Rising energy prices. Public education. Slowly decaying infrastructure. These are all things that receive a limited piece of the pie when it comes to our government's budget, probably not as much as is needed, but at least they get merit a line item. What a relief, then, to know that our public officials are devoting at least $890 million dollars to one of the most dire situations since 9/11 - making sure our TV's work.
You see, by February 2009, over-the-air broadcasts of television signals will be a think of the past, and digital transmission will be the public's only means of watching TV. So if you don't have a digital television, you'll be out of luck. But the federal government is riding to your rescue, providing vouchers for you to use in your purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes. In this way you'll be able to continue to enjoy the free broadcast channels that you currently do, with your same tired cheap-ass TV.
And the $890 million could be just the tip of the iceberg. The government has authorized an additional $450 million if needed, and many critics say that a much heavier investment is needed, that the government is not doing enough to help our brethren in danger of missing Everybody Loves Raymond syndication.
It's high time that our public servants take into account what their constituency is truly demanding. Not better emissions standards, and not improved homeland security. American Gladiators is free programming, dammit, and it better stay free! Otherwise we might all just pick up and move to Mexico... after all, they're not using our tax dollars to finish the border wall.
Posts
3 comments:
Tom, Tom, Tom....
There are much bigger issues here than television. The fact of the matter is that analog television takes up a HUGE portion of the wireless EM spectrum. Significant amounts of bandwidth are used transmitting over-the-air channels to people so that they can watch the Price is Right every morning.
The switch to digital broadcasting means that all of those channels can be condensed into a much smaller portion of EM bandwidth. Allowing those additional frequencies to be used for other purposes (police/fire communication, military communication, 3G/4G wireless internet systems, WiMax, improved cell phone service, etc).
The government program was only put into place because mandating this spectrum change would have effectively turned off the television (a primary means of emergency information transmission) to something like 50 million people nation wide.
The UK did this years ago, and they're doing ok. Besides, this is a one time expense, that is costing us less than one month in Iraq.
I don't have a problem with the technology, only with the selective process that the government seems to use to decide which "greater good" programs they will subsidize, and which ones they will not.
For example, the recent energy bill signed into law demands a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles-per-gallon by the year 2020, a mandate that is expected to cost the auto industry $114 billion in technological development and research. Congress clearly recognizes the "greater good" need for reduced fuel usage, but the bill includes no provisions for subsidy here.
Obviously, there's a monstrous difference here between the costs, and also the potential beneficiaries, but it's obvious to anyone living in Michigan that the American auto industry is already suffering financially, which is in turn dragging down the whole state. And that $114 billion will in part be passed on to consumers eventually in the form of higher automobile prices.
I'm in favor of the conversion to digital television, and also in favor of the new fuel economy standards. It's just strange which programs merit government cash, and which ones don't.
True, $450 million is less than a month in Iraq. But that's not exactly the most popular (or justifiable) of expenses, either.
Part of the problem though, is that the auto industry should have been working towards this 30 years ago when the first oil crisis hit. They've had plenty of warning. The EM spectrum problem has been created by continual technological innovation.
The auto industry has been too lax for too long. It's a problem largely of their own creation (though the American public's desire for SUV's is also partly to blame). If they'd spent as much time and resources on fuel economy, as they did on all the little gadgets and gizmos that grace modern vehicles, we'd all be in a lot better shape.
I have little pity for automobile manufacturers. They should have seen this coming a long time ago.
Post a Comment