----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
The two emails you posted are very well written and answer several
questions I've seen people asking lately. how much effort would it be to
form that into an article? I know it would draw some interest.
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
HDTV Magazine
Mobile: (937) 532.8135
Skype: HDTVMagazine
|---------+--------------------------------->
| | "Dale Cripps" |
| | <hdtvmagazine@ilovehdt|
| | v.com> |
| | Sent by: "HDTV |
| | Magazine" |
| | <hdtvmagazine_tips@ilo|
| | vehdtv.com> |
| | |
| | |
| | 12/09/2005 01:55 PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "HDTV Magazine" |
|---------+--------------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: "HDTV Magazine" <
[email protected]> |
| cc: |
| Subject: George Will Article |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Actually, you might want to add, Jason, that the government's direct
investment in HDTV was and is zero dollars (all cost was born by the
proponents, manufacturers, and, though more modestly, the signal
providers), and, when DARPPA tried to invest $3 million in a domestic
projector technology the chief of DARPA was publicly humiliated and fired
for the crime of openly advocating the government's investment in a
specific HDTV technology (he was charged with trying to institute an
"industrial policy"). If a profit is defined as return on investment the
government has not and will not make a profit on HDTV because they have
absolutely nothing invested in it. Dick Wiley (himself a former FCC
Chairman) did all of the coordination work that created the standard pro
bono as private citizen. Come to think of it no one deserves such a
windfall except the owners of the spectrum, which is you and me, and we
paid NOTHING for it. The idea that the broadcasters got a windfall with an
extra 6 MHz handed to them is also absolutely laughable. What they got was
a temporary mandated license to pay two power bills for the same or lesser
results and to pay for the capital equipment they, and I do mean the bulk
of them, had no desire to pay for or even get involved with. The networks
drove it a bit because they did not want to be the only signal providers
who were not able to upgrade their quality easily. So, they had a lot of
spectrum issues which actually fell to the large body of broadcast owners
(not the nets) to pay for. The networks only paid for some HDTV film
transfers and some satellite distribution costs. The government got the
first big (and unearned) guaranteed return on HDTV by inserting the
spectrum auction deal and EVERYONE understood the windfall that it was.
That remains chief among several reasons that they continue to push things
in Congress...so they could get at that "free money." I know many of the
Congressmen involved and their thinking was all "windfall gain" and this
argument of saving Homeland Security saved via some of the spectrum became
an afterthought which was a convenient public issue upon which to hang
their hats, but it was the "free" money that they have coveted and there
are enough in the press who know the real story who would never let up on
anyone in Congress who "lost" that money through reckless legislation.
Everyone in Washington understood that "money to the government" was the
biggest understandable reason to move the transition forward. I hope no one
thinks that all of the legislation moving it forward was due to some homage
being paid to Sony or Panasonic or Samsung or to CBS or anyone else
involved. It was to get the spectrum back and sold, period. Now, not in
defense nor condemnation of that fact it must be recognized that without
the FCC's Congressional mandate to set (endorse what was handed to them)the
national broadcasting standard we would not have one HDTV system to work
with, but hundreds (as you do in computers), or maybe none at all (since
the manufacturers considered it far to risky to move without an FCC
mandate). I suppose we can say the government earned a commission in their
roll as "igniters" of the industry due to their unique capacity for both
setting and mandating the use of digital broadcasting. The underlying
reason for doing it all, and no one is saying this because in this nation
we only recognize money as chief motivator, is to elevate our standard of
living and initiate a new visual era upon which new social values can be
seen and adopted. That is what the founders of HDTV understood and they
used everything else to move it forward since those values are the least
comprehended. But if only a tiny bit of this last notion is true, the
profit to the nation (and perhaps the rest of the world) is enormous. The
"cause celeb" for moving to HDTV appears to be money, but it is far more
than that. It may take many years before those values are quantifiable,
but, as with every other advance in communications there has been a
corresponding advance in economics, if nothing else.
_Dale
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
If we spend $100 million on converters, but then sell the spectrum for $5
billion, you could consider that a profit of $4.9 billion, right? That's
how I saw his email.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Doug Weil
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:28 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: George Will Article
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Perry,
I'm not going to re-ignite the debate on whether the subsidy is a good idea
or not, but I have to take issue with the idea that the bill in conference
committee represents "a net profit for government/taxpayers."
The concept of ANY government spending being done with an eye toward
profits is one huge belly laugh. Understand that I'm not saying that some
government projects don't actually provide tremendous public benefits,
because they do.
But the idea that they somehow generate "profits," or that they're even
briefly considered in the light of some objective measure of
"profitability"
or public payback (benefit outweighs the cost) is falling down funny.
You either have an incredibly wicked and subtle sense of humor, or someone
has been slipping something very interesting into your morning cup of
coffee...
Regards,
Doug
Clearly Resolved Image & Sound
Business: +1 (618) 234-2865
Cell: +1 (314) 495-2993
eMail:
[email protected]
Web:
http://www.clearlyresolved.com
Affiliated with the Imaging Science Foundation
http://www.imagingscience.com
-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Perry Yastrov
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:06
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: George Will Article
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
I don't see this as an eminent domain issue. The airwaves are not personal
property.
To me its more analogous to the roads. Owned by the public, licensed to
drivers to use them.
The airwaves are owned by the public. The Federal government is not selling
the broadcast frequencies, they are licensing them to broadcasters to use
them.
Since the government is mandating the change to digital, then it seems
appropriate that the government supports the transition for the individual.
Part of the licensing of the airways will be used to pay for the
subsidization to the individual, so therefore its still a net profit for
the government/taxpayers.
It would be nice if there was a way to manage who gets the subsidy, with
respect to need/ability to pay for converters, but as Dale has pointed out,
it would be too costly to set up a system to manage eligibility.
--- Dale Cripps <
[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>
> How would you go about doing that? I offered and funded at a hefty
> expense a lobby group in Washington, DC in direct response to some
> comments much like yours. I formed a non-profit corporation in
> Washington complete with carefully written charter and bylaws. To seek
> members from both the private and business sectors I publicized our
> presence to over 50,000 people for two years running and as a result
> had a grand total of four who expressed an interest in joining the
> cause (both Rodolfo and Hugh among them). Which of those four people
> would you like to manage the people's spectrum?
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> I agree. The frequency spectrum belongs to the
> citizens, not the government.
> This is no different then having your property taken
> by eminent domain and
> expecting compensated, under Amendment V of the US
> constitution, by the
> government for the loss. The citizens need to be
> more forceful and assert
> their claim.
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
>
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made
> from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click:
>
[email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made
> from all posted that same day) send an email to:
>
[email protected]
>
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe please click:
[email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected] 