Okay, so they get an old standard definition 32" tube TV, and the computer is just fast enough to browse the web (also is internet now part of this UBI package? And if so is it just dial up?). And that's being generous because if your concern is "news" then you could give them a free subscription to the newspaper of their choice and cut out the TV.
The tube TV is junk and more expensive to acquire in large quantities as you'll have to ship them from many different locations. They can do with a regular 720p 32 inch LCD or LED TV.
For the TV, they can use an antenna. The internet would just be government subsidized sattelite. If I were in charge, I'd let cable companies deduct 100% of normal ticket price for every free basic cable package they give out.
So now to support UBI we've determined that "universal basic" includes a free LCD TV, cable, a computer and internet, and we might have to create an entirely new government subsidized satellite program to support it, or alternatively cover the costs of subsidizing Comcast, and we haven't even determined what it means if a person lives where they don't have access to Cable. We also haven't scratched the surface of what a person is owed if they break their free TV. Do they lose that benefit forever?
My point is UBI and programs like it are extremely hard to define and would make a lot of people unhappy if they saw the details, which is why it's frustrating to see people propose universal programs when they damn well know they're not going to put their own neck out to define them.
I'm perfectly willing to define them. I'm also not running for anything and there isn't a political need for me to successfully convince anyone else so it's not quite the same thing, but if you want to debate the principles of why entertainment, news, and internet are/are not necessities we can do that instead. ---