Tauzin Sets 2006 Deadline For Digital TV Signals 33
randomErr writes "Yahoo! News says that 'Television broadcasters would be required to switch entirely to digital, copy-protected signals by January 2006, under a proposal released on Thursday by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin.'"
Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the ink on his check is dry yet?
A comprimise? (Score:4, Insightful)
TV Network owners: We won't upgrade our equipment to digital, because it's too damn expensive, and people won't switch the new TV's because they're too damn expensive
Government: Well, what if we added this new copyright protection scheme as a comprimise. Would you upgrade your equipment if we included copyright protection?
TV Network: Deal!
So now the masks are off (Score:4, Insightful)
At least they're coming out and saying that they're interested in the restrictions of consumer rights.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to get a case of somebody who is suing the government for destroying their fair use rights.
In other news.. (Score:1, Insightful)
"We feel that there's not enough progress being made in the area of computer operating systems, so it is time for government to become involved," one representative was quoted as saying.
Seem ridiculous? It does, doesn't it? Sure, operating systems and digital tv are somewhat different, so how about another example?
Should the government step onto the internet and demand we all get rid of TCP/IP in favor for, say, a more secure protocol? Hey, maybe they could step in and force fuel cells and electric cars.
Shit, why don't we throw it all to hell and just cash in our Constitution for some nice socialist papers?
I could see the government becoming involved in business when lives are at stake. (Say, a company selling death machines on shoddy tires.) But lack of digital TV isn't causing the death of anyone.
Ah well. I propose changes to our currency. It should read, "E Pluribus Unim. In god we trust. Bling bling bling!"
tauzin bill (Score:2, Insightful)