One of the main points that I wanted to make is that when the
government wants to accomplish something that requires a lot of
people to change, they have no problem doing it. With the HDTV issue,
somebody still has to bear some one-time costs, whether consumers, or
taxpayers. Why can't it be like this with metrication? Is it because
1-time costs will be borne by businesses rather than taxpayers? I bet
if we gave a generous 1-time tax-incentive to businesses who
permanently metricate, they would be rushing to get it done.
On 2007-06 -04, at 19:16 , m. f. moon wrote:
I posted a note to Scott about the desire of the government to
auction off the
vhf bands to generate more money for the government rather than
raise taxes.
Your comment about the money is partially on target. There are
other forces at
work also and they relate to the various entertainment elements.
The desire to
integrate computers and TV driven by MS. The desire to have higher
definition
games. The desire to have higher definition movies in wide screen
format and
so on. The end product is in my opinion a total sham but you need
to study the
various issues in detail to understand them. A short note here is
too hard to
do.
About 20% of the tv viewing audience receive only over the air
(OTA) tv and
these are mostly low income people who will probably be subsidized
by the same
government to make up for the lose of normal tv. They will most
likely not get
high def but a lower resolution picture but of higher quality.
m moon
------ Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:08:22 PM PDT
From: Michael Palumbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:38856] Re: Costly government mandates
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outdated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
