Washington (Sept. 22) -- The Senate Commerce Committee today
voted to approve $1 billion in subsidies for consumers to buy devices
that would convert digital signals into analog so they could be viewed
on current TVs. However, the panel rejected Sen. John McCain's
proposal to set a hard deadline that would require local broadcasters
to switch their TV signals from analog to digital by 2009.
Phillip Swann, president of TVPredictions.com, and a nationally known authority on TV technology issues, released this statement upon hearing the news:
"The committee's decision is a cowardly and ineffective way to tackle the problem of switching the nation's TV signals from digital to analog.
The ineffective part: By eliminating the 2009 deadline, it will also
eliminate the incentive for anyone to use the federal subsidy ($1
billion) to get a converter box. Consumers will know that the current
deadline (requiring 85 percent of residents in a market to have the
necessary equipment before the signals are switched) will not be
met for years and years. So, why rush out and get a converter box?
Or, for that matter, a Digital TV. Bottom line: Today's action will have
no impact on accelerating the transition. In fact, it might even delay
it further by creating more confusion in the marketplace. (See Burns
amendment below.)
The cowardly part: It's an election year. Clearly, the committee members did not want to appear to be taking away anyone's TV --even five years from now. Sen. McCain said after the vote that it's unlikely the bill will survive in its current form. He is right. And, it
should not. It was a pure election year action, designed also to
appease local broadcasters who clearly have great influence,
particularly in an election year.
The new version, as amended by Sen. Conrad Burns, a former
broadcaster, also gives the Federal Communications Commission
the right to possibly waive the requirement that local broadcasters
must turn over their signals if the switch to digital would cause
consumer disruption. That language is guaranteed to create more
confusion in the marketplace. Consumers will ask: Is the digital
transition for real? Or, will the FCC decide at the last minute that the
switch can not be done because of a possible 'consumer
disruption.'?
The issue will leave consumers confused. And, when consumers are
confused, they don't buy new products, such as Digital TVs. This is
terrible news for advocates of Digital TV. Sen. McCain, who wants to
ensure that current local analog signals are eventually used for
emergency purposes, is right in saying that this was a victory for a
powerful special interest -- local broadcasters. The senator says he
plans to re-introduce his proposal for a firm deadline in a different bill.
Finally, for those who say that the federal government should not
"force" someone to buy a new TV or converter box, I believe you are
right. However, that is no longer the issue. The federal government
has already decided to approve the transition. The issue now is how
-- and when -- it's done. I believe the transition plan must be clear
and firm so everyone knows how to respond. The Burns amendment
makes it fuzzier than the picture on a 1959 Philco."
Phillip Swann can be reached for interviews at 703-505-3064 or at:
swann@tvpredictions.com. He has been quoted as an expert on TV
issues in dozens of publications, including The Chicago Tribune,
The Associated Press and The Hollywood Reporter, and has been a
guest expert on many TV and radio shows, including Fox News and
CNN.
voted to approve $1 billion in subsidies for consumers to buy devices
that would convert digital signals into analog so they could be viewed
on current TVs. However, the panel rejected Sen. John McCain's
proposal to set a hard deadline that would require local broadcasters
to switch their TV signals from analog to digital by 2009.
Phillip Swann, president of TVPredictions.com, and a nationally known authority on TV technology issues, released this statement upon hearing the news:
"The committee's decision is a cowardly and ineffective way to tackle the problem of switching the nation's TV signals from digital to analog.
The ineffective part: By eliminating the 2009 deadline, it will also
eliminate the incentive for anyone to use the federal subsidy ($1
billion) to get a converter box. Consumers will know that the current
deadline (requiring 85 percent of residents in a market to have the
necessary equipment before the signals are switched) will not be
met for years and years. So, why rush out and get a converter box?
Or, for that matter, a Digital TV. Bottom line: Today's action will have
no impact on accelerating the transition. In fact, it might even delay
it further by creating more confusion in the marketplace. (See Burns
amendment below.)
The cowardly part: It's an election year. Clearly, the committee members did not want to appear to be taking away anyone's TV --even five years from now. Sen. McCain said after the vote that it's unlikely the bill will survive in its current form. He is right. And, it
should not. It was a pure election year action, designed also to
appease local broadcasters who clearly have great influence,
particularly in an election year.
The new version, as amended by Sen. Conrad Burns, a former
broadcaster, also gives the Federal Communications Commission
the right to possibly waive the requirement that local broadcasters
must turn over their signals if the switch to digital would cause
consumer disruption. That language is guaranteed to create more
confusion in the marketplace. Consumers will ask: Is the digital
transition for real? Or, will the FCC decide at the last minute that the
switch can not be done because of a possible 'consumer
disruption.'?
The issue will leave consumers confused. And, when consumers are
confused, they don't buy new products, such as Digital TVs. This is
terrible news for advocates of Digital TV. Sen. McCain, who wants to
ensure that current local analog signals are eventually used for
emergency purposes, is right in saying that this was a victory for a
powerful special interest -- local broadcasters. The senator says he
plans to re-introduce his proposal for a firm deadline in a different bill.
Finally, for those who say that the federal government should not
"force" someone to buy a new TV or converter box, I believe you are
right. However, that is no longer the issue. The federal government
has already decided to approve the transition. The issue now is how
-- and when -- it's done. I believe the transition plan must be clear
and firm so everyone knows how to respond. The Burns amendment
makes it fuzzier than the picture on a 1959 Philco."
Phillip Swann can be reached for interviews at 703-505-3064 or at:
swann@tvpredictions.com. He has been quoted as an expert on TV
issues in dozens of publications, including The Chicago Tribune,
The Associated Press and The Hollywood Reporter, and has been a
guest expert on many TV and radio shows, including Fox News and
CNN.
