Digital-TV Debate should Focus on Consumers, First Responders

[Commentary] One of the critical issues facing Congress this fall is how to complete the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. If done properly, this transition will produce significant benefits for the public, first responders and wireless innovators. But all will pay if it is not done right. The good news is that there are many areas of agreement. Most agree that establishing a hard date is necessary to end the transition. There is also general agreement that 2009 is an appropriate timeframe. And, although draft legislation put forward by my Republican colleagues offered no transition assistance for consumers, there now appears to be a growing appreciation of the need to assist consumers in this government-induced change. The bad news is that House Republicans, to protect their tax cuts, appear intent on limiting this assistance, forcing Americans to reach into their wallets to purchase equipment to keep their television sets working. Although the government will likely reap at least $10 billion in revenue from auctioning the returned broadcast spectrum, some in Congress want to curtail artificially the amount used to cover transition expenses imposed on ordinary people. That could force millions of consumers to pay a television tax of $20 or more per set just to keep their sets working. Why should ordinary people pay for a government decision that makes their television sets obsolete? Moreover, nearly 21 million U.S. television households, which are disproportionately low-income and minority, rely exclusively on over-the-air reception. If Congress chooses to accelerate the return of analog broadcast spectrum, why should consumers who rely on this spectrum for their local news, weather and emergency alerts be taxed to pay for it? The digital-television transition should not force billions of dollars of transition costs on the unsuspecting American people and should not leave first responders without the resources they need.