| 
 From: 	<[email protected]> 
  To:	<[email protected]> 
  Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2006 12:27 PM 
  Subject: Public Submission 
   
  Please Do Not Reply This Email. 
 Public Comments on Implementation and Administration of a
  Coupon Program for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes:======== 
Title: Implementation and Administration of a Coupon Program
  for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes 
  FR Document Number: E6-11754 
  Legacy Document ID:  
  RIN: 0660-AA16 
  Publish Date: 07/25/2006 00:00:00 
  Submitter Info: 
Comment Info: ================= 
General Comment:There should be no economic need test for
  converter box availability OTHER  
  THAN the fact that this mandatory transitioning will impact
  all consumers at some  
  point in time. The boxes should NOT be limited to folks without
  cable or satellite  
  receivers, since many of these same people turn to their over-the-air
  (OTA)  
  antenna systems when storms (esp. hurricanes in Fla.) obliterate
  satellite signals  
  or power outages affect cable or satellite systems, whether
  remotely or locally,  
  and when cables are torn apart. Likewise, satellite users should
  not be forced to  
  pay their providers extra for local station coverage just because
  the government  
  forcing these changes has now decided they can afford to pay
  $60 or more per  
  year for local channel satellite coverage! 
  If you were considering household income, you should note that
  a  
  disproportionate number of lower income homes unwisely spend
  their money on  
  entertainment, which includes cable or satellite service, and
  to restrict your boxes  
  to folks withOUT cable or satellite service would be to force
  those lower income  
  households to subscribe to local channels or else remain ignorant
  of local news or  
  programming. If your goal is to lessen the import of local
  programming in favor of  
  more limited and global sources of news and programs, then
  your proposal would  
  be valid; otherwise, it is at best, a classic example of the
  government shooting  
  itself in the foot, once again. At worst, it represents someone's
  desire to shift the  
  scope and control of television programming to a national level.
  Neither is in the  
  best interests of the citizenry. If enough 'converter box cash'
  was not taken from  
  taxpayers and set aside for this little project, then be honest
  about it and stop  
  rationalizing artificial methods to restrict its availability
  to all taxpayers.  |