Big Media Steals 5,100 Digital TV Channels

[Joanne98]

by Glen Ford
On February 17 of next year, 5,100 new digital TV channels are scheduled to become operational. Every single one of them is stolen.

The biggest theft of the public airwaves in U.S. history is nearly complete, a crime perpetrated in semi-secret, that transfers a brand new universe of the digital broadcast spectrum into the possession of wholly undeserving corporations. As a result Blacks, other minorities, unions, community organizations and all other non-rich societal stakeholders may be shut out of the main streams of television for the foreseeable future.

The Congressional Black Caucus and most of what passes for African American “leadership” have done virtually nothing to thwart the scheme to gift corporate media four high-quality digital TV channels for every single full-power channel license they currently hold. Where science has made possible a new age of programming possibilities - a chance, finally, to create islands and archipelagos of meaningful news, information and cultural TV programming that serves and reaches all the people - corporate-bought politicians have snatched away the prize. Acting as agents of the broadcasting industry, rather than representatives of the people, Congress awarded the already filthy rich a digital TV bonanza valued at $80 billion. It is an unearned gift of a priceless resource made possible by digital technology’s capacity to deliver far more information than analog technology. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is overseeing the mega-theft.

Ironically, corporate media, already in possession of 1,700 highly profitable, full-power TV channels, doesn’t know what to do with its 5,100-channel windfall. But the industry is united in its determination to keep the channels out of anyone else’s hands. Such is the nature of monopolies.

This historically unprecedented heist of the airwaves has been hidden in plain sight. By now, everyone that owns a television set knows that something big will happen early next year, that viewers who are not hooked up to cable or already own a digital converter box might find themselves without a TV signal when stations shut down their analog broadcasts and switch to digital, on February 17. Far fewer people are aware that the digital changeover will multiply the number of broadcast channels four-fold. And most Americans will be totally shocked to learn that these thousands of additional channels have already been given away - stolen, really - further enriching the corporations that have turned American commercial TV into a “vast wasteland.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/30/10708/

[Hydra]

1. I wondered where all of that space was going

I think I recall someone suggesting they could use some of that for a nationwide broadband wireless internet...but I guess well have 300 or so new channels to flip through while the rest get sit on.

[TheWraith]

5. It was never "going" anywhere. It's the same space that broadcast TV is already using.

The article deliberately changes the facts to make it sound like this is new space: it isn't. Oh, and they mean room for an additional 5100 stations NATIONWIDE.

[annabanana]

2. (the better to move those Flo-Bees and Ginzu knives no doubt). . .n/t

[progressoid]

3. Don't agree with his conclusion.

"There is one bright spot on the horizon. Corporate TV still has no idea what to do with the thousands of channels it has stolen. They have no business plan to exploit their plundered booty. Program-wise, the transition should be a disaster, a bleak digital expanse of uselessness and waste. The shock may finally bring home the enormity of the crime, and cause the public to awaken to the challenge - to take possession of the pilfered spaces and fill them with programming that means something."


They'll figure out what to do with it in time - the public won't be given a thing.

And the enormity of the crime will go unnoticed.

[TheWraith]

4. Excuse me, but this is total bullshit.

And it shows that the author doesn't in any way understand the facts behind digital television.

Let me lay it out for people. Current analog TV channels are broadcast on a section of radio space, known as "spectrum," 6 MHz wide. Digital broadcasting is more efficient, and only requires 1-2 MHz per standard definition channel. The various companies and TV stations that own the licenses aren't being "given" anything, they're switching to a new technology that leaves more usable space in what they're already licensed to use. You can take issue with that if you like, but this article quite simply lies about what's happening.

It's also worth noting that this only applies to standard definition programming: broadcasters who'll also be wanting to transition to HDTV--pretty much all of them--will need to use more space: at least 3 MHz per channel, even with digital. Add to that leaving a standard definition legacy broadcast, and you're not really talking about all that much spare room.

[jaybeat]

7. The FCC is of, by and four the media monopolies--THAT is not BS

The Federal government has been working steadily against independent media at least since the Reagan era, when they deregulated cable, undermining cities ability to make cable companies pay for the public right of way they were getting with community access and programming. Media consolidation, über monopolies and all the rest have followed, catered 100% to the corporate media industry and 0% to the public interest.

As far as DTV is concerned, I frankly don't see why, just because the technology has improved, that a current license holder should get more capacity (multiple digital channels) in exchange for less (one analog channel). At the very least, they should have to show how and what they are doing that is in the public interest--remember when broadcast licenses were evaluated on that basis, and, at least theoretically could have their licenses yanked if they weren't up to snuff?? Ha!

Why not require each licensee to present a proposal on how they intend to use their spectrum (of the PUBLIC airwaves) to best serve the PUBLIC interest? Because the Government that is supposed to represent the PUBLIC interest doesn't give a rats ass about anything except the PRIVATE interests of the lobbyists and campaign contributors that they REALLY work for.

If you want to go right to the core of what is (or has already) killed our democracy, look at media ownership and regulation (or lack thereof)--that's pretty much the whole ballgame right there.

[TheWraith]

9. Tell me how all the talk about media deregulation changes the fact that licenses are in 6 MHz blocks

Please explain that to me. Each individual station is licensed to a 6 MHz block, not to one "channel" however you define that. They're not "getting" anything new.

[jaybeat]

10. Sure they are. The *mandated* technology is trading them 3 for 1

If the government announces "We're changing currencies, tomorrow. Every old dollar will be worth 3 new dollars." there's no real difference if a loaf of bread that used to cost 1 old dollar then costs three new dollars. But if that same loaf in fact only costs 1 new dollar, and everyone trading in their old dollars for new "gets" 3 dollars back, then everyone is "getting" 2 new dollars.

The *government* (after heavy lobbying by the broadcast and telco industries) is *mandating* the change to DTV. One "6 MHz block" IS one analog channel (one old dollar) but will become 3 digital channels (3 new dollars), BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT. So they can show three times as many ads with their slice of the spectrum as they could before. THEY ARE GETTING THIS FOR FREE. These are OUR airwaves, but the private interest=good/public interest=bad ideology of the Republicans sees this as a perfect opportunity, not only to enrich their friends and give away the commons, but also to use it as leverage.

If you want to know why the MSM is so compliant towards the Republicans, look no farther than the FCC, media consolidation and the spectrum give aways.

Much more, at Media Access Project.

[depakid]

6. Ever notice that even with all those channels you can't get a single foreign news source

outside of BBC (or the occasional CBC close to the border).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. My cable system has MHz Worldview on one of its public access channels

The quality varies considerably, but we get Deutsche Welle, France 24, Vremya, Japanese news, and an odd assortment of other programs and movies.

But I really miss Newsworld International, which Al Gore bought and turned it into not a liberal station but into Current. The excuse was the "nobody watched" Newsworld International (which was never, ever promoted). Well, does anyone watch Current?