Your last sentence hits the nail on the head, Scott. In the case of
HDTV, the mandate gives the corporations a new revenue stream; it's
planned (and forced) obsolescence at its finest. The citizen has to
pay, not the corporation.
In metrication, it's exactly the opposite. Though, if you think about
it, every citizen has to pay in a way by being forced to use an outdated
and, frankly, difficult & impractical system of measure.
So in both situations, we lose. Great.
What we need is a way of spinning this so that it's not considered a
money loser, but rather a money maker. If metrication is proposed as
something that will streamline business, make global trade easier, and
ultimately help to increase profits, you'll see acceptance. Americans
generally don't care about interaction with the rest of the world,
because they simply don't *have* any interaction with the rest of the
world. But when it comes to money, they listen.
Just my 2 pence. [they're worth more than cents ;)]
-Mike
Scott Hudnall wrote:
I was reading an article on high-definition televisions, and how the
US government has mandated that all TV stations broadcast in HD only
beginning in 2009. This will cost consumers several thousand dollars
each to replace a television set, or at minimum several hundred
dollars each to purchase a converter box.
This is a costly mandate - yet we do not see a groundswell of
opposition or lobbyists trying to de-rail implementation of this
rule. The cost for the US to complete metrication in short order is
probably less than what it would cost for us to all replace our
televisions next year. So why is it that metrication is portrayed as
a costly endeavor, but making everyone buy new TV sets is not? I
guess it depends on who is paying the bill - consumers or
corporations.
Sorry for the ranting.
Scott
