The problem the Senator is trying to address is that some stations will not have the same coverage in digital as they had in analog before. Cable companies would not have to pay retrans fees on these customers. These are customers that probably would never subscribe to cable anyway. I and my family consider cable to be like an electronic "pimp" handing off services that I can get for free myself. I would never consider paying more than $8 or $10 dollars if anything for a cable service. Since I'm in the broadcast biz, I should be one of those people in the "family" who gets service free because I supply them content anyway.
The entire notion of paying for TV just doesn't sit proper with me anyway. Cable companies originally charged about $8 a month when they first started, they have brainwashed too many people into their ways.

Geri and the Texas Cable Manager need to read the whole
article.

It says specifically that retransmission consent would
not apply.

As for it being redundant, the converter coupon program
only discounts marked-up converter boxes. It should
have applied to new DTV sets, and antenna upgrades.

Without a roof antenna, several local stations simply
show "No signal", where the analog versions worked fine
on rabbit ears. A roof antenna is the better part of
$300-600.

How about FREE VERMONT Maple Syrup for all American's? Think about it, include vouchers with the purchase of DTA converters for free 100% Genuine Vermont Maple Syrup. Good god my good Senator - don't you think it's time to let yourself out into the pasture?

It would help if the Senator paid attention to just what a crime the digital TV transition really is. In other countries where politics did not play such a cruel role digital TV is causing the rebirth of over the air TV.

What did the our broadcasters, the FCC, Congress and the CEA do wrong? They let the CEA dictate the worst digital TV modulation in the world.

Not only could the citizens of Vermont have easy reception of digital TV and lots of it but they could have had it for the last 10 years.

It still could be fixed but Congress would have to wake up which is very unlikely seeing what they have done with almost every government department and most of our assets lately.

I agree with many of the sentiments displayed by other (obviously informed and literate) consumers.

The Government is already footing (i.e. "we," as tax payers) the bill for this transition to these users who are still utilizing "rabbit ears" by providing a coupon to receive the digital box to use after the transition period.

Perhaps this Senator would be best to leave the affairs of the public to the informed and literate populace?

I find it distressing. Regulators and politicians are all scrambling for their five minutes of fame by advertising their ideas on pro-consumer options without doing research into how this will negatively impact the businesses they are shoveling their harebrained schemes at.

The money has to come from somewhere.

Businesses don't stay in business by giving their most expensive services for free without some way to recoup their costs.

For those politicians and regulators imposing such plans, how should such companies recoup their losses? Selling out their customer's internet traffic data to third party companies? Sending email addresses of their customers to third parties to distribute to other marketing agencies?