Editorial: Digital transmission gets jumbled

Government fumbling digital transition?

If you watch television for more than a few minutes a day, you have seen public service announcements about the Feb. 17 changeover from analog to digital broadcasting. It doesn't yet affect the low-frequency stations broadcast in Lima, but WLIO has been running on-air tests so viewers may determine if they will receive the signal when it goes HD. During the other transition that's been going on, several officials of the incoming Obama administration have suggested pushing back the transition date three months, and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller has submitted a bill to push the date to June 12.

Why the fumbling and confusion? The short answer is that the government, beginning as far back as 1988, decided the transition from analog to digital TV, unlike the transition from analog to digital sound recording, which took place during the 1980s (though some audiophiles still swear analog was better), was too important to be left to the "anarchy" of the marketplace. So the Federal Communications Commission, under legislation passed in 1996, has handled this transition. Not surprisingly, it has been driven more by political than by technological or economic considerations.

The cellular telephone industry has made the transition from analog to digital. Did you read articles about the problems? Were you even aware of it? Probably not, because it was handled in the competitive marketplace with a minimum of fuss and feathers.

The advantages of digital TV broadcasting are twofold. Digital broadcasting permits sharper resolution of the picture with a smaller portion of the broadcast spectrum and more efficient broadcasting of high-definition signals. Conversion also will free up the spectrum to allow more uses of increasingly popular handheld devices like Blackberries, iPhones and the like.

There are other reasons for TV broadcast stations to go digital. Because it takes up less bandwidth, a station can use the same space in the spectrum for several signals, including interactive services. Those in the Lima area using digital TVs alone, think of WLIO's Channels 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3. Digital signals react less to interference than analog signals; so, there is no "ghosting." So there are solid market-related reasons for TV stations to switch. But instead of permitting them to do so at their own convenience or when they would alienate the fewest number of customers, the FCC has handled the conversion through mandates.

All TV sets sold in the last four or five years are equipped to receive digital signals, and cable and satellite systems also use digital technology. But people with older analog sets - who tend to be older or lower-income people - or those who use their old analog TV sets in secondary household locations, will need a converter box. There's a government (i.e., taxpayer-funded) program that provides a $40 coupon to help pay for converter boxes. But John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, says the program has not kept pace with demand and some 2 million people are on a waiting list for coupons. Thus the pressure to delay the conversion date.

In addition, the characteristics of analog and digital signals are different. Most people will get better reception and more channels with converter boxes and digital signals. But a small percentage of people, mostly in rural areas will get fewer channels. The FCC estimates 11 percent of stations will have a signal that reaches 2 percent fewer viewers)

A technological change managed and mandated by the government only needs to affect a small number of people before politicians start introducing legislation.

The conversion date has been delayed several times and it costs stations to send out both analog and digital signals, which they are doing. The best bet, despite the problems, probably is not to delay the conversion date again. But the experience demonstrates that, although technological changes always involve some friction, expense and inconvenience, they generally are better handled in the private marketplace than through the government.