Skip to main content

View Diary: YouTube ad calls out GOPers against Franken Amendment (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The whole digital TV thing was such (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Always Thinkin, majii

    a money game.  I'm still shaking my head, wondering how it is that now there are households on my street without television.  Converter boxes and indoor antennas don't work here, rooftop antennas are iffy and installation expensive, cable and satellite are spendy.  One day I had 8 channels for free, the next day nothing.  But lots of money was made in all the deals.  

    "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

    by CKendall on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:47:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I do feel for you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CKendall

      but it was a 13 year preparatory period.  If we can't make a change like that over a 13 year period then how can we expect to make any other kind of policy changes?

      I like the idea of single-payer, for example, but it would be a much bigger change than the DTV transition.

      Heck even the public option will cause some changes and they are proposing taking 4 years to implement even the regulatory controls.

      Can you imagine the shit storm there is going to be seeing as how for some people, a 13 year implementation of DTV was unacceptable?

      •  The lengthy preparatory period for (0+ / 0-)

        digital television was not undertaken in order to best prepare the public for the change.  The public was barely considered until late in the game. The timing was the result of years of back and forth wrangling between the parties having a financial stake in the process and the outcome.  TV and related technology manufacturers, national and local broadcasters and the U.S. government had differing ideas about optimum timelines.  

        The transition to DTV was delayed several times as Congress, broadcasters and manufacturers jockeyed for legislation and policies that would mean their best interests would be best served.  Congress was waiting for the best time to get the most money for the auction of the analog TV spectrum.  Delaying a transition would also supposedly mean more viewers would already be on cable and satellite and not so many of them would be requesting government-subsidized converter box coupons. Broadcasters wanted more time before they had to pay their transitions costs.  From what I could tell, television manufacturers were ready to sell product and high-tech companies were ready to buy spectrum well before the Congress and the broadcasters came to an agreement.

        In the research I did into the process, I found no indication the interests of the TV viewers were considered.  We were just supposed to spend money--on digital televisions, cable, satellite and converter boxes.  Not until the last minute was there an acknowledgement that there would be a portion of the U.S. population--one figure I saw was 4%, mostly in rural areas--that would not be able to receive any digital signals without cable or satellite.  I believe that 4% number is too low.  According to the maps, charts and my public broadcasting station, the 32,000 residents of my town are all counted as being within the range of "free, over-the-air" digital television signals.  Even though we are not.  

        "Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." John Wooden

        by CKendall on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:33:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site