Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: df who wrote (4179)	12/26/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: Ed Perry	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

From the NY Times Editorial Page - re Digital Television & Convergence December 26, 1998 p A26 What Price Digital Television? Two years ago, Congress gave the nation's broadcasters a $70 billion national asset by awarding them, without charge, additional channels for broadcasting digital signals, including high-definition television. This huge giveaway barely made a ripple on the evening news. It was not until the Senate majority leader at the time, Bob Dole, bravely complained about "corporate welfare" to the big media corporations that Congress and the communications megapowers agreed that yes, of course, the public should indeed get something back from the broadcasters. The White House offered to create a commission named after Vice President Gore to hash out the possibilities. Unfortunately, that is what the Gore commission has now returned -- a hash of proposals, a vague jumble of voluntary suggestions. In effect, the public-interest advocates on the commission were divided over how best to pay back the public for handing over these airwaves, and the broadcasters conquered. What makes this confusion so disturbing is that without a committed focus on how they must serve the public trust, these media companies can all too easily fall into the gravitational force of ratings, bottom lines and stock prices. Under such pressures, too many broadcasters could shove political debates or educational programs into the night-watch hours or drop such programs altogether. For those looking for solutions, the commission report must be read as a list of suggestions that need more debate and detail. One recommendation deserving more investigation would eventually double the number of public television channels in most communities. When broadcasters complete the transition to digital, the law now says they must return their old analogue channels over which they broadcast free now. Although some critics fear that Congress will eventually allow the broadcasters to stall the return of these channels, the commission has suggested that when the time comes to return them, only public television stations should be able to keep both -- the new digital and the old analogue channels. As this digital system becomes reality, operators are also learning that instead of one high-definition channel, they can break the signal into six or more channels. The Federal Communications Commission should consider a suggestion that if broadcasters engage in this "multiplexing," they be required to pay for using all the channels or use some for education or public-interest programs. Finally, the commission suggests a voluntary system of giving five minutes of free time a night to political candidates in the month before elections. Five minutes a night would be a major increase in political coverage for some local stations that turn to politics only when they run out of crime. But the question is whether people who resist giving candidates their due -- unless they pay for ads -- would parcel out even these mite-sized time slots voluntarily. The F.C.C. should require at least some free air time for candidates in exchange for all these free channels to broadcasters. ******************************************************************** The above is the real problem to the widespread introduction of Digital TV and the convergence / bandwith issue --- regulations and government induced monopolies. Why compete and why innovate when you can be protected by government agency rule? No df, that Bramson is not real. Also, I have read reports of public companies bringing suit against anonymous board posters who state deliberate false comments for the purpose of influencing stock prices. Everyone can state their opinion, however, if one produces a context where that line of fabricated misleasing information is crossed, then a "cute" thing becomes slanderous despite intentions otherwise. Ed Perry