Digital Divide: Winners and Losers in the Switch to DTV

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In order to keep some 6.5 million TV screens from going dark two weeks from now, both houses of Congress have voted to postpone the deadline for a changeover from analog to to digital television transmissions, from February 17 to June 12. The president had been pushing for the postponement, and after some stalling from peevish Republicans, he got it. It remains to be seen whether the new deadline will provide enough time to resolve what has by now become a completely failed government program–another parting gift from the Bush administration, which managed to raise federal incompetence to new levels, while always seeming to shaft the nation’s most vulnerable people.

According to a January report from the Congressional Research Service, the changeover will be hardest on “low-income, elderly, disabled, non-English speaking, minority, and rural populations.” The DTV switch has become one of those events that throw into especially sharp contrast the dividing lines between the haves and the have-nots. In this case, the line separates people who can afford to shell out for cable or satellite—or a spiffy new digital TV–and people who can’t, instead depending on over-the-air broadcasts to an older, analog television set. Only the latter group will cease to receive transmissions when digital-only service goes into effect, unless they have a properly installed “converter box.” Many of these same people, of course, also lack the resources to purchase and install the needed equipment, which is far from the effortless process featured in public service ads. But there are winners as well as losers in this dramatic relaunch of America’s favorite pasttime.

The analog-to-digital transition will free up a large band of spectrum (what once were commonly called airwaves), some of which will be dedicated to public safety communications. But the majority of this soon-to-be-vacant spectrum has been auctioned off to the highest bidder by the Federal Communications Commission, for use by advanced wireless broadband services. The original plans for the sell-off of spectrum were laid out in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The sale (along with reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and college loan programs) was supposed to help close the budget gap left largely by the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War.

The bulk of that spectrum was purchased by Verizon and AT&T, which are now positioned to further expand their market shares. Other providers of wireless services will take advantage of some additional open-access spectrum, thanks to a move engineered by Google. Current broadcasters are benefitting as well, since digital transmissions will enable them to put out more material in the space they have left. And the federal government is making a killing: All in all, the auction brought in more than $19 billion, but Congress allocated less than $2 billion to facilitate the transition. Most of that is going to private contractors: Electronics manufacturers and retailers have already sold millions worth of new equipment, much of it government-subsidized. The huge nonprofit AARP has received some $4 million in FCC contracts to help older consumers get ready for the switch, and IBM has received $12 million to operate “call center support services” once it happens.

As most people now know, the program designed to help the poor and cable-less deal with the transition–coupons that have to be ordered from the government and taken to stores to purchase converter boxes–has been an unmitigated disaster. The public education efforts about the changeover, according to both the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office were too little and too late. They were also confusing and incomplete, and focused on steering consumers toward information on web sites. It didn’t seem to occur to anyone that the people most likely to need converter boxes were the same people least likely to have computers, or know how to use them. (Even nursing home residents were advised to apply for coupons using “the paper application available downloadable [sic] at www.DTV2009.gov.”)

People who didn’t need coupons requested them, people who needed them didn’t get them, and people who had them sometimes still couldn’t afford to buy the boxes, which could cost up to $80. And then, with six weeks to go, the coupons ran out altogether, along with their funding–leaving more than a million people on a waiting list.

Those who managed to get their hands on a box found that they weren’t easy to hook up. And a lot of people will also need a new new indoor or outdoor antenna, which can cost anywhere from $20 to $150, and presents additional challenges. “Winter in Vermont is not when you want to be installing a rooftop antenna,” Senator Bernie Sanders ( I-VT) told the Associated Press. “Television is a connection to the outside world for many people. But if you’re 80 years old and living on Social Security, you may not be able to buy an antenna or hire someone to install it.” Even in June, it’s likely to prove too much for a lot of oldsters to handle–as portrayed by this very funny, but sadly accurate spoof on a PSA, from The Talkshow with Spike Feresten:

DTV PSA from Talkshow with Spike Feresten

Old folks–who possess 40 percent of the analog TVs receiving over-the-air transmissions–are certainly the most likely to get shafted in this deal. As I’ve discovered, even middle-class geezers with cable aren’t necessarily exempt. To read about my own adventures in digital TV conversion, visit my blog on the politics of aging, at www.unsilentgeneration.com.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate