The mere thought of any delay in transitioning from analog to digital TV broadcasting sends a shiver up my spine. How many times does the government feel the need to revisit this topic? It’s ludicrous. Public-safety and commercial wireless interests have been promised this spectrum for more than a decade; broadcasters have been fighting as long to keep this spectrum in what seems like an obvious attempt to keep spectrum for spectrum’s sake.
And yet, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has warned the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that he thinks its plans to aid the transition to digital TV are inadequate. It appears Dems want more subsidies available for set-top box converters and more quality assurances and the like.
I’m not sure I buy the argument that set-top converter boxes need to be subsidized as part of the transition to digital TV. Are the poorest of the poor with rabbit ears going to be the only ones eligible for the converter-box subsidy? It doesn’t sound like it. And each household is eligible for two coupons to help defray the costs? Why not three?
Roughly 42 million U.S. households (about 13 percent of the population) watch free TV. My mom is one of them. She can afford to pay for the converter box. She simply doesn’t like TV that much.
Is free TV in the Constitution?
A full 88 percent of U.S. households already subscribe to cable or satellite TV services. People who can afford cable or satellite TV can afford to buy their own converter boxes and likely will budget for new TV sets capable of receiving digital signals over a short period of time. Research from Kagan estimates that by the end of this year, penetration of HDTV sets in U.S. homes will near 30 percent.
Look at it another way: There is a similar sunset date on the horizon for analog cellular service and no one in government is promising any subsidies to make the transition easier.
Analog cellular service from U.S. wireless carriers is set to shut down in February 2008. Wireless carriers are looking forward to the transition because it allows them to use their spectrum more efficiently. (Go wireless!)
And yet no one in the government or any consumer groups are demanding that analog users be subsidized for new digital handsets. One could argue analog cellular service has more benefits than analog TV.
There are other, perhaps even better, ways to access news and entertainment than free TV. Cities around the country are planning to offer free or subsidized Wi-Fi service to low-income subscribers so they can access that information and entertainment on the Internet.
How and when did free TV become sacred?
