The analogue switch-off – which will put Mexico at the forefront of Latin America as the first country in the region to start the transition towards digital technology – has been postponed in its first stage. Former President Felipe Calderón announced on October 2012 that Tijuana would be a pioneer city in eliminating analogue communications and that the switch-off would occur on May 29th, 2013. In fact, it happened, but the measure was reversed hours later for electoral reasons (supposedly). Beyond arguing what caused this sui generis extension, what is actually the switch-off? What are their benefits and who, in any given case, might not be happy with it?
The cease of analogue broadcasting that leads to digital signal frees up the radio-electric spectrum and allows new competitor to digital markets: TV, radio, telephone and Internet industries. It favors content plurality, boosts the supply of specialized publicity and reduces the monopolies of companies that are currently occupying all TV programs in few analogue channels, thus fixing prices and publicity rates without a true margin for negotiation. In 2009, following the worldwide trend (that Europe started in 2006 with the Netherlands), a fixation date for Mexico was set through a Presidential decree to transit from analogue to digital signal not later than December 31st, 2015. By that time, all television networks should broadcast in digital format and, most importantly, the general population must have acquired the necessary equipment to experience it.
On May 2012, the Federal Telecommunications Commission (COFETEL) approved a scaled transition procedure, whose subsidy will amount 13.188 billion pesos to provide free decoders to the population that doesn’t have cable TV. Tijuana was selected as a pilot city to begin given that its proximity with USA has made possible the investment of numerous digital stations and the familiarization of its population with the benefits of this new technology. Regardless of the success that COFETEL reported about the switch-off results (93% of coverage in the city), the Commission accepted, after a recommendation issued by the Federal Electoral Institute, to delay the switch-off after the July 7th elections to be held in Baja California (the only one that has a Governorship at stake). The justification used was that 14,000 homes in Tijuana (those who don’t possess digital technology) would be discriminated regarding their access to the main media outlet of political messages: television.
Without taking into account excuses or arguments, the Tijuana experiment has created great controversy on the criteria used to guarantee the success towards digital transition. A crucial factor is a review to the switch-off schedule, which would also raise the question about what extraordinary measures should COFETEL take in order to minimize the risks in the process in a multicultural country lagging behind on several areas. Has COFETEL made a plan on how to respond to such different scenarios? Likewise, there are economic and political forces interested in resisting or delaying the switch-off which, undoubtedly, is an inevitable phenomenon. For instance, after the switch-off, TV networks should be able to give back to the government a part of the radio-electric spectrum so it can offer new concessions. This would take away the possibility of exploiting the gigantic bandwidth that would be liberated when the analogue signals come to an end.
It is not idle to say that it’s essential that COFETEL procures the harmonization of future switch-offs with election processes or, even, with certain events that significantly impact Mexican audiences and that could become “cannon fodder” of TV networks for protests against digitalization. The major risk of the latter will surely be the next soccer World Cup finals to be held on summer of 2014. It would be outrageous if the coming stages of digital transition would ensue with new justifications to delay it. In the current context and regardless of the effectiveness of the first days of the Tijuana switch-off, the public perception is once again focused on the weakness of institutions whenever major interests of factual powers are affected.
CIDAC
Comments