Re: FCC Orders All TV's To Have Digital Tuners By 2007

["Aaron [Bishop] Read" <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 01:31 AM 8/9/2002, Joseph Pappalardo wrote:
>Yea, but is this a "market driven" thing?  I think not.
>
>The digital recievers have been out there.  The public doesn't need/want
>them.  They are content with getting a normal analog TV reciever.
>
>If the public doesn't seem to want to pay extra for this...why is gov't.
>getting involved and forcing everyone to accept it?
>
>JP

Assuming that digital TV is beneficial to the industry, and I happen to 
believe DTV will ultimately prove to be a pretty damn cool thing....then 
JP's view is a remarkably short-sighted view of the process.  Did the 
public want to pay extra for catalytic converters in their cars?  No, 
probably not...but it's a damn good thing they're mandatory - they make the 
inherently "dirty" internal-combustion process at least somewhat cleaner.

Or, to bring it closer to home, the public did not demand that AM 
broadcasters stop using their FM stations as mere repeaters for their AM 
content.  But the FCC finally mandated separate programming and, overall, 
the result has been overwhelming good.  Yeah, sure, there's lots of 
problems with AM and FM today, but there's a heckuva lot more and better 
music programming now than there was prior to FM.

And to flip it around, the public did not demand AM stereo, and the FCC 
made the colossal mistake of allowing market forces to drive a 
standard.  Look what happened.  Now a big selling point of AM IBOC is that 
it allows stereo.  (and yes, I know there's lots of issues with IBOC; let's 
not go there...the point is that "stereo AM" is a big selling point of it)

Or what about Microsoft for that matter.  Windows did not become a standard 
through market forces, it became it through massively aggressive and 
monopolistic actions by MS.  Lest we forget that Microsoft *is* an illegal 
monopoly.  That ruling has not been overturned and almost certainly never 
will be (of course, unlike some previous monopoly-busting legal decisions 
the MS verdict doesn't seem to be doing a damn thing to MS's business 
practices).   Windows became a standard because Microsoft made it that way 
by hook or by crook.  And despite all of Windows' problems I shudder to 
think what a bloody hell of a mess today's computing world would be if we 
had two or three competing operating systems, each controlling a hefty 
chunk of the market.   Remember what a huge pain in the ass it was when 
Macs were still in the running?  Half your stuff/files couldn't be used in 
half the computer-using offices of America...it sucked.   The problem is 
that Microsoft uses their position not to make better products, but just to 
bleed everyone's wallet as much as possible.

When it comes to technology that literally depends entirely on a specific 
standard to work, "market forces" are a disaster in the making.  A strong 
top-down approach is essential, and I'd rather have it coming from the 
government where at least there's a small chance the users' concerns will 
be addressed...as opposed to a strong top-down mandate from the private 
sector where ONLY the stockholders' concerns will be heard.

____________________________________________
Aaron "Bishop" Read     aread@speakeasy.net
FriedBagels.com Technical Consulting
www.friedbagels.com   AOL-IM: ReadAaron