dmv wrote:
The Senate moved the digital TV transition one step closer to reality on Thursday, setting a firm date for television broadcasters to switch to all-digital transmissions.
They're going to make it happen, market be damned.
There are a couple of interesting levers being used here.
First, they regulate the broadcasters. Fine. They've been talking about this for many years, it is no surprise and has enough good interests for society that why not. The social interest is the reason why this won't "just happen", in a timely fashion, without legislation.
Broadcasters are not going to be happy, though, until their market is there too. That's the issue.
In this legislation, they are allocating $1-3B subsidies for analog-to-digital converters for existing sets. They also set fixed dates by which all televisions of a certain size have to be digital-ready (25-34" -- 4 months, 1 March 2006; up to 24" -- 16 months, 1 March 2007).
Fine. But my initial reaction from the blurb as the article loaded, is that they should just tax analog televisions out of viability -- +$50 for an analog set, -$50 for a digital-ready gets a $100 advantage; alternatively, subsidize converters (as they are) while paying for it through analog TV tax. It hurts the poor, but so does forced upgrades to their reception technology. Give them a rebate option -- like a discounted converter.
The question, really, is whether to lever the market to upset the balance on digital versus analog or to just ban the analog. I think we're seeing the effects of the first as the cost of recycling gets computed into CRTs versus LCDs. That debate has a difference social good basis, but a similar movement and a similar outcome. Except that adoption of LCDs is faster than HD-TV, I believe.
I guess the thing about this that makes me bristle is the whole question of why? Who gives a fuck about digital television? When you look at all of the potential opportunities you have to do something which will fundamentally change things, making broadcast digital television happen faster and ubiquitously isn't even in the top 5.
Why not provide broadband internet access to every citizen? Why not provide universal health care services? Hell, combine the two and force the issue around digital health care information (EMRs, etc). Why not spend that money rebooting the nation's education system? Why not spend that money creating the foundation for domestic alternative energy sources?
Clearly, this seems like a classic case of the tail wagging the dog - where industry pushes it's influence on lawmakers to advance an agenda which is temporary at best and certainly self serving. Given that television content (and nearly all media content ) will be packetized inside of 5 years organically, subsidizing the conversion from analog broadcasting to digital seems like a lost plotline from a Max Headroom episode in 1986.
