Having been at the FCC for 37 years, I have heard a little about the transition to digital TV. (Note: we don't have one and have never had cable TV. 2/3 of what we watch on the tube comes from netflix. I work in telephone regulation. My first hand knowledge comes from a brief project about 30 years ago
( ... )
1. the fact that, at last estimate, something like 40% of Americans, with or without the boxes, with or without new $400 antennae, are without any TV whatsoever now
( ... )
Reply provided by a friend in the Media BureaumetalclarinetSeptember 1 2009, 03:34:22 UTC
DTV was a boondoggle, but (in my opinion) not quite the one your Vermont friend thinks. (I had ancestors who lived in Lyndonville, VT, by the way
( ... )
Re: Reply provided by a friend in the Media BureaumetalclarinetSeptember 1 2009, 03:43:19 UTC
I think John's most interesting point is that the big push began in the 1980s when over the air broadcasters were trying to claw back market share. By 2009, they had pretty well lost. The only thing that keeps them affluent is the must carry rules.
In the DC area, some people I know have lost one or two UHF channels but still have ended up with a lot more programming. We do see pixelization occasionally, but I personally have not found it to be troublesome. Even so, the pictures & sound are much better than before.
Given that there is no uproar in the media, I guessing that for every person who has much worse over-the-air television, there are several who get more programming and far better quality reception. The winners tend to be in urban areas, the losers tend to be in rural areas. If you look across all government programs, you will find that rural folks tend to win more often than they lose -- a lot of dollars flow from urban to rural areas. ($4 billion a year in telephone subsidies, for example.)
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Reply
In the DC area, some people I know have lost one or two UHF channels but still have ended up with a lot more programming. We do see pixelization occasionally, but I personally have not found it to be troublesome. Even so, the pictures & sound are much better than before.
Given that there is no uproar in the media, I guessing that for every person who has much worse over-the-air television, there are several who get more programming and far better quality reception. The winners tend to be in urban areas, the losers tend to be in rural areas. If you look across all government programs, you will find that rural folks tend to win more often than they lose -- a lot of dollars flow from urban to rural areas. ($4 billion a year in telephone subsidies, for example.)
Reply
Leave a comment