The Madoff Ponzi scheme was big news for a while. Almost everyone heard about it. Another scam, not so sensational, has been pulled off right in front of our eyes and few have been aware of it.
The switch from analog to digital TV broadcasting promised viewers all sorts of improvements: higher definition pictures; additional stations and more options, etc. Was it really a big benefit for viewers still receiving their reception through the air on basic television? From here, it doesn’t look that way, at least for those viewers, of which there were millions across the country.
The government, at the behest of the broadcasting and communication industries, made the change mandatory. To soften the blow for those affected, homes having older TV sets with analog tuners, they offered to partially subsidize the purchase of converter boxes. This cost the government a few billion dollars (your money). The remainder of the cost of the converter was paid by the viewer (also your money).
Many viewers for a variety of reasons opted to switch to cable service, which was not affected. However, this added to that household’s cost.
New TV antennas were also purchased to improve the digital signal reception and many decided to purchase new TV sets with digital tuners to avoid the converter box hassle.
Has the changeover fulfilled its glowing promises? Who benefited? Who lost?
Many viewers are finding that the digital signal and picture quality are not reliable and consistent.
At times, the picture breaks up into something resembling a colorful, abstract painting suitable for hanging in a modern art museum. Other times the signal of a station is so poor that it cannot display a picture.
Even costly TV antennas don’t help in areas where the new signal is ineffective. This was not the case before. Apparently, the digital TV signal is more susceptible to all sorts of atmospheric interference, more so than the analog signal.
The quality of the digital picture when received well is not much superior to the older one. Some additional stations are available but they either are selling something, or broadcast in a language I don’t speak.
The switchover was advocated by business interests to make the older frequencies available to a broad range of commercial communication products. These frequencies will be auctioned off by the government. Hopefully, some of the government’s cost will be recouped.
So what has the public really gained? In some localities, there has been a reduction of viewing options along with some inconvenience and extra cost.
The Public, theoretical owner of the airwaves, helplessly looks on (depending on reception), while the broadcasters are free to expand their business in a generous deal.
There has hardly been any media follow up reporting on the effects of the change across the country. They seem to have exhausted themselves publicizing and pushing the change and have moved off to others things as they usually do.
