TV converter box coupons will ship February 17th

With about a million TV converter box coupons having been ordered in the first 40 hours of availability, we're sure that there are more than a few of you out there wondering when you can you expect those $40 vouchers to arrive at your door. Well to save you the hassle of quitting your job in order to wait by the mailbox every day, we're here to let you know that the feds will begin mailing 'em out starting on February 17th -- exactly one year prior to the scheduled analog shutoff. Just remember, as Engadget HD noted yesterday, those of you with early, tuner-less HDTVs looking for a few bucks off a digital receiver will be out of luck, making your seven-year wait for these coupons seem a little silly now, eh?

[Nathan @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:04AM]

Well, I'm glad I don't have to quit my job to wait by the mailbox. I'll just wait to do that until after Feb. 17.

[dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:06AM]

When will a converter box be available for purchase? I have yet to see one and while the official gov't website lists a dozen or so approved models, there are no retailers listed as actually selling them yet. Since the coupons expire within 90 days, anyone getting a coupon now might be gambling that the store will be stocked before the coupon expires.

[tande @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:31AM]

They're supposed to come out in March.

Coupons were supposed to come out late Feb early March and converters were going to be in stores in March.

The 90 days thing shouldn't be a problem but with delays getting the coupon or delays on stores getting stock (don't expect any store to be stocking these heavly) might mean a couple of people cut it close.

[kevin @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:38AM]

According to the article below, the boxes themselves will be available "after February 17".

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NRSTAFF/218300929

[Chad @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:23AM]

Maybe it's just me but I almost wish this coupon didn't exist, people would just pay for the converter out of pocket and the government wouldn't be wasting billions of dollars subsidizing TV access. Granted they(the gov'n) is making as ass ton of money from the spectrum auction but how bout we use some of that to make a miniscule notch to the deficit. Maybe if they spend some money subsidizing the development of the converters, they could be sold for even less.

Just my worthless opinion

[DSL_Dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:31AM]

Amen Chad. This is government waste at it's worst. Disgusting that our hard-earned wages, which are continually garnished at ever-increasing rates (progressive income taxation, great idea, one of Karl Marx's 10 planks in the Communist Manifesto), are being put to use like this.

When will Americans wake up?

[tande @ Jan 3rd 2008 11:35AM]

I don't think its government waste really.

I would of liked to see more then just the honor system for the coupons 'cause thats the only thing really bothering me. All of these people signing up for a coupon they don't really need. If none of them use it the cost might be offset a bit but it still had to be printed.

[Mile @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:02PM]

Our taxed dollars go to pay off the interest on the debt, so no worries - not one red cent of your taxes is going to my coupon. Look up Federal Reserve if you wish to have more info.

[DSL_Dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:00PM]

Not government waste? So you believe it is the taxpayers' responsibility to provide digital-to-analog television converters to citizens? Putting aside the argument of the responsibility of the federal government to provide for the material needs of its citizens, by what logic is a television converter box a necessity for human life? The species somehow made it well into the 20th century without television.

Seriously, do we really want to give away all our rights and responsibilities to the government? Have a look at the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, my brother. Then please explain to me where the government should rightfully have the power to dole out television converter boxes to people, paid for by the people.

[Jeremy @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:04PM]

So to counteract this act of tyranny you sign up for a $40 coupon that you don't need? How does that help anything at all. It's just people being greedy plain and simple.

Every box that you sign up for is that much more that costs the government and ultimately you.

[Mile @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:05PM]

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

[kevin @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:10PM]

For many people (especially those in the older crowd), television is their main connection to their outside world. Keeping up on the political races so they can make an informed decision in the elections. Getting the weather forecast so they can plan their shopping and other errands accordingly. While the high-def, home theater watching people may have a hard time grasping this, there are people who would be essentially cut off from their surroundings if it weren't for basic TV news.

[DSL_Dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:13PM]

I certainly have not requested a coupon. For one, I obviously dont condone using the federal government as my crutch for my own lack of work ethic and two, thanks to my work ethic, I dont own any analog-only televisions! :)

As far as the Fed and tax-dollars, sure, it can be spun many ways, it is still robbing Peter to pay Paul.


Mile, I'm not sure where you're going with the last remark. I certainly dont believe the 10th amendment was simply a declaration that had no real legs behind it. If my home-state would like to confiscate income to subsidize these boxes, then so be it, and I take it up with my congressman and senators. I suppose I could be accused of stretching this into a constitutional issue, but I believe it is at that root where the problem begins. Federal government gone out of control, ignoring constitutional mandates, due to our lack of holding it accountable.

[Hung @ Jan 3rd 2008 1:11PM]

It's a different department of funding! By your logic, we should shut down schools, small business subsidies, and anything else that uses funding that could be used toward the deficit.

Things funded by the government are not taken out of one big pot. Yes, tax dollars go to the government, but they have a fixed proportion of how much goes out where. The department that is subsidizing the purchases via coupon is not drawing any more government money than before. It's like with school systems. People complain all the time that the money put into building a new football field should have been used to support the fine arts and foreign language programs. They need to realize that the money used belongs to the sports department because they raised the revenue through ticket sales and fundraising, not by increasing their funding from the school/county. The FA/FL departments don't make any money outside of funding.

It would be unfair take the money from the FCC and use it two pay the deficit caused by MILITARY SPENDING. The military was already given their fair share and don't deserve any more, even if we're in a war.

[Rex @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:07PM]

If the government is going to force everyone to use digital then it must provide a way for the less privileged to have access to it. Not everyone buys a new TV every year. I have a 7 year old TV that is in perfect shape and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon and I am sure there are other like me or others yet who are unable to upgrade even if they wanted to.

[Spencer @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:33PM]

And that is the crux of the matter: "IF the government is going to force everyone..."

This is a very good example of throwing worse legislation after bad.

The government does something completely idiotic like force a broadcast band change on all of us, when the change would eventually happen naturally in the private marketplace when the population was ready to accept the change. And then they realize that the law would adversely affect a large part of the population, so they come up with this voucher program to cover their asses, instead of thinking twice about messing with the market in the first place.

[DSL_Dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:26PM]

To Kevin,

I know it sounds heartless and will be flame-worthy of all you gentler, liberal-minded folks, but if a citizen of this country cant even afford a $40 converter box, do we really want that person voting in elections? It is just that sort of person that frightens me, as they could be easily swayed by candidates running on platforms of more government confiscation of wealth and redistribution to the "less fortunate." The result being the further dilution of our individual rights, assigning them to the federal gov't. This is right out of the Communist Manifesto or "1984" and/or "Brave New World." I suppose I must be the only one who frequents this site that sees it that way. Cannot all able-bodied Americans be personally responsible for providing for their own needs?

Going way off-topic here, but let us recall that voting isnt actually a constitutional right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments (as per our own Supreme Court, which is charged with interpreting the constitution).

[Hung @ Jan 3rd 2008 1:31PM]

First off, your argument is very conservative, but not in the way you would think. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, measure such as literacy test, poll taxes, and gerrymandering were used to limit voting rights for individuals (the poor and ignorant, although poll taxes were outrageous and literacy tests were difficult even for the well-education). You are in fact advocation and reinstitution of Jim Crow Law-like restrictions to keep the "poor and ignorant" from voting.

Also, voting is GUARANTEED by the constitution. Perhaps the 15th admendment to the Bill of Rights may not directly address that citizens MUST vote, the Votings Rights Act of 1965 states that officials must be elected into office and cannot be appointed in order to override the consensus of the people. Positions, such as Presidential Cabinet members, cannot be voted on because the cabinet is defaultly a collection of advisors appointed BY and FOR the President.

[Hung @ Jan 3rd 2008 1:36PM]

Sorry for the typos; it's kind of early in the afternoon for me.

... *measures such as literacy *tests, poll taxes, and gerrymandering were used to limit voting rights for individuals (the poor and ignorant, although poll taxes were outrageous and literacy tests were difficult even for the well-*educated). You are*, in fact*, *advocating *the reinstitution ...

*Furthermore, voting is GUARANTEED by the constitution. Perhaps the 15th admendment to the Bill of Rights may not directly address *that *whether *or *not *voting *MUST *take *place, *but the Votings Rights Act of 1965 states that officials must be elected into office and cannot be appointed in order to override the consensus of the people. Positions, such as Presidential Cabinet members, cannot be voted on *by *citizens because the ...

[DSL_Dave @ Jan 3rd 2008 2:15PM]

Well, I took us way off-topic, so what the heck...

Gonna have to call you on the Voting Rights Act, Hung.

It does not establish a federal right to vote. Voting is still a state-granted "privilege." Not that I like that term either. I would choose "responsibility."

Note in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court ruled, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." And the Court continues to uphold state election laws.

When my state grants me the right to elect POTUSA electors, I take it as a serious responsibility, not one just given out to any "Tom, Dick, and Harry." It is a serious issue. My personal opinion is that it is my (the citizen's) responsibility to elect electors (and hence, the POTUSA) that will have the republic's best interest in mind, not my own personal interests. Call me a bigot, but I dont trust that responsibility to just anyone off the street. Why just today I saw (on my digital TV) a person interviewed on the street who said they were voting for John Edwards because they liked his hair. If that person was serious, that is quite a saddening illustration to my point. I took perhaps a petty angle by stating that someone who couldnt afford a $40 converter isnt someone I want voting. That's definitely stereotyping on my part. I know plenty of folks who can afford hundreds of converter boxes that are not what I would call intelligent, well-informed voters. Truly, what I desire is that we voters would all take our responsibility seriously.

Back on topic, I would align myself with Spencer's comments (much to his chagrin I imagine!), in that this issue of "free" converter boxes is an example of throwing worse legislation after bad. Sorry Spencer, I'm a free-market guy too.

I just cant grasp why any citizen has a right to a "free" converter box, simply because the FCC made the mistake of federally mandating the digital transition. It is indeed adding insult to injury. The stations were all forced to spend funds on this forced transition and now we are paying for it (in some way, shape or form in this example). Hopefully we all know that businesses don't "pay" expenses, they are, generally speaking, paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices.

[Hung @ Jan 3rd 2008 2:25PM]

Ahh, but you omit "unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Having chosen the EC members, the people have chosen their representatives to vote for president, who in turn will accord to the Popular Vote. I'm not sure how many reps have opted to vote differently from their state, but I'm pretty sure the number is close to zero (I sort of hope I'm wrong, because that would be an interesting nuggest of knowledge).

That ruling was a response to the disparity between the Popular Vote and the Electoral Vote. The total amount of people who voted for Gore were in the majority, but the Electoral College voted for Bush. Technically, since each state's respresentatives decided to vote based on how their constituents voted, the people are directly respresented.

[khamel @ Jan 3rd 2008 12:41PM]

yeah ... i've ordered the max for myself, my parents and my sister. the money is going to be wasted, might as well get my share. im a libertarian at heart but since its going out the door, gotta look out for #1.

[gorthon @ Jan 3rd 2008 3:58PM]

what does the electoral college have to do with converter boxes?

[G Wood @ Jan 13th 2008 7:53AM]

Complain, complain, complain. Semms like that is all Americans know how to do anymore. We complain when the government does something and we complain when they don't. The digital switch seems to me to be a good thing for everyone. Broadcasters will be able to send out much more content on a much narrower banwidth which means more channels, and the picture even when received in Sdtv is much better than analog. And it will free up frequencies that can be used by emergency services so when a disater like Katrina or 9/11 happen again they can be better coordinated through better communication. I guess people who can afford to plunk down more than a grand for a television and have the premium satelite or cable service really don't give a crap, but I cannot afford a $1000 plus TV or Sat/cable. And I work EVERY day. All my money goes to food, heat, and soon to be $4 a gallon gas so I can get to work. So I will take the $40 coupon and by a bare bones SDTV converter even though I would really like to buy a nice HDTV receiver or even a 42 inch LCD with the tuner already in it. BUT I CAN'T! Thank you Uncle Sam, I'll take all the help I can get. Any donations can be in the form of cash, check, food, or gas.

[Randall @ Mar 28th 2008 6:59PM]

I just got a box at Wal-Mart for 49.86 and used the gov coupon. I believe that if the government is forcing people to switch over it is not unreasonable for them to offer this program. I am not much of a TV watcher, maybe 5 hours a week, but I would hate to see my TV become obsolete. We must also consider the enviornmental impact of having 10s (100s?) of millions of TV dumped into the nations wastelands all at once. What a nightmare that would be. Better if it happens over time.