SCREEN-L Archives

March 1992


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mark Bunster <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 1 Mar 1992 17:11:30 EST
<[log in to unmask]>; from "Jim Sullivan" at Mar 1, 92 12:16 pm
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (33 lines)
I admire your effort to post such a letter to the list, Mr. Sullivan, and I
also welcome your sincere desire to do something about the US's current
	On a wholly constructive (I hope) level, however, I was somewhat
disappointed to discover that the only thing simple and workable about your
proposal was the proposal itself. I'm concerned as to exactly HOW D-TV would
become the national research focus leading to US leadership with respect to
that technology.
	One of the main reasons Japan and Germany (but Japan especially) have
taken the lead in a number of technologies is that the governments of those
countries are directly involved with decisions affecting how businesses
operate. When Japan sees a new technology avenue, the government corrals
CEO's and engineers from all of the top companies, explains that Japan wishes
them to develop, say, HDTV, and pretty much commands them to do it and have
it ready yesterday.
	The US, by virtue of their traditional laissez faire attitude towards
business, would have a near-impossible time trying to do the same thing. No
one here seems to understand that cooperation can work for everyone; Zenith
would rather pursue its own avenues and hope to reap gigantic rewards for its
own (I just used them as an example--Zenith is not alone).
	I agree with you that DTV is a technology that should be pursued as a
country rather than by one company or another. Unfortunately for us, that's
not how our system works, and changing the system is admirable and probably
preferable but renders your proposal not the least bit simple and only
marginally workable. Let's get a national strategy togther and THEN work
piece by piece on good projects like that you discuss.
	I must say I'm stumped as how to do this, and it's easy for me to be
a naysayer to your hard work and thought. I would appreciate if you or anyone
could address my concerns.
Back to the silly--