Comments on: FedGov Can’t Even Plan A DTV Switch Given 2 Years!

By: Akston

Akston — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:43:10 +0000

While most people I know pay far less than 20 cents per text message, I do take your point.

My point about the broadcast industry is that I can imagine scenarios where a network could entice more viewers (and hence more sponsors) by touting a presentation in HD. Think sports. I don’t know which percentages of a given station’s budget are generally consumed by which costs, but I find it easy to believe that there are situations where the potential competitive advantage of broadcasting in HD would defray the cost of the transition. To broadcast at all requires a pretty large capital outlay.

My point is simply that if a technology can increase the bottom line in a competitive market, then the players in that market will seek it out without federal mandate. If it can’t, I don’t agree that it’s the proper function of the federal government to pick and mandate that technology.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:38:49 +0000

@Akston,

The wireless market charges 20 cents per text message, and continues to raise basic cell phone rates. Broadcast TV isn’t paid for by the consumer (not directly anyway), but by ads.

There’s no need to change when so many broadcast networks get money through ads, emergency broadcasting stipends, and paying subscribers.

By: Akston

Akston — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:14:01 +0000

Wow, those all sound like rational market-driven reasons for companies to change technology. Maybe a nationwide mandate was less “necessary” than was presented. Maybe the change to HD is more appropriately tied to when the providers can offer it in the face of growing market demand.

I find it fascinating that cell phone network providers can change and upgrade technology at a dizzying pace without aid of any nationwide mandates. They have only the flimsy motivation of millions of consumers willing to pay big money for the new technology.

By: Chris Byrne

Chris Byrne — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:44:40 +0000

Actually, when initially proposed, the switch was to occur in 1998.

Then it was delayed until 2006, then 2008, now 2009.

At this point I think they’re waiting for everyone without an HDTV to die or something.

In reality, I don’t think the switch is going to be put off any meaningful length of time:

1. Too many companies have spent too much money getting ready for it this time.

2. HD broadcasts are MAKING them more money than non-hd

3. Digital is cheaper to work with by far once the transition costs are paid (and they are)

4. The broadcasters can fit much more paying data down the pipe with digital transition; and they can’t do that if they maintain analog.

5. Keeping both going simultaneously is too expensive.

This is just more congressional posturing and pandering.