This is my uninformed opinion. Take what I say with a grain of salt:
As part of our current economic collapse, Congress has pushed the digital television deadline back from February to June. Pushing it back is a good idea; getting rid of the deadline would be even better. I've been hearing about the digital switch for years now. I've never heard a good reason why it's necessary.
The main reason listed on the government's website explaining the switch is that it will provide better quality picture and sound. That's a weak justification for a drastic change to our national broadcasting standard that will force every American to spend money. The other reason is it will free up the spectrum for emergency services to use. Have police and firefighters been using cans tied with string up to this point?
DTV is better quality. That doesn't mean it should be mandatory. The deadline has been pushed back for years since the first date. It will continue to be pushed back because it's unnecessary.
We are being forced to switch thanks to lobbying from the electronics industry. They want to force the public to buy new televisions. Cell phone company lobbyists have also been hard at work. The government has been auctioning the public's airwaves for wireless companies to use. Broadcasters no longer have to prove they will serve the public interest. Our spectrum is being sold to the highest bidder. All that matters is money.
The transition won't affect me since I already have digital cable. I think it's a pointless hassle for people that can't afford such luxuries. I would accept it if people could show me a legitimate need for it.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's really not about the quality so much. It's about opening the spectrum for other technologies. We've been using an inferior method of broadcasting for decades just because it was too expensive or too much work to switch over.
ReplyDeleteIt's really all about the physics of things.
For example, and Analog signal uses up a certain amount space (frequencies). Whereas a digital signal will use up like 1/5 of that same space. This means, that if every station switched to digital there would be space for 5x as many channels to broadcast.
What they're doing with that right now is broadcasting multiple standard definition feeds. So you can watch like channel 8, and still be able to see channel 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 all on standard definition. They can send out a High definition feed and use up all 4, but it would only be 1 feed then.
Some stations will not be able to use all the allotted spaces with their signal, whether it be due to their lack of funds to send out multiple feeds, or they don't have HD capabilites.
With these left-over spaces they are being used for other technologies. The big one being WiMax. So with some of these leftover frequencies there will be extra, new technologies that pop up.
So, it's not really about the broadcast quality, it's more about progression and getting rid of these inferior broadcasts that are unnecessarily using too much space, when other, new, things could be using that space.
While I can empathize with Bob's comments and concerns on market driven economics, I tend to align myself with Dustin's argument for progression, innovation, and development.
ReplyDeleteAs with all things analog vs digital, there are significant gains achieved by "simplifying" the mathematics to true a binary structure. Think of this as analogous to the gains the video/audio industry sees in transport, delivery, integration, compression, storage, all-round flexibility etc.
By simplifying the mathematics and going "digital", more options are available to "the consumer." Again, while I cringe at using that word (consumer), I use it with a lower-case "c", referring to all those that are potentially impacted by technological innovation. As Dustin mentions, it's the "new technologies that pop up" that are then able to take advantage of this spectrum.
The spectrum auction concept is a peculiar market driven "innovation" by the FCC, for sure. Should this be merit awarded or simply granted to those with the biggest pocket book? Is this prone to speculation and squatting, like hoping that saving that rookie baseball card will one day pay off?
There's a certain amount of FCC oversight in this process, assuring quality bidders are in the pool, versus an older system of lottery and long drawn out hearings on whom should get the light space.
Regardless of merits of the process, the amount of money that companies do bid and pay is quite amazing.
Billions and billions.
Obviously, companies pay this price because of the billions and billions and billions that can be made, through such areas as as Bob commented on, in selling new tvs and equipment for DTV. This auction process is seen as win-win capitalism for both the private and government entities...the bottom line driven by the consumer spending, of course.
I digress.
Empathizing with one of Bob's points, I feel the pain in the pocket, yet I do enjoy the benefits of and support technological innovation. Until society takes hold of a peaceful collective conscious of mutual support for each other (socialism), and/or government asserts ownership of the marketplace, the US is modeled on the market based, capitalistic economy model. Through a strange marriage of private market forces and government legislation, innovation happens.
Most people can't comprehend the technical gains, so the selling pitch presented to them is one of "quality," which may or may not be true.
In the case of spectrum, a free-for-all use just wouldn't be practical. In the case of withholding progress that could ultimately raise quality of life because of stalwarts or luddites, I point to cigarettes, unleaded gas, and auto-safety. All in my opinion, of course.
For more fun, see:
United States Frequency Allocations
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
FCC opens free 'white space' spectrum.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10082505-94.html
Obama proposes new wireless-spectrum fee
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10173072-38.html
Google's novel idea for FCC radio spectrum auction
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-05-22-google-radio-spectrum-auction_N.htm
The dual distribution costs for this are through the roof as well. Electric bills for a small PBS station can be about $25,000 a month for the electricity to run the transmitter for the "Standard TV" and maintaining the dated equipment isn't cheap either. Digital transmission is cheaper to power and maintain.
ReplyDeleteQuality and freeing up spectrum are also good reasons to make the switch mandatory.
I know this is an old post... but eh... Ask any of the PBS guys downstairs if they would want to maintain *both* digital and analog.