Sorting Through the Analog to Digital TV Mess

H_Fisher writes "CNN offers an article from Fortune magazine, giving a look at the problems surrounding the mandatory switch from analog to digital TV in the U.S., now slated for 2009. 'Managing this transition -- which will render about 70 million TV sets obsolete -- will be not be easy,' Marc Gunther writes. Among the problems: millions of American households without cable or satellite access will lose free access to news and weather along with the rest of their broadcast fare. Uncle Sam's solution? 'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

Comments

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[daveschroeder]

We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.

Let's not forget:

To be sure, the transition will facilitate a lot of progress for both the tech industry and the public sector. Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels.

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

Better yet, when the spectrum is sold off, the companies that buy it will use it to develop new technology and services. Cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband access is one possibility. Mobile TV or music services are others.

Scheduled for 2008, the auction will be the biggest spectrum sale since a 1994-95 spectrum auction. That sale helped boost the mobile phone industry, boosting the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. from 24 million to 200 million. It also helped drive down the cost of wireless minutes from an average of 47 cents a minute to 9 cents a minute, according to analysis from financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.

"With the new auction, we will finally become a broadband nation," says Blair Levin, a Washington analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Intel, Dell -- these companies will all benefit. The more broadband pipes you have, the more applications will come along, the more often you will upgrade your device."

Indeed, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, and Cisco all joined a Washington lobbying effort called the High Tech DTV Coalition to push for digital television. Congress has been debating the issue for a decade, ever since the 1996 telecom bill gave digital spectrum to broadcasters, with the expectation that they would eventually give their analog spectrum back.

Seems like $1.5B to smooth the transition is a good deal for all involved.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[wx327]

If the top people are making 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes! This isn't happening. Why not? THAT is unfair.

That math would point to a flat tax rate, vs the progressive rates we have in place. Under the current system, if you are making 90% of all the income in the US, you are paying more than 90% of the total taxes collected.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Surt]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTem plate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=20 50

While the Top 20% may pay 60% of the tax, they hold 80% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% hold less than 5%.

So maybe the tax burden on the top 20% should be a little higher, as they are currently being taxed at a low rate in proportion to their benefit.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes are actually at their lowest since WWII, and lower than many other countries in the world. God, Americans are pathetic. "The gubmint robs me! Whaaa!"

Health care, social security, etc. - these things *ARE* affordable, and more affordable as government programs (well, health care isn't yet, but it will be when we finally get single payer) than as private concerns. Especially since, when privatized, most people don't buy into them and end up being a strain on society as they get sick, can't work, become indigent, etc.

If you want your taxes cut, number one thing would be to lobby to cut military spending. That's the big red eyesore on the government's budget.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[uncqual]

The notion that the tax burden should depend on ones "Wealth" is dangerous.

"Wealth" is very different from "Income" while "Consumption" is very different from both. Taxes can be levied on any of the three items (or others of course).

The current U.S. personal tax system primarily taxes "Income" (income tax) and, to a lesser extent, "Consumption" (as in sales tax and "luxury" taxes).

The only significant personal "Wealth" tax in the U.S. that comes to mind is property tax. Generally property tax is very progressive - the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing) while consuming the bulk of the benefits (subsidized public health programs, transportation, and education) and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses) and reap few if any of the direct benefits (they pay for their own health care [and more], rarely use public transportation [except for politicians who want to make a point], and send their children to private school).

So, what is the "fairest" thing to tax? The usual claim of "unfairness" in the U.S. system of taxation seems to, at the root, be that individuals who enjoy a lot of creature comforts don't pay their "fair" share compared to individuals who have a minimum of creature comforts. It turns out, these creature comforts are a direct result of consumption, not income or wealth.

The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs. Sure, you're getting a revenue stream from your investment, but obviously less than what someone else thought the assets were worth (else there would have been no willing sellers of the stock you own or willing borrowers of your money) and your lifestyle is not improved by this revenue stream. This investment revenue stream must just be being plowed back into creating and sustaining more jobs (unless you're a horrible investor!) since at most $20K/year is being consumed for creature comforts. Sure, you have a greater feeling of "well being" because you have money for a rainy day which the fairly low paid worker doesn't - but taxing "feelings of well being" seems odd (presumably that would result in taxing those who follow a religion since a feeling of "well being" is something that most religions tout either explicitly or implicitly and would also result in very rich, but emotionally depressed, people paying no taxes).

Consider two single developers working side by side at similar jobs and both earning a salary of $75K/year (for the moment, ignore taxes since "appropriate taxation" is the issue we are addressing):

The first (call them "Mr. Frugal") spends $25K/year ($10K for a studio apartment, $15K for other stuff) and owns an old car, a 20 year old 19 inch color TV, eschews cable TV, and has a wardrobe consisting mostly of t-shirts with product and company names on them. The remaining $50K a year is invested in stocks and corporate bonds.

The second (call them "Mr. HighRoller") spends $75K/year ($25K for a nice apartment, $50K for other stuff) and always has a nice current model year car, a high end HD TV not more than three years old, the best of cable TV packages, and a wardrobe full of the latest designer labels. Since there is no "remaining" money, HighRoller saves or invests nothing.

After working for 45 years, Frugal has well in excess of $2.25M (inflation adjusted of course and assuming the investments were not too stupid) and retires comfortably - never requiring a penny of public assistance. On the other hand, HighRoller retires with NOTHING (except rapidly depreciating designer clothes, HDTV set, and high end car) and ends up living on Social Security

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bheading]

And how did we manage, despite painful blows to the country's economy (oil delivery shocks from Katrina, etc) have more economic growth and lower unemployment than, say, more socialist-minded places like France or Germany? By reducing the tax burden on the people that take their money and invest it the businesses that hire people and grow the economy.

Your "argument" is misinformed, ignorant, and frankly boring crap. You could start by look at your budget deficit.

Then you could take a look at your taxation levels. The idea that the USA is some sort of tax haven for people is nonsense. The USA taxes it's citizens pretty heavily - the amount of tax is probably not much different from France or Germany. In many places you'll pay taxes to three of four different authorities (federal, state, city tax .. is there county tax in some jurisdictions?). The problem that I think you have with France and Germany is probably the way they spend their money on silly socialist things such as being able to get a heart bypass operation or cancer treatment without being hauled in front of a bankruptcy court, or outdated mumbo-jumbo pinko communist claptrap such as ensuring that a reasonable poverty line is maintained so that people do not become destitute when they are between jobs in a cyclical economy. Instead, the USA spends it's tax money on it's military budget and invading foreign countries. That's their prerogative - you think that the longterm welfare of your people is best funded by spending $120bn on bringing democracy to a middle east sand dune, that is your business - but a lot of people in Europe think it is best served by ensuring that they have the means to acquire education, decent healthcare and living standards that allow them to lead happy and productive lives. I think a lot of people in the USA feel the same way, BTW, but W calls them traitors and ignores them. Fact of life I guess.

Don't take this personally, I'm not anti-USA, it's a great country in many ways. You just have to look at the profile of public spending and taxation in these countries and try to be more objective about it.

Secondly, while I agree that taxing the crap out of rich people just because they're rich is destructive, I do not agree with the "throw more money at the rich people so that they can pay more people to scrub their bathroom floors with toothbrushes" argument. Yes, entrepreneurship must be encouraged, risk-taking must be rewarded, but there is no evidence that your trickle-down economics argument truly works. The state has a role to play - not an overbearing role but a role nonetheless - in ensuring that people lead productive lives. Societies which recognize that there is a time for wealth acquisition as well as a time for leisure and relaxation are just as likely to be happy and successful.

question for /.ers

[John Harrison]

Does anyone out there have a set-top box to recieve over the air digital TV signals? A free one, not a pay service like Xoom or USDTV? I know that broadcasters as sending out digital signals but I don't know anyone that currently receives them.

Bread and Circus

[ThatGeek]

'Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers' - $1.5 billion to help U.S. households buy new digital TV equipment."

There is a reason why the Romans didn't talk about "Bread, Circus and Higher Education". As long as people are fat and happy, you can basically do whatever you want. Large business know this. The shills they put in government know this. And we know this too.

TV is necessary for Government

[Naatach]

Television is a necessary component for our government. $1.5 Billion is a good investment on two counts:

1) The billions the government can rake in in radio frequency auctions
2) Continuance of a medium to keep the unwashed masses under control.

In the Bay Area

[OYAHHH]

In,

The San Francisco Bay Area the digital transition will not work without a lot of upgrading on peoples part.

There are multiple transmission locations for TV in the Bay Area. This basically means that unless you have one of those monster antennas on your roof you will need an antenna pointed in the direction of the transmissions. Think multiple antennas. Multiple friends of mine have multiple antennas.

Not only that, but from all accounts of those already trying to receive digital transimissions, including myself, digital signals simply do not travel as far.

Or perhaps lets put it another way, the signal may travel just as far as a current day signal, but at the ranges quite a few people in the SF Bay Area are at from the transmission tower the signal is too weak to register within the digital TV receiver to be accurately display. Thus, either you get a perfect signal (or picture if you will) or you get nothing at all. And a lot more people, including myself, are getting nothing at all on my HDTV since I'm just far enough away that the signal seems to be too weak. And I live in the San Jose area, 30 or so miles from San Francisco as the bird flys.

Lastly, quite a few people in the east of SF live in quite mountainous conditions. Cannot pick up things there either.

What the?

[CaffeineAddict2001]

If you are poor, elderly or uneducated TV should be the last thing you are worrying about.

This really gives some credit to the theory that the primary purpose of television is to pacify people and have them forget the real problems they face.

A phased approach would be better

[tchuladdiass]

Instead of the analog signals being cut at a certain date, I think a better approach would be to decrease the output power of the analog signal by, say, 20% a year over the course of 5 years. That way, people with existing sets won't be forced to suddenly buy new equipment. Those that don't upgrade will just get a gradually weaker signal. A weak signal will cause people to want to upgrade (or get a cheap digital -> analog converter box), where as a suddenly cut off signal will make for angry viewers.

Re:A phased approach would be better

[erice]

Or a different sort of phased:

5 or more years before analog broadcasts end, no more analog only sets can be sold.
2 years from the drop dead date, only pure digital sets are sold.

That way, most sets convert to digital through the natural replacement cycle. Further, new purchasers, who are generally more affluent, bear the brunt of the broadcast switch over.

Re:television serves the interests of the state

[Rocketship Underpant]

"Any entity that is to continue to exist must look out for its own survival."

You're on the right track there.

"In our current system of government, the greatest danger to the existing power structure is voting."

I disagree. The democratic state relies almost entirely on masses of selfish people voting. It's so much easier to keep their power by pandering to the ignorant 70% than by demonstrating true merit to the smarter 30%. All they have to do is promise each large demographic that they'll give them a bunch of stuff for nothing, and then steal that stuff from someone else. In fact, the state's best customers (voters) are the country's least productive people, the sorts who would rather watch 6 hours of TV a night than go be entrepreneurial or pay down the credit card.

That's why they always push to get as many people to vote as possible. In fact, many democracies are trying to make non-voting a crime. Getting all those uninformed people to rubber-stamp the politicians' activities is just too important.

Is the government up to something by legislating digital TV? Definitely, but it probably has more to do with all the media companies that give Congressmen bribes and campaign financing. It's one more step towards the total media lock-in that the MPAA and TV companies want. Everything you're allowed to watch will be subject to government licenses and industry DRM.

Re:Set-top box?

[kfg]

What the hell does that do for the Chinese economy?

KFG

"Shakspear"

[Acy James Stapp]

Shakespeare's name was spelled many different ways in Elizabethan times, even by himself.

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html

So any close spelling is really legitimate.

Re:Set-top box?

[ettlz]

I feel that I should point out here that SCART is a terrible idea. The majority of SCART cables are cheaply made without proper RF shielding giving terrible cross-talk between the lines.

Same here

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Here in France, digital over-the-air TV was just launched last September. The analog signal is not supposed to be switched off before 2015 or so. Yet you can already buy a digital converter for euro59.90 or less in virtually every store. Those boxes just convert the digital signal received by your regular antenna into a signal readable by your regular TV.

We're using DVB-T here like most Restoftheworldians. AFAIK, North America adopted ATSC which uses a different modulation technique. Maybe that's the reason why simple converters don't do the work.