Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> In addition the whole HDTV scheme was sold to the government as a way to
> revive the US television manufacturing industry. Obviously that part was part
> of the shell game.
>
And yet. And yet. The net effect is television with better image and
sound quality, content aside, and more wireless services. Both are
clearly things that the majority of the public and the electorate want.
So Zenith and others failed to do well in the market. Their success or
failure as a manufacturer and marketer has no bearing on whether the
system they championed is good or bad.
> <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Quality of picture is perhaps not the last reason, but it sure isn't number
>> one. The vacating of the current VHF band will allow the government to sell
>> off the bandwidth to wireless providers and the like for a cheap price.
>>
>> When I was first in broadcasting, the concept of public airwaves and the
>> public trust was still important, but now,,,
>>
I'm not sure I understand the first part. One part of the public
airwaves has simply been exchanged for another, one which provides
better broadcast quality. That's bad how?
How do you define cheap? Are you defining it like the guy on the 'Bay
endlessly listing his lovely Olympus Six WAY above market? I think he's
down to a little over $300 now, down from near $500. The frequency
blocks were auctioned in a very public way. Multiple bids were received.
A company that actually wanted to use the space outbid the Google's
offer, originally seen by pundits, as opposed to potential buyers, as
too high.
Isn't that how prices are determined in a market economy? Purchases in a
competitive bidding situation are the very definition of a fair, or true
price. That idea, valid or not in some higher sense, is at the bottom of
government purchase of goods and services and disposition of surplus
property. It's when it is violated that the public becomes suspicious,
and rightly so.
As to the public trust, that's something that's been up for vigorous
debate for a long time. In a nutshell, does that mean elitist decisions
about what is good for the public determining what is broadcast? Or does
it mean giving the people what they want to watch, as demonstrated by
what they choose to watch out of a wide selection?
I propose no answer for others. Personally, there is enough stuff I
enjoy afloat in the vast sea to fulfill my viewing desires. Probably
it's not the same stuff that pleases you. If the public, for whom the
airways are in trust, didn't watch what's on them, something else would
soon be on them.
I assume you may refer specifically to news and public affairs programs,
as many critics do. If they have in fact declined, as many say, isn't it
a case of not not being able to make the horse you brought to water
drink? I can't personally comment much on any decline, as I didn't watch
Cronkite or MacNeil/Lehrer then, don't watch Fox news or Lehrer now,
avoid all TV news and find talking heads around a table anathema. I
don't think that means others shouldn't watch what they like, appalling
as some of it may seem to me.
The whole thing becomes closer and closer to moot as non-broadcast
content, not a part of the 'public trust' concept, increases its share.
Have you noticed the sea change, where at least three made for cable
series have been re-airing in prime time on a major network?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|