driving larger vehicles because it is the only way for us to be safe..as I said the logical extension is we should all be driving tanks.
We need to balance acceptable risks and common sense safety precautions against our need for power and speed.
I like your idea of proving a “need” for the SUV. I’m already giggling at the reasons you’d hear!
A Toyota Prius is not going to save you any significant amout of fuel, especially for the cost. It will not even help reduce emmissions or gasoline demand. The only reason why people buy Prius, because it makes them feel good, and they show it off with arrogance that they are better than everybody else.
You wanna know what ticks off a Prius owner more than an SUV? Another Prius owner. LOL! They want to be the only people on their block to have one.
But hey! If you like the car, more power to you. But don’t be unrealitic about it. You are not doing jack to save the world.
Brian,”It makes no sense to claim that we need to be driving larger vehicles because it is the only way for us to be safe..as I said the logical extension is we should all be driving tanks.”You can bet your bippy that if we all drove tanks, there’d be someone trying to buy a bigger tank, and someone would find a way to sell him one. Continuing escalation doesn’t solve the problem.
Joe,I drive a little four-banger pickup that gets about 27mpg around town, and 34 on the highway. I bought it with the idea that I could then afford gas to go places. Only now, you tank drivers have burned up so much gas, at 6mpg, for no other reason than conspicuous consumption, that the price has increased to the point I can’t afford to go anyplace, even with my better mileage! I’m going to laugh my ass off when the price of gas gets to the point where your SUV becomes a very expensive yard ornament!
Jed. I don’t have an SUV and never will own one.
I would bet that SUV’s are sold to more people that want them for the safety factor. Gas milage has very little to do with it.
The point of the blog, should government be funding digital tv, takes this to a whole ‘nuther level. How ridiculous can government get? George Will is correct: just when you thought you couldn’t trust the government, you find out you could trust them even less than that. Politician=moron.
Politician may equal Moron, but what does that make us when we keep re-electing them? Does Supporter=Cretin?
What the hell business do these morons have spending tax dollars on such a thing? We cut back on food stamps and subsidize TV? Sheesh!
XXX,At least the Romans gave the people bread AND circuses!
XXX”Politician may equal Moron, but what does that make us when we keep re-electing them? Does Supporter=Cretin?”
Exactly. what is it going to take to get people to elect strong leaders, if there are any that would run for government office. You wont find them in either the Republican or Democrat parties.
It’s going to take an independent to do the job, not the morons in Washington now.
JM, it’s not that I disagree with you, but an independent? Independent campaigns always end up being a joke (not counting that first dust-up with Ross). Wouldn’t it be great to have a candidate that represented people before party? I get a little tired of having to hold my nose to vote.