TV! Must Go!

In 1996, I was a freshman in high school. I was fourteen, I couldn't vote, and I don't think I had cable then. During 1996, the government decided to take television away.

Of course, they set the date for December 31, 2006 at midnight (isn't that January 1, 2007?), and they only set it for analog television, so those of us with High Definition Television, satellite, or cable are unaffected. Those who have rabbit ears on their sets--70 million television sets according to this article--will lose their television. One could buy a converter box so their television will not be obsolete, but those would cost about $100 next year. Unfortunately, if you do not have satellite, cable, or HDTV yet, then you probably could not afford to spend another $100 on a converter box. Don't worry, the government will take care of that for you:

"Most discussions in Washington contemplate some sort of free or subsidized converters for low-income households, paid for by the government, perhaps with the help of broadcasters or consumer electronics manufacturers. Estimates for the costs of that subsidy range from under one to several billion dollars — the cost declining as the cut-off date is moved further into the future. Proponents argue that the cost of the subsidy is small compared to the economic benefits, although last year the Bush administration indicated it was not in favor of subsidized converters."

(Note: several billion dollars is not small, and how would anyone compare several billion dollars to "economic benefits"? How would you measure the economic benefits?)

There are more problems with this "end analog campaign" than just tax dollars. The federal government is not sure if they will even enforce the cut-off date:

"Congress, however, left itself a loophole in the 1996 legislation, and could actually let the cut-off date slide by. But powerful lobbyists now are pressing legislators to set a 'date certain' for the analog lights-out. The debate over when to throw the switch is a strange brew of big money, high technology, homeland security and a single, unanswerable question: just how angry are the couch potatoes going to be? It’s also a textbook example of why the future almost never happens as fast as technologists promise."

Mr. Rogers seems to blame technologists as the reason why we will lose television so soon. But why the hell did the government decide ten years would be enough time? Why did they even propose a cut-off date for analog television? The answer is simple: so the government can aggrandize itself:

"In addition, both Silicon Valley and your local police force are lobbying for an early analog cut-off. The reason is simple: when the cut-off happens, TV channels 52 – 69 will no longer be needed, freeing up broadcasting spectrum for other purposes. Public safety workers have been promised four of these channels — a commitment even more pressing in the wake of the 9/11 Commission’s finding that the nation’s first responder communications systems need a major upgrade. And companies like Intel and Cisco want to use other parts of the newly freed spectrum for very powerful wireless broadband networks that could offer seamless high-speed Internet service virtually everywhere in the U.S. Other advanced uses will materialize. Already, cell phone pioneer Qualcomm plans to use some of the spectrum to build an advanced video network for mobile phones. And finally, there’s a bonus for the U.S. Treasury as well—much of the new spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders, raising billions of dollars."

While wireless broadband and advanced video networks seem like a good idea, the fact that Qualcomm, Intel, and Cisco need to pay the government for it is terrible. It ruins enterprise and competition. It encourages monopoly. And, the government gets more money.

Of course, public safety is automatically granted four channels. Those channels will be worthless until something terrible happens.

So analog television, whether it will or will not end in December 2006, will eventually end by mandate. People that cannot afford to convert to the newer system may or may not receive aid from the federal government so they can continue to be unproductive. Of the useless channels, public service will get four, and then the rest will be bidded off to the richest companies to do whatsoever they please with them. While cable, satellite, and HDTV customers see really no change at all.

Ultimately, this problem was created by the government and posed as a solution. When the government tries to fix this problem, they will inevitably cause more problems which will need more "solutions," and the cycle never ends. Maybe congress should let go of its strangle-hold on the air-waves, and actually let technology become popular naturally, not forcing people to convert by midnight of December 31, 2006.