About a year and a half ago, I heard about the federal law requiring all broadcasting to change from analog to digital on February 17th, 2009. I was skeptical when I first heard the news before I really paid attention to it, simply because I am a skeptic when it comes to technology in general-I don’t trust it most of the time.
Looking into it more, I discovered the reasons why the switch will occur. According to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html, “Congress mandated the conversion to all-digital television broadcasting, also known as the digital television (DTV) transition, because all-digital broadcasting will free up frequencies for public safety communications (such as police, fire, and emergency rescue). Also, digital is a more efficient transmission technology that allows broadcast stations to offer improved picture and sound quality, as well as offer more programming options for consumers through multiple broadcast streams (multicasting). In addition, some of the freed up frequencies will be used for advanced commercial wireless services for consumers.”
According to http://www.benton.org, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stated “…the most important part of the DTV transition is to ensure that it increases localism and diversity on our airwaves. Broadcasters will be able to air up to half a dozen different digital program streams, so here is a wonderful chance for them to get away from all the homogenized, nationalized programming that big media has foisted on us in favor of covering the people and communities they actually serve.”
What is unfortunate is that there are those who will be left behind in the switch. Maybe they’ll pick up a book or something. I have recently discovered that because I have Comcast, I am all set for the transition. There will be no book reading on my part.
Until next time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember when I first heard of the switch. Luckily, I have direct TV so I am set for the switch as well. However, I do see the advantages. Emergency services should not have to worry about an overabundance of frequencies interfering due to television. However, what about the people who can't afford to switch over, or the people who only need/want channels 3, 6, & 10? I think to be successful they should have considered more options for the majority of people and offered alternatives to switching over. Maybe some help for the people who can not afford the switch. But then again, this may open a can of worms if no one is willing to pay for the switch. This is a situation that will cause a lot of controversy when the time comes I think.
ReplyDeleteGood start. There are a number of issues regardin the transition. When you're in the middle class and have access to broadband, cable, FiOS, whatever, it's relatively easy to forget that many people in cities, suburbs and rural areas do not have such access due to lack of money. They may also not care about TV beyond local news and basic entertainment. Will the transition bring about a democratization of access to news and entertainment? I confess I've not paid attention to the transition announcement b/c it doesn't affect me. Are they doing the best they can to communicate the benefits? Definitely an opportunity to build support for the future state of broadband in the US.
ReplyDelete