| The 'benefits' of Digital TV
But the truth is that the whole situation is a shambles. The networks don't want to broadcast DTV output because there are so few viewers with suitable receivers. The advertising income is derisory and doesn't even cover the cost of broadcasting it. The content providers are unhappy because they feel that the punters will make high quality recordings from the transmissions and pass them on to their friends. The TV set makers are unhappy because the FCC has demanded they include digital tuners in new TV sets by 2004, something which will substantially increase the price of their products. The government is unhappy because it wants its frequencies back and everyone seems to be dragging their feet. Presumably they think they can find something more lucrative to do with them. And the viewers, what of them? Well needless to say, nobody thought to ask the viewers what -they- wanted, and so the viewers are being blamed for not behaving in the 'correct' manner. If we look at the premises on which DTV is based we can see why the US broadcasting industry has come to the present pass with DTV. For consumers the advantages of DTV have been touted as being a much better quality picture and far more channels. All very well, but the problem is that viewers aren't complaining about either the picture quality or a lack of channels. Overwhelmingly, they are complaining about the lack of anything worth watching - i.e. lack of quality content. Their equation is that ten times more channels and better picture quality equals ten time more crap - albeit high definition crap. They probably wouldn't object to better quality pictures, but the current definition is easily good enough for what they want, and they see no reason to pay higher prices for a better quality picture. The problem is that existing DTV receivers are far more expensive than conventional receivers, and they don't offer any perceived advantage to potential buyers. Also the whole scenario was built on the assumption that as people bought new TVs they would buy DTVs and throw out the old ones. This is a completely wrong assumption. For the last 20 years TVs have been reliable pieces of consumer equipment. They don't break down after a few years. They work for decades. If the price of TV sets goes up dramatically, people will make do with the ones they have already. Not only that, but few people throw the old ones away. The old ones go into the kids bedroom, the kitchen, or any other room that hasn't yet got one. Even if the main TV were to be DTV, all the other sets in the house are going to cease to work on change over day. The truth of the matter is that nobody stopped to figure out how real people use their TVs before coming up with the current nightmare scenario. And just to pile on the agony, all this is taking place against the first real drop in television viewing since TV came in. From the point of view of the broadcasting industry, too many people are getting their entertainment on the Internet or from video games. The twist in the tail is that the unusable old analog TVs will still be usable for playing console based video games! Even the Congress critters are getting worried about the shambles. As one recently said, 'If on New Year's Day 2007, consumers turn on their TVs and see only snow, that could also be the end of many of our congressional careers' (Rep Eliot Engel (NY-D)). Exactly!
|
If you have any questions or comments about the articles on my web site, click here to send me email. |