Why The Digital Transition Should Not Be Delayed

The digital transition is less than a month away and the pre-switch jitters are rising to the top. President Barack Obama has already called for a delay and now TV Technology reports that incoming Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced a bill to Congress recommending the DTV transition date be pushed back until June 12, 2009, from its current date of February 17, 2009.

This is in addition to The Digital Television Border Act of 2007, which is a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee. Hutchison's bill, which passed the Senate last week, allows broadcasters along the US/Mexico border to ask the FCC for permission to broadcast in analog up to four years after the transition.

According to TV Technology, Hutchison cites the delay is needed for residents along the border to continue receiving AMBER alerts and Emergency Alert System messages. The Texas Senator is also concerned with Spanish-language stations north of the border losing analog viewers south of the border because there is no coupon program for the DTV converter boxes in Mexico.

This brings me to my thoughts on why the digital transition should not be delayed. Feel free to add more to this or to the other comments on Obama's recommendation to delay the switch to digital.

• Are our members of Congress and new President displaying cold feet? This wouldn't be the first time the digital transition has been delayed but would this be a shaky first decision by our new commander in chief and one that could set a precedent of last second bailouts - not that we haven't set that precedent already? How would the world react to our digital panic? What message would this send to our nation when we try to convert to an alternative energy source or try to phase out gas-powered vehicles?
• What do we say to Hawaii or Wilmington, NC? These are two communities that already made the switch to digital, which by all accounts seems to have succeeded as planned minus a few hiccups in Hawaii.
• Fear of change is natural but change is needed to develop as a society. What's another four months going to buy us? There will always be someone that is unprepared. There will always be support issues, confusion, misinformation, etc. Let's finish off that final five percent of the project, which has already been delayed a couple times.
• What about the broadcasters that have spent years preparing for this switch and spent millions of dollars on upgrading equipment? Surely, a delay will cause them unnecessary stress and financial loss.
• Worrying about whether or not residents of Mexico receive American television is not how I envisioned the the purpose of the digital transition. As a resident of Texas, I acknowledge that AMBER alerts are critical due to the high rate of kidnappings along the border but delaying a huge technology conversion is not the answer for these kidnappings. Besides, I get my AMBER alerts on my cell phone, not television. But, I have a feeling part of Hutchison's concern for TV stations along the border is advertising revenue because of the assumption that they will lose Mexican viewers once analog disappears.
• It's time. Digital is far superior for TV and consumer interactivity than analog. We need the analog bandwidth for emergency services. As our climate changes, natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could become more frequent. Our police, fire, rescue groups, etc, need open lines of communication to help prepare and react to these tragedies.