The Politics of Protocol: Understanding the Zeroes and Ones of Digital Television 
Ruffin Bailey, N.C. State University
Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media

If digital television has forced the obsolescence of the legacy home theatre - from remote controls to VCRs down to the aspect ratio of television screens - what can we learn from a study of digital television's protocol? Digital media allows the amalgamation of once foreign genres, with infinitely deferred translation, to share common conduits of transmission without prejudice. Where analog was re-engineered to add closed captioning and secondary audio programming (SAP), DTV easily inserts electronic programming guides and as many audio channels as the broadcaster desires. Should we expect the new metadata to include spreadsheets supporting news reports, image maps with weather, and searchable statistic tickers with our sports?

If generic translations are possible positives, how do the zeroes and ones also restrict what can be "said"? Higher definition video has plainly been favored at the expense of data redundancy and clear reception. This transition, unlike color, is not backwards compatible. Will broadcasters finesse a use for digital rights management on the public airwaves? What stops continued changes in format from quickly obsolescing more hardware in an attempt to feed the interests of consumer capitalism, as heavily self-policing HDMI devices already accomplish? 

Protocol evokes and enforces materiality; DTV is no exception. Barack Obama's staff questions the nation's readiness. Each major television network recommends delaying the long-publicized transition date. The president of PBS warns that poorer households may lose television completely. 

What are the politics of the protocol hitting the public's airwaves? Which stakeholders' interests are revealed by an exploration of its bits? Where was and is the voice of the academy in the formation and implementation of this remediation of an old forum?