This provocative article from our Ed Milbourn will echo forward for a long time to come. While broadcasting is still a robust business the cracks in its business model are severe. Analog technology once dictated the business model for telecasting, but that is now remade beyond recognition with the advent of digital technology. What lays ahead for the use of broadcast spectrum? Let Ed Milbourn open your mind to an exciting and creative future. _ Dale Cripps

__________________________________________________


Don't panic! This may be a very good thing for HDTV. Sometimes it takes a seminal, very disruptive event to cause a fundamental change in traditional business and/or political models to ensure survival. Failure to make those changes usually results in complete disaster. Successful change, however, usually results in the surviving entity being stronger, more vibrant and successful than before. History is replete with examples or this phenomenon, so I won't belabor this tome with any further philosophical discussions. Suffice saying, however, traditional OTA (over-the-air) television broadcast may be upon that seminal event - the 2009 digital transition date.

In spite of all of the publicity, the subsidized digital converter and economic attraction of "free" HDTV, an increasingly smaller percentage of viewers are...

Read the Full Article

Wow! A "provocative" article by Ed, indeed.

> one thing is clear; there is no room for "HDTV" in this spectrum equation, nor should there be. ...will not be distributed via their OTA spectrum and will not have to be compromised by it. <

So, screw over the 60 million OTA-watching citizens of the USA by taking away analog, and forcing them to go digital (and pay the price to do so). All with the carrot of HDTV (yes, I'm fully aware that the FCC mandated no such thing).

Then screw them over again by dropping HDTV from OTA entirely, after they've gone out and bought new HDTVs, with ATSC tuners. Isn't capitalism wonderful?

- Tim

P.S. BTW, I'm a digital-transition promoter (though my Dad is not), but I hope you're wrong about factoring HD out of the OTA equation, Ed. Unfortunately, seeing the effects that multi-casting is already having on HD PQ, I wouldn't be surprised to see this prediction come to pass.

P.P.S. > This may be a very good thing for HDTV. <

I fail to see how forcing folks to pay for cable or satellite service is a "very good thing" for HDTV? Especially when satellite broadcasters have already demonstrated they have NO commitment to HDTV quality, only quantiity. Perhaps Ed could expound on that statement?

Just read with interest an article by some guy named "Ed" which
insinuated that OTA broadcasters would not be sending out free
HDTV signals in the near future. He must not be aware that thousands of viewers are "dropping the dish" and going back
to a rooftop antenna just to get free HDTV. I joined this informed
group of TV watchers almost a year ago and noticed that there are
new channels broadcasting in HDTV coming online almost weekly.
Do you think for one minute that the networks are going to p***
off literally hundreds of thousands of OTA viewers by doing this?
Talk about a slam dunk class action lawsuit!
I am very happy with my decision to "drop the dish" and go back
to a rooftop antenna. The monthly savings has already paid for my
big screen HDTV and I am getting better TV than I ever did. I get
over 30 digital channels and thats a hell of a lot more than I have time to watch, eh? And they ain't those worthless shopping or music channels, either!

It (HDTV) just will not be distributed via their OTA spectrum and will not have to be compromised by it.

I'm very confused by this article. I fail to understand how OTA HDTV would be quality-compromised. From, what I've seen so far, it seems like cable and satellite systems are the ones compromising HD quality by overly aggressive compression in the interests of cramming more channels into the pipeline. Unless OTA broadcasters try to put HD and multiple SD channels in their 6 MHz, OTA HD should be as good as it gets.

And who the heck is interested in viewing HD on mobile/handheld devices?

Outrageous, infuriating! Ever since the beginning of the radio era, the spectrum has been under attack; but never as aggressively until now. It seems the capitalist corporations believe that the spectrum belongs to them, to do as they please. However, it is not capitalist property; the spectrum belongs to the citizens and not the corporations or the government. A broadcaster is licensed to use the spectrum according to the FCC rules and regulations. A major component of the licensing requirement is public service. Clearly, the public expects, as it should be, the obvious benefits of free HDTV as an enticement to support the digital transition. In addition, the Congress, FCC and broadcasters all have embraced HDTV over the public airwaves. So lets see, watch HDTV on a big screen TV or watch SDTV (or worse PQ) on a 3 inch mobile handheld device; surprise, it’s a no brainer! I have no desire for a handheld mobile wireless TV gizmo. I get my TV solely from an OTA antenna and watch mostly HDTV programming. In addition, there are many with satellite who get the locals OTA and save the extra charge. In my neighborhood, there are new TV antennas that spring up on a regular basis.

There are a couple of things that jump out at me after reading Ed's article:

First, I think the market for mobile/handheld TV is 'way overestimated. I suppose there is some limited market for road warriers and short-attention-span U-tubers, but I would guess that most of us would rather sit down and relax while catching up on our favorite shows. And, for most of us, that's a shared experience - not a squinting, lonely, pathetic one.

Second, even if local broadcasters unilaterally decide to limit HDTV distribution to cable/satellite distribution channels, what is to keep the networks from pulling their affiliations if they do so? If I'm one of the Big Four, and my expensively-produced HD shows are only going to be seen on cable and satellite anyway, I'm going to make distribution deals direct with those guys.

Brad

To me the mobile/hand held Digital TV is one of the most useless devices made by man. PDAs, Laptops, and mobile computing at least do something useful. I can think of no reason why I'd ever want to carry around a tiny screen TV. If I need up-to-date news the portable radio will do just fine. However the question remains what will happen to the advertising supported business model of "free to the consumer" over the air television and in particular, HD television. I see no reason why the same model would not continue to work just as well as in the past for OTA HD

As a substitute, I find cable to be less reliable, of a lesser quality, and with poor service (outages).
However I find the OTA stations (meaning major networks) to carry little of interest and watered down programming to the point of making movies almost unrecognizable. As far as TV over the Internet or Internet Television the bandwidth in general is just too small to give widespread coverage with full screen images even on the 22, 19 or even 17" screens, at least in real time. Given a couple hours on a 5 meg connection you can download a reasonably good program. Maybe in the future, but so far I've seen little to impress me.

I have Satellite, OTA, and cable here. Cable is for high speed internet that came as a package with basic cable stations. IF I need the local news I do get that OTA. However be they movies, documentaries, music, or reasonably interesting programs they come from satellite.

If ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX disappeared tomorrow it would likely take me a month or two before I'd notice.

I have read the comments up to this point and find what is a very universal trait. We all presume the markets are going to be as we envisage them now. We all are quite ethnocentric in our views quite like this nation of ours when seeking political harmony with other nations. Marketing teaches above all that we are not one group of people all having the same desires and wants. We are as diverse as the plant life on earth and everyone in this country has as much right to influence the use of spectrum as does another. Ed wrote this article as a result of being in communication with several broadcasters who had come to the conclusions represented in his articles.

One thing seldom recalled by the public, but yet is THE law, is that a television station has no obligation what-so-ever to telecast over its newly assigned digital airwaves any HDTV. A station has a legal obligation only to replicate the analog services on one of the digital channels which it can carve out of the 6Mz spectrum alloted to it. That means a television station can chop up that spectrum into four or five 480i resolution channels with programming fit for a segment of their audience. One sub-channel may be carrying Hispanic programming while another is Asian and a third is Arabic and another directed to handheld devices receiving music or news. I don't agree with the vision that produces this kind of mixed use, but you know I am fast becoming a minority in this nation. I am certainly not 16 running around all day with an iPod or Zune or any other hand held video contraption. Market forces will shape the future more than your fist pounding. Be sure you are part of the market studies and being represented. Take our survey and be heard! That is about all any of us can do. Picket the streets and rage at the moon as long as you like, but until you effect a change in the FCC ruling, you are not going to get any guarantee that HDTV will be sent to your antenna or if it is today that it will continue. In all practicality I will say that those stations already investing in HDTV equipment are doing so because they either want to do that as a public servant or they think it is the best use and business for the spectrum under their management. As patrons we can impact all this by honoring their sponors. _Dale Cripps

Keep in mind that there is no legal condition that mandates broadcasters to send to you HDTV. The federal mandate is to go to digital with at least one program equal to what was dropped in analog and of the same technical quality as was the analog service. We see more evidence in the National Association of Broadcasters' press release below that Ed is on the right track.


November 12, 2007

NAB TO HELP FUND OPEN MOBILE VIDEO COALITION

NAB Board Approves $750K Allocation to Advance Mobile DTV Technology --


WASHINGTON, DC - Underscoring NAB's continued support to bring broadcast DTV service to mobile and handheld devices, the NAB Board of Directors allocated $750,000 to the Open Mobile Video Coalition (OMVC) during the trade group's October Board meeting.

"Accelerating the development and implementation of mobile digital broadcast television is crucial to the future of broadcast TV and will provide viewers with an additional platform to receive our high-value content," said ION Media Networks President and CEO Brandon Burgess, who is leading the effort.

The Open Mobile Video Coalition represents 422 commercial TV stations and 361 public stations. At NAB's June meeting, the NAB Television Board of Directors unanimously passed a motion to actively support the efforts of the OMVC.

"NAB is actively working to ensure a bright and vibrant future for broadcasters," said NAB President and CEO David K. Rehr. "The digital era of broadcast TV will bring a plethora of options for both broadcasters and viewers, and NAB's financial commitment to the OMVC is an important step in furthering that goal."

More information about the Open Mobile Video Coalition can be found at www.openmobilevideo.com.

According to the ATSC-MH-RFP_rev1.doc, (a request for proposal) one of the questions that the responder must answer is:

“What is the system efficiency including the tradeoffs between robustness, number and quality of services (including picture & sound) that can achieved for mobile and handheld services relative to the payload that can be maintained for traditional ATSC Services?”

From:
APPENDIX 1 – REQUIREMENTS FOR ATSC MOBILE AND HANDHELD SERVICES

“Any H/M solution should have sufficient flexibility to offer a viable service with bit-rates that do not devalue existing DTV services, inclusive of HDTV. No specific bit-rate allocation restriction exists except that U.S. broadcasters are to provide a service that continues to conform to FCC requirements.”


Certainly, the objective of the request is for HDTV and H/M services; but remember this is not a demonstrated or proven capability. The mobile data stream is multiplexed into the main ATSC stream (if the same as the MPH technique) and the broadcaster must decide how much bandwidth to devote to mobile services. Quality HDTV requires the full 6Mhz bandwidth using 1920x1080i MPEG2 video compression. Even using the full bandwidth is an engineering compromise to fit the HD data stream into 6Mhz. Extra bandwidth for mobile use can be liberated by several methods. Obviously over compression will free up bandwidth but at the expense of the main channel. Less drastic methods may exist that take advantage of low motion periods to opportunistically free up bandwidth for mobile use.

Other M/H factors to keep in mind (from appendix 1):

1. “The presence of these services shall not preclude or prevent operation of current ATSC services in the same RF channel or have any adverse impact on legacy receiving equipment (Backwards Compatible).”
2. “Current ATSC receivers are not expected to be able to decode or display ATSC-M/H services.”

I have read many usenet posts that have stated the only FCC requirement is one SDTV channel. This is true but there is more to the story, one of assurance. There are undoubtedly more references, but here is one. A report from Robert Graves, Chairman ATSC Forum, see ATSCDTVUpdate-Graves.pdf Page 6 of 33.

1. Allow broadcasters great flexibility in the use of DTV
channels
– No requirement for HDTV
– Broadcasters had already made clear commitments
to the FCC and Congress to provide HDTV
2. Must offer one free over-the-air programming service
with quality equivalent to analog throughout broadcast
day
3. Broadcasters can provide any desired mix of digital
offerings
4. Must pay 5% fee on gross revenues for services that are
not free


Notice "Broadcasters had already made clear commitments
to the FCC and Congress to provide HDTV".

Clearly there is public and government expectation for OTA HDTV.

I hope we don't loose OTA HDTV. As a 75 year old my world has changed almost more than I can bear. I can remember when AM was all we had and it was great until pressure from other age groups made it what it is today--garbage. The same for FM, except for Public Radio and a local station playing Jazz and Big Band the rest is mostly--garbage. Other folks now want Gay Pride parades etc and I find that disgusting --garbage. And do you think I can find a church in my city which still uses an organ and piano and traditional hymns and is not pushing the gay agenda? No--I have found a church where the preaching is good so we go 30 minutes late to catch the sermon, the music--garbage. I had a satelite once but I could only watch 5 or 6 of the 150 channels because other age groups demanded sex,profanity and pointless/disgusting advertising. Then came the day I had to deal with 5 levels of customer service which still couldn't solve a technical problem so the sat went in the--garbage. Thank goodness for OTA PBS, excellent programing and free except for our support donation. Were OTA broadcasting taken away my antenna and tv would go to the--garbage. Then we would get to know many more neighbors and sit around on the porch in the evening enjoying each other! I really do hope that other age groups or marketing gurus do not change my world any further by screwing up whats left.

Bill Wood

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was outraged when one of the ABC king pins said at a Paul Kagan conference in NYC back in 1991 that ABC would explore multiple uses of the 6MHz digital channel that may not include HDTV. McCain, like many people, had misread the original intent of broadcasting as layed out in a petitiion to the FCC. Why was the birth of HDTV to come through the terrestrial broadcasters in the first place? It could have technically been launched by satellite and/or cable first, leaving broadcasters completely out of the picture.

That fear of being left out gave rise to the now-famous 1987 petition to the FCC signed by 57 broadcast groups requesting a freeze on spectrum allotments until the challenging question about HDTV transmission was fully answered. The petition contained no promise by broadcasters to drive the HDTV market or even did it suggest that they would cause it to happen. (As it turned out they did contribute the most to the birth of HD.)

HDTV was clearly seen by leading communications executives as something appealing to the national appetite, though certain to be laborious in its coming. If it took off in cable or satellite or both and broadcasting was not a part of it, the fifth estate was sure to be toast. The argument heard from the the NAB in 1987 was that the nation must have free-over-the-air television for news and analysis as an essential servant to democracy. The public, they said, should not be forced to pay cable for it. If the broadcasting business collapsed from an abandoment of viewers the most vulnerable in our society would be disenfranchised. Nowhere in the petition did it say that broadcasters were out to advance the state-of-the-art in some public service way nor did it suggest that they are in a work to bring to the public HDTV. What the petition said is that broadcasting is a national treasure and an essential part of the democratic process and should not be driven out of business by a foreign technical marvel better fitted to come sooner than later by way of a pay cable or satellite service. They had to have enough spectrum and a standard.

There never had been anything prohibiting cable from plunging in at any time to drive it other than they too were not ready and needed to be coordinated with the technology broadcasting would adopt. The most important people in television set making believed that it would take the credibility of broadcasting to convince the American people that HDTV was for real. Cable didn't have the stature to carry it alone. Broadcasting had to do it and it was the lobbying of this point by the manufacturers that had Senator McCain rising up to say that the government was duped by broadcasters who said they needed spectrum for HDTV and now they want to use it for multicasting..



A litttle more background:
The FCC assigned the task of answering the technical questions leading to a new standard to a committee headed by former FCC Chairman, Richard E. Wiley, himself a washington attorney with a budding K Street practice. Wiley formed the ACATS (Advisory Committee for Advanced Television Services) bringing in as his board a blue ribbon group of top CEOs hailing from all parts of broadcasting, cable, satellite, and their suppliers. After nine years of development the standard was set (December of 1986) and the rules of engagement were written by the FCC and commented upon. In the course of the development it became clear that digital telecasting was possible and with that advent came a new set of circumstances -- fragmentation of the signal for a variety of services was now possible. One no longer need to devote all of the 6MHz signal19.3 Mb/s to HDTV. The ATSC standard for picture quality to accomdate new possibilities then extended from 480i to 1080i, It was determined that in the 19.3 Mb/s would support a single HDTV program or several of a lesser quality.

In the course of events leading to the standard there had been serious discussions about mobile reception. At that time our environment was less likely to engage mobile television services. It was not until recently that the idea of handhelds become the talk of the town. The ATSC is now busy developing a standard for doing that (as noted by other posters)

If a point is to be found in all of this it is that the broadcasting industry will do with its spectrum what the law permits and business dictates. If the business dictates that it be a prime time four hours of HD and 20 hours of SDTV in all its variations, then that is how it will be. If it turns out that even during prime time an SDTV multichannel handheld or other use provides the better business proposition, there is nothing in the law today to prohibit that. I will note that there are broadcasters with a public servant's heart and then there are broadcasters who see it only as a money pump. Looking ten years ahead the outlook is mixed but it is still quite predictable that some of the TV stations will be operating much as they do today and even more predictable that others will be entirely unrecognizable from what they are today.

tlp95129 wrote:

It (HDTV) just will not be distributed via their OTA spectrum and will not have to be compromised by it.

I'm very confused by this article. I fail to understand how OTA HDTV would be quality-compromised. From, what I've seen so far, it seems like cable and satellite systems are the ones compromising HD quality by overly aggressive compression in the interests of cramming more channels into the pipeline. Unless OTA broadcasters try to put HD and multiple SD channels in their 6 MHz, OTA HD should be as good as it gets.

And who the heck is interested in viewing HD on mobile/handheld devices?

Broadcasting has just as many ways to degrade an image as do any of the multichannel providers. It is all in bit allocation. So far a single broadcast channel going digital usually has no other business venture as yet tosupport nor do they carry other channels, like satellite or cable do. So, they have not had any reason to degrade the image by lowering bit allocation and assigning the saved bits to another of their services. But the point of Ed's article is that the day is coming when the business dictates that the signal will be chopped up to make numerous sub-channels, some for mobile or handheld applications. Yes, there is no reason to have full HDTV on a handheld.

I believe that although is easy to assume that mobile services using the 6MHz bandwidth of a HDTV channel could potentially degrade the quality of a good HD signal that is already broadcasting at the full 19.4 Mbps, it is also possible that the mobile transmission version of a given channel use the bandwidth of other alternative local broadcasting channels to whom the FCC has given 6 MHz and are not actually using the entire bandwidth for what they are broadcasting (for example, a single SD channel that only uses 3-4 Mbps).

In other words, it might not be a demise of broadcasting HD if the allocation of mobile signals is done wisely, but the risk exists if not done properly.

I covered this subject in August this year on this series of articles:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/08/mobile_dtv_reception_-_advanced-vestigial_side-band_a-vsb_-_the_system.php

The analysis of how to do the allocation I mention above is toward the end of the series.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra