Here's a guy who wrote an article for Business Week. An actual reporter, or journalist, I don't know. But his "summary" of the whole digital revolution was that converter boxes were quaint, but since smaller digital TVs are ONLY $600 or so, wasting your time on a converter box wasn't worth your time and effort.
Well, let me tell you something. Six hundred dollars is a lot of money to a lot of people. And simply buying a digital TV, without subscribing to cable or satellite (more monthly bills), won't get you any better reception than a converter box.
The author, Stephen H. Wildstrom, is an elitist, a snob, and has totally missed the point of what is really going on with the conversion to digital TV. He talks about his old "rabbit ears" TV set as being one that is only used on his morning jog on his treadmill where he was "putting up with" imperfect TV reception and hadn't given it much thought. The author also knows little to nothing about digital TV itself.
There are people in rural areas who can't afford a digital TV and/or cable TV. And they don't have a treadmill either. They have one TV, with one set of rabbit ears, and that's it.
Hell, I don't live in a rural area in Maine but I can't afford it all of the equipment and services needed. But we're all supposed to lay out $600 for a new TV and pay the cable company what, $50, $60, $100 a month. If Mr. Wildstrom is willing to set up a trust fund of his own money, I'd be happy to see that those who can't afford a new TV and a new cable bill, get some assistance.
This guy must be a republican.
Please visit Mr. Wildstrom and let him know your thoughts.
I wrote to him with my concerns and asked that he spend some time writing about the other side of the digital conversion; the side that people can't afford and can't see because they don't get the signal.
UPDATE - Here is Mr. Wildstroms's reply and my response to that.
"I didn’t deal with the question of whether the digital transition is a
good idea in large part because it’s just too late. Congress mandated the
transition in 1996 and at this point it is irrevocable.. The government has
actually gone ahead and sold the analog spectrum that broadcast stations will be
surrendering next year, so there’s no going back. Rural TV has been
problematic since the birth of television. It was the problem of poor rural
reception and the need to build a really tall “community” antenna that gave
birth to cable TV in the first place."
My response:
That is an interesting way to stand by the value of your story. The
translation seems to be "it's the government's fault and I can't do anything
about it". My challenge to you was to report on the other side of the
issue. It's not too late and if there are enough squeaky wheels, maybe one
of them will get the grease. Rural TV reception is not a life or death
issue; but it is a story worthy of telling. I had composed a lengthy email
that I later decided wasn't worth sending. You obviously have different
opinions that I, and I know that I can't change another person's point of view
with one conversation. Your piece on digital converter boxes was fluff,
created only to use up space and had no real merit. It is disappointing
when people try to act like journalists but don't really want to look at more
than one side of a story. I am assuming you got paid for that
article. Good for you."
I don't know folks, you be the judge. Maybe I'm wrong about this; maybe I pushed it too far. But for those of you out there who are being forced to convert to digital TV with an antenna and can't seem to get any channels, I would think you understand where I am coming from. Nobody is reporting on this issue or doing anything about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment