>>>I must be the only one here who doesn't understand what was in the article (ain't the first time, won't be the last).
>>>
>>>The converter will be from digital back to analog. The purpose of the subsidy is so that people who don't want (or can't afford) to spring for a new television set just to be able to watch digital formats will still have access to over the air TV once the government mandated conversion to digital format is in effect.
>>>
>>>In essence, the bill mitigates the cost to the populace of a program the government is requiring.
>>>
>>>What have I missed?????
>>
>>
>>That's the way I read it. So why should we (taxpayers) pay for it?
>
>>I don't watch much TV. I don't own a digital TV nor I plan to buy on anytime soon.
>Without the converter you won't be able to watch any.
>
>>Why should anyboy get public money (subsidy) to get a overter so they can watch Oprah?
>
>In this case, because a government mandated conversion from analog to digital signals will make their old sets inoperable. They can watch Oprah now.
>
>In other words, the government has caused a cost to a class of people and will be using some of the revenues from the sale of the newly available frequencies to alleviate the costs of their mandates.

I can't speak for the U.S. but certainly here, we get no subsidy for government mandates. When the government mandated that all homes must have carbon monoxide detectors, I had to go out an buy my own for somewhere around $100.00 as did everyone else. And that is hardly an isolated incident. Is this the first time that the U.S. government has mandated some change that has cost citizens money? If not, do they always subsidize the changes? If not, what's special about this one?