While searching for articles about a technology, I stumbled upon television and its new digital divide. This is the same topic discussed in class, but I thought this article was very interesting.
The article states that the conversion from analog to digital is another example of the digital divide and another example of the "haves and the have-nots." The conversion will be a good thing for most people. It will allow for a better television signal and according to the article, "allow more space on the airwaves for public safety communications." The problem is that many low-income people will no longer have access to television- TV that they've probably had for their whole lives, or if not, a very long time. Is it fair to suddenly take away their access to television information just to better everyone else's TV service? This article argues no. According to this article about 21 million households still rely on analog television, and most of these households are racial minorities. Almost 13% of African American and 13% of Hispanic people are not yet ready for the transition. These people rely on their televisions. Not just for entertainment, but for the news, public service announcements, severe weather warnings and educational television programs for their children. It simply isn't right to take away these people's rights to information through the television.
This issue seems to be a very important one, especially at this time, since the conversion is less than a week away. I understand that TV is a privilege; however, I have a huge problem with taking away someones access to a source of information that they still deserve. The fact is that this is a digital divide issue, because, sure people can BUY the converter boxes, but when the choice is between TV and a babysitter so that someone can go to work, the choice will be made to sacrifice access to television.
here is the link to the article: http://www.inglewoodtoday.com/opinions/publishers-message/1638-tv-conversion-the-new-digital-divide.html
Video Reflection
14 years ago
2 comments:
Just to keep the facts straight, the Obama administration did postpone the transition just for those people who don't yet have a digital converter box. The only places sticking to the original February date are those, like Madison, who already are very well prepared to switch over. A way to understand why the broadcast companies don't want to wait would to do some data analysis and see the costs to the companies of keeping both an analogue and digital signal running concurrently. Its highly expensive. I think that postponing the switch was the right choice, but if a community is ready it should probably transition as soon as possible.
Like Chris said, they (the congress) did postpone the switch to DTV. Which I do think was helpful to some. I can see the argument with the recent economic downfall being to blame, but we have known about this switch for years now. But I do believe the article brings up a very good point. I was quick to say, lets switch on Feb. 17, if you weren't ready, well too bad. Since taking this class and sorta opening my eyes, I see that some families/communities aren't simply ready. And its not partly their fault, its the fault of not having the funds to buy that digital convertor box. The goverment should have given convertor boxes away - for free - to families were are in poverty. And TV is to some people, the only form of information. I think that access to information is a right we have. I couldn't imagine television companies taking that away from me.
Post a Comment