If I Were King

For several years now, we’ve known that digital broadcast television was coming. In the US, the date decreed as the end of analog broadcast television was set as 17 February 2009. Yawn. This happened years after I had last actually tuned in to any broadcast television. It might have come up when I had cable, or maybe during one of the times I had satellite service. More likely, it happened when I didn’t have any access to any television at all. Yes, I do smugly feel superior by virtue of not watching television.

But my reaction to the end of broadcast TV wasn’t entirely selfish. I simply didn’t think anyone still received their signals this way. I flat out don’t know a single person who uses an antenna to pluck vidiocy from the ether. I know many who still watch, but they have long since gone beyond the limits of Channel 2 through 13, and won’t put up  with the reception quality anyway.

As Her Majesty often says to me, “You don’t get out enough.” It seems that millions have signed up for coupons that pay the first $40 of the cost of a converter box. In fact, the US government ran through the entire allocation of $1.34 billion as of last Sunday. Ignoring any overhead charges and postage, that would be 33.5 million coupons. They’ve started a waiting list.

President-elect Obama’s transition team has asked Congress for an extension of analog broadcasts, and they will doubtless pony up enough funds for millions of additional coupons. Last month there were 7.2 million requests. If those signals are of value to that many people, then that should be done. But that’s not why I mentioned it.

The FCC has already sold much of this spectrum, the successful bidders are certain to demand some compensation for any delay. But I have to wonder, does it really make sense to sell spectrum? That is, is the best use of our spectrum resources necessarily those that are most profitable? And if this is a public resource, why does the government get the money? Why not simply return this spectrum to the public and see what clever uses it gets put to? It is not necessarily the case that all good ideas for communications come from companies with deep pockets to buy spectrum, our clever citizens should be given room to play around.

The 4 November 2008 FCC ruling to release channels 21 to 51 for network transmission in locations where there is no TV station broadcasting is a good start, but only certified devices will be permitted. That’s fine for players like Microsoft and Google, who pushed for the decision. If I Were King, I’d make the next big chunk of spectrum available to the public, with no licensing or certification required, with nothing more than a requirement that signals not interfere with uses outside the frequency range and that power be limited, possibly to 250 watts – enough to actually do something useful over meaningful distances. The creative potential of tinkerers and experimenters has been constrained by the heavy hand of government for far too long.

Lilly M. Ledbetter went to work for Goodyear at its Gadsden, Alabama tire plant in 1979. I’ve never been inside a tire plant, but I imagine that it’s not a particularly genteel place. Almost twenty years later, as Goodyear’s business declined to the point where layoffs were underway and plant closure was in the wind, it came to light that male managers of similar responsibility were making as much as 40% more than Ledbetter. Oops. The law doesn’t allow pay differentials based on sex or age. Ledbetter sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was awarded a judgment of almost $4 million.

Goodyear appealed, the district court ruled in Goodyear’s favor on several points and knocked the judgment down into the realm of reality, $360,000. Goodyear, elated at the victory, promptly sent over a cashier’s check and two dozen roses. Sorry, Goodyear appealed to the 11th District court which raised additional issues, and finally the case landed at the US Supreme Court where, last year, the company prevailed completely.

The reason? Claims under Title VII have to be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Now I may be out of touch with the norms of the workplace, having only worked as an employee for about three years of my adult life, but I’m pretty sure that in most environments you don’t know exactly what your coworkers get paid. As a recent hire in a large factory, I’m guessing that there is no way to find out what your co-evals take home, and no way to ascertain whether the difference is based on merit, length of employment, or discrimination in the first few months on the job. Even after ten years, I doubt that enough information would be readily available to go to court. By any logic, every pay review that is based on the previous wage or salary is ratification, by the employer, of their original discrimination.

Yesterday, the House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 247 to 171. President Bush announced that he would veto the bill along with another employment discrimination bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, passed the same day. But who cares? Knowing the lamentable Shrub’s feelings, consideration of these bills by the Senate will be timed so that he won’t be sitting at the desk when the bill arrives for the president’s signature.

The rules of litigation probably mean that Ledbetter won’t get anything from Goodyear. If I Were King, I’d make sure that this went back to court so the new rules would allow Ledbetter to enhance her retirement. And the argument that discrimination needs to be identified, documented, and papers filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory action by an employer? I’d suggest that it be put to good use, mulching the corporate rose garden at Akron, Ohio. I’m sure there is enough of this sort of rich organic material already available at Crawford, Texas that Goodyear can have it all.