November 15, 1996
I think that the FCC should allow HDTV and computer
companies to combine. Only one television screen/monitor will be needed
in the home and the melding of the two will create a new generation of
media. As a college student and communications major, I have studied HDTV.
I believe that the FCC should create standards before interest in HDTV
is lost. �A Consumer
I spent more than $6 thousand on computer equipment
and it doesn't work. The computer industry needs to fix its own problem
first before stepping into the television industry. �Peter Kazemi, Graphic
Artist
Competent television engineers do believe, as do the
CICATS proponents, that progressive-scan is preferable in the long term
to interlace scan. �Charles Pantuso, HD-Vision
Richard E. Wiley was FCC Chairman in the 70s. It was private citizen
Wiley, however, who led a tough industry march that created the world's
most advanced television system. He did it to answer the request from Government
to get the United States in the lead. It took nine years�longer than it
has taken for any other standardization process in telecommunication�s
history. It began as analog work. It ended an all-digital system. One might
say the transition to digital television all started with Wiley. Its nearing
our turn just as soon as we get over the last, and by far, the most treacherous
hurdles.
The standard for HDTV and standard digital television was unanimously
voted upon late last year by the Government's Advisory Committee On Advanced
Television Services�the one Chaired by Dick Wiley. The Advanced Television
Systems Committee (ATSC) had documented the work a earlier and when it
left ACATS� hand it became known to the world as the ATSC DTV standard.
. It was handed to the FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, November 28, 1996 to await
his action.
Months passed�nearly six�since the submission, and still no action was
taken by the FCC. Wiley grew restless. The Grand Alliance--the association
of companies that created the standard--grew even more restless. No word
from the Chairman�no stirrings at all. It was more and more obvious that
FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, was no fan of DTV (the all-inclusive new term
for HDTV and standard definition digital television). This was not his
issue. He was focused more to the internet. HDTV had started long before
his arrival. But it was now on his watch to conclude along with the avalanche
of things coming down from Congress as a result of the �95 telecom bill.
He had plenty to do besides overhauling the entire broadcast industry.
Finally, in May of this year pressure mounted and he pushed the standard
approval procedure onto the FCC agenda. The Agency issued its Notice Of
Proposed Rule Making�the 6th since opening the file on HDTV, on May 9th.
Comments and reply comments from all parts of the industry were solicited
and the last came due in November, 1996. The decision on the standard would
be made from the comments and reply comments. Hundt had promised Congress
he would not set a standard nor allocate digital channels until the elections
were held in November, and Congress returned from the Holidays. The broadcasters
and manufacturers want it all done before the end of this year. A Report
and Order will be issued after the vote by the four FCC Commissioners,
Hundt, Chong, Ness, and the senior Commissioner, Quello. The best guess
is that the vote will not happen before the end of the first quarter. That
R&O will spell out in detail the government�s rules regarding the standard
and the spectrum to use it.
Time rust all things, but faster, it seems, for a standard waiting to
be deployed. Each minute ticks by giving space for new ideas to be born
able to challenge the submission in hand. While new ideas do surface, the
ATSC standard is the only one fully tested, documented, and formally submitted
to the FCC for approval. That approval was once thought little more than
a formality�a rubber stamp. But that is clearly not the case today.
More Than Television?
The digital information highway exploded on the scene in mid-development
to add a vast complexity to the transition into digital broadcasting. Broadcasters
went from seeing HDTV as their savior of spectrum (from land mobile forces)
to the digital delivery system for the I-way. The computer groups awoke
too and saw the broadcast standard as being finally their entry into the
consumer's living room. IT WAS DIGITAL. .
Both broadcasting and computer cultures have different roots, which
has caused a major conflict between them as they each seek their digital
pathway into the home. Each are targeting the same thing�our patronage
from the living rooms of the world. The broadcast industry believes they
know more from their long history about how to do that and what the consumer
wants. They have engineered that into their broadcast standard. The computer
people know less about the consumer in the living room, but know what they
don�t want engineered in the broadcasting standard. In the final analysis
there is far more agreement between the two than there is disagreement.
But their common grounds needs to broaden still further until there is
complete agreement between the two. That is proving very difficult to achieve.
Some Background
Dick Wiley testified earlier this year on Capitol Hill to explain what
had happened and pointed to the difficulty coming in the transition: "The
Advisory Committee was charged with finding and recommending DTV technology...for...terrestrial
broadcasting environment. After...years of arduous work the Advisory Committee
was down to four proponents... One of the most significant outcomes...was
an agreement on a packetized data transport system which allows the transmission
of virtually any combination of video, audio, and data. The transport system
arranges digital data into discrete groups called packets and labels each
packet before transmission. At the receiver, packets are routed to specific
desired applications according to the instructions in their labels.
This highly flexible HDTV system has capabilities which extend far beyond
what the FCC could have envisioned in 1990.
Wiley then talked of the transition: "The transition to a digital
television system is unlike anything previously attempted in American mass
media. Just turning off the analog and turning on the digital would disenfranchise
millions of television viewers." An incomplete transition could result
in a fragmented television market operating two different incompatible
transmission standards. A successful transition will require acceptance
of�and investment in new technology by consumers, programmers,
and broadcasters and other video program distributors."
There is very great concern that if there is a conflict at the inception
of the commercialization phase that there will not be sufficient or concerted
power enough to overcome the inherent difficulties and that to stop the
whole thing would be the best way to avert a disaster. If agreement is
found, then all parties are in the work of completing the transition.
Proliferating DTV Standards? Big Danger Or The Way Of Life?
There are more than computer interest involved in the current round
of discussion about the standard. Over-the-air signal providers, computer
and computer software groups, the motion picture makers, and television
program providers all want some changes in the proposed ATSC standard.
Like most conflicts of this scale, money is at the bottom of it. Computer
companies are eager for the lion's share of the public's money in the home
digital revolution. Television doesn�t like given up ground to upstarts.
"Hopefully, a decision will be made by the Federal Communications
Commission to settle the differences and move HDTV on to its biggest challenge�a
successful commercialization in the marketplace. " urges Gary Shapiro,
president of CEMA.
Reed Hundt recently has had to do a lot of thinking and talking on the
subject he inherited. He said in September, "The dedicated and hard-working
members of the Advisory Committee tried in good faith to produce a consensus
standard. Unfortunately, they did not succeed. Important players in two
huge American industries�Silicon Valley and Hollywood�object strongly to
some elements of the standard. These groups support much of the Grand Alliance's
work as endorsed by the Advisory Committee, especially the creation of
a flexible and dynamic digital broadcast standard. But the failure to reach
consensus over the interlaced format and the aspect ratio has led to a
time-consuming and important debate in which all advocates are making serious
points. I'm still hoping for a consensus to emerge; the future of DTV will
be stronger if all parties to the standards issue find consensus."
Hundt has said repeatedly that only when there is a cross-industry agreement
on a specific DTV standard will he support it. No such agreement, he said,
will result in his opting for only a bit rate standard and leave the rest
of it open for the market to decide. To comply, if that is the case, a
broadcaster would use the new frequency any way they liked with modest
public service requirements. The standard would be a bit rate (20Mbt/s)
with power limits (to avoid interference with NTSC channels). The broadcaster
could change the standard at will if a business reason could be rationalized.
"The country needs digital TV," Hundt told a Warren Publishing
gathering in New York this October. "Digital is needed to create a
public good of free digital programs�consisting of sports, entertainment,
news, free time for political debate between presidential candidates and
local candidates, educational shows for kids, public service announcements,
and anything else within reason that the public interest demands from the
licensees of the airwaves, the public's property." He concluded ominously,
"If digital TV doesn't do that, then we might as well just auction
the spectrum for any use, subject to interference taboos, and let that
be our easy answer to the tricky spectrum allocation issues posed by digital
TV."
Few question the belief that today�s tremendously successful television
industry is due entirely to one thing�a well defined single mandated standard.
Broadcast and manufacturer say the adoption of a well defined standard
is absolutely essential if the digital era is to be anywhere near as successful
as the analog one. Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association says
that a standard allows:
1. A national market for television receivers.
2. Price efficiencies on receiving and production equipment for both
consumers and service providers.
3. Plug and play capability as consumers move from one locale to another
in the US.
4. "Universal service" in video delivery of entertainment,
news and emergency information across the country. 5. Compatibility with
both traditional video reception and recording equipment as well as computers
and computer displays.
You might stop about now and ask yourself: "What is all of the
fuss really about? There was a well publicized open process lasting nine
years that dredged up every conceivable idea. Didn't the Grand Alliance
system get the best of the best and wasn't it voted upon unanimously by
the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) as the documented digital
broadcast standard? Wasn't that submission to the FCC for US broadcasters?
Wasn't that standard handed up last November by the Advisory Committee
to the FCC for its stamp of approval? Why is there any controversy?"
The big problem is that the computer groups were late entering the process.
They hardly existed at the beginning of it. As a result they haven�t secured
all advantages they now want for serving the red hot internet/intranet
application they see essential for their continued growth. They claim that
they were completely shut out and that the outmoded television model prevailed
in the standard. Those who did participate say they were not shut out.
They just didn�t show up. There were invitations sent, both personally
and publicly. There were press announcements and conference. ACATS was
open to whom-so-ever could make a contribution. The computer people earlier
had formed a group called CHORS to lobby what they hadn�t joined. I was
in a meeting in Las Vegas in '92 with the EIA ATV group when computer people
from IBM, Apple and others conveyed their vision of the future to the leading
executives of all the major CE companies. This meeting showed clearly that
there was a communications problem as much as a philosophical difference.
Most of those executives from CE left wondering just what had been said
to them. It is only now becoming clear that the computer was headed towards
being an all-purpose communications device and would want to have the easiest
relationship to the largest widely distributed pipeline of transmitted
digital data. That pipeline was going to be the new digital broadcast standard.
The ATSC standard, it is charged by computer people, incorporates outmoded
technology unsuitable for the future of computer-centric telecommunications.
There is, they say, a strategic disregard for the shared future television
is to have with the computer by the inclusion of interlace scanning.
The broadcasters argue that computer-friendly measures were included.
They point to the inclusion of 720 P(progressive scan) and 1080/24, 25,
30 P formats. One of the two 525 formats has square pixels and one is proscan.
Computer folks argue that displays will be influenced by the signal. Any
inclusion of interlace would perpetuate interlace displays, goes their
thinking. Broadcasters say the exclusion of interlace scanning is important
to their live broadcast business�something computer people still don�t
do. And there is legacy programming, all in interlace which looks �terrible�
when converted to progressive. As far as their film and computer generated
programming� that is 80% or more�all progressive scanning is fine with
them. It is also in the standard. But it is meaningless to argue the point,
broadcast people say, since any of the signal parameters are permanently
de-coupled from the requirements of the display.
True. Progressive scan can be converted readily to interlace for the
display with nothing more than a low cost chip in the receiver. This is
not part of the standard submitted to the FCC, and no one is calling for
any mandates in the way a receiver displays the image. But much of the
arguments raging are about this point. Some still believe that how you
mandate the signal will somehow mean how you display it. Any mandate only
speaks to how you will receive and process a signal. Manufacturers will
always need to sell low cost receivers that use interlace display even
if there was never another interlace signal transmitted in the world.
Why Inclusion If Peace Comes Without Interlace?
Many in the broadcast industry�though certainly not all�insist that
inclusion of interlace scanning is the only cost-effective means for launching
the digital broadcast era. Importantly, they say, interlace at 1080 lines
produces a better motion image for live television than does 720 lines
progressive scanned. The author of much of the digital revolution, Stan
Baron, VP for NBC in New York and president of the SMPTE, claims it is
especially true for sports.
Everyone agrees that progressive scanning is the goal to reach when
technically feasible and affordable. But after 20 years of development
at a cost of $5 to $6 billion there is still only a scant amount of high-definition
production equipment available with which to build new broadcasting facilities.
Every bit of it is interlace. To drop interlace, say broadcasters, and
move to progressive scanning would add five or more years to the start-up
time for DTV, plus a billion dollars or more in development cost (which
must be born by broadcasters). NBC's (General Electric) VP, Michael Sherlock
in representing the Broadcast Caucus, says he won't budge from this point.
Equipment maker, Sony, rejects the request for excluding interlace scanning,
saying it is wasteful to all of their interlace 1125/60 investments and
it would be years before sufficient progressive scanning equipment could
be made to replace what they already have. Eddie Fritts, president of the
National Association of Broadcasters understatedly says, "It does
appear that it will be difficult to reach a compromise."
To be certain, prototype progressive scanning equipment has recently
come on the market from the Polaroid/BTS (Germany) combine, slightly changing
the argument that there is no progressive equipment. Their PTC-9000 camera
made its prime time debut shooting the opening of the Democratic Convention
in Chicago. But one camera does not make a studio. The camera also comes
at a huge premium�priced at about $600,000 w/lens vs. third generation
1125/60 interlace chip cameras costing an affordable $100,000 w/lens from
Japanese companies, principally Sony.
While cost is one argument against the exclusion of interlace, the more
public argument centers on quality differences. Quality is arguably better
with the higher 1080 V X 1920 H line interlace pictures than with the 720
V X 1280 H proscan image, especially if static or motionless. The vertical
resolution in both 1080 interlace and 720 proscan is close to equal on
a resolution chart. The 1920 samples on the horizontal Vs the 1280 on the
720 line proscan makes a case for better quality with interlace. Computer
people scream that interlace is impossible for text and deadly to view
due to flicker.
An interlace image is two thirds the vertical resolution (measured on
a resolution chart) of an equal number of proscan lines. Technically, this
difference results from what is labeled the Kell Factor. Error in the interleaving
of lines and motion artifacts created from interline flicker from motion
is absent from progressive scanned images. Proscan looks cleaner, especially
up-close. It suits small text. In static images, however, the 1080 will
have no motion artifacts and a minimum of interline distortions, making
it better in vertical resolution to the 720 lines proscan. This is fine
for still cameras. The quality of displays today is not good enough to
uniformly see the difference. Display quality is a moving target, however,
while the standard is likely to be more fixed. So, inclusion of interlace
scan based on quality is a valid argument... for now. Its exclusion would
have still more ramifications.
Recall that the goal of the industry is to arrive at 1080 proscan. If
there is no inclusion of the 1080 interlace, why would there be an expensive
push for 1080 proscan, or even a displays of 1080 X 1920? If we settle
on 720 X 1280 that is a new ceiling. Even though there is a 1080/24/30
in the standard for film conversions, live 1080 I would be abandoned. Motion
picture production needs more resolution to interoperate with film and
would like 1080 P at 24 and 30 frames and worries that if the standard
freezes at 720 no one will make cameras for them in the higher line rates.
Kinda HDTV
An alternative idea going the rounds may be even more ruinous to HDTV.
It comes on the heels of cheaper progressive scanned 525 line cameras now
in use in Japan by their non-HDTV widescreen network, NPT. The images from
these lower-cost cameras is far better than from interlace 525, though
certainly not up to true HDTV. ABC/Disney wants to start their digital
adventures with this 525 proscan system. They have given demonstrations
to CBS and NBC, and their own affiliates (who have enthusiastically greeted
this option). Fox is also listening to the notion.
Certainly, the images are superior when displayed on an HDTV monitor
than are NTSC pictures on an NTSC set. The cameras and other parts of the
studio are cheaper than with true HDTV cameras and studio equipment. The
ATSC standard has an SDTV 480 X 640 proscan format. Large screens will
again suffer for resolution with this format. Also, it does not have square
pixels�a particular concession to ABC/Disney for their installed digital
studios that cannot support the bit rate for 525 proscan w/square pixels.
So, this option, while interesting to broadcasters, also has opposition
from purists and the computer groups, though it is less intense opposition
than with the true HDTV format.
This low end approach to DTV may be the most dangerous to HDTV. For
a product to supersede, according to marketers, its predecessor there must
be at least 10 JND (just noticeable difference units) if the new item is
to survive in the market. The Super-VHS, while superior to VHS, did not
have this measure of difference and failed to dominate the consumer markets.
It remains a niche item. The compact disc, however, did have 10 JND between
its improved audio quality and obvious convenience. If a 5 JND difference
is the spread between 525 proscan and true HDTV, HD will never be launched.
There will not be enough difference to break out. A set top converter would
be the alternative to a new digital proscan set. Set top boxes would be
a fair business. A point broadcasters must ponder is what format should
dominate their broadcast hours? Their decision will greatly influence what
the set makers sell to the consumers and how much power there is in the
transition. This may prove less a concern if satellite or cable move with
a higher line count�either 720 or 1080 (the FCC does not mandate signal
parameters for satellite or cable), which would spur broadcasters past
the 525 proscan vision.
All Or Nothing At All
The manufacturers of production equipment (cameras, switchers, routers,
special digital effects devices, editors, etc.) and television receivers
are terrified, horrified, mortified and generally French fried by the thought
that the FCC will not set a specific standard. In fear they have retreated
from the starting gate and refused to say if they would or would not enter
again the market for DTV receivers in a laissez faire environment. How
many standard variations could proliferate? Its anyone's guess. But who
will doubt that competitive advantages forged with proprietary signals
will not occur? That is the strategy of the all-digital direct satellites.
DSS differs from PrimeStar as much as Echostar does from Alphastar. While
there is justification for these differences in DBS since all programming
is carried by each service, the broadcast business model unalterably insists
upon specific standards between the signal providers and the receivers.
PERIOD!
Europans Gets It
The Europeans have been quick to recognize this. On October 9th of this
year the Technical Committee of the European Broadcast Union and EACEM
(European Association of Consumer Electronics Manufacturers) went to work
to stop the proliferation of their Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) standard(s).
"At the receiver side, any proprietary elements in software and hardware
have to be avoided; instead, appropriate interfaces have to be provided
and associated standardization efforts pursued." With usual European
understatement even when near to catastrophic circumstances, they said,
"This is in line with the general objective of both parties, namely
to create an unfragmented consumer market for digital television in Europe,
including terrestrial, satellite and cable distribution." Europe,
of course, has an even a more treacherous landscape than the US in that
there is no potential of formal cohesiveness from an European version of
the FCC. It doesn't exist.
DigitGate
Bouncing down his "Road Ahead", Microsoft's Bill Gates has
assumed the lead in the opposition to the ATSC standard. He took his case
to Reed Hundt personally at FCC headquarters, and through Vice President
Al Gore, who Reed Hundt worked for when in the Senate. Gates has not taken
opposition to the DVB (European) digital standard, which has neither progressive
scanning nor square pixels. DVB potentially serves a far larger world wide
market than the US standard will. "The standard being considered by
the FCC would stand in the way of future innovation and force consumers
to use inferior technology over time," said Gates.
CICATS
As if these matters were not confusing enough, a new candidate for a
digital US standard has been belatedly submitted to the FCC by the others
in the computer alliance (see CICATS). This system is based upon the work
of technical Oscar winner and pioneer graphics expert, Gary Demos (among
the first ever to use computers for graphic representations at Cal Tech).
Being used as a negotiation chip by Gates et al, the Gary Demos system
differs enough from what has been tested by ACATS that a new round of testing
would be required (politically driven, if not a technical imperative).
That would push the DTV startup dates into the next century and, many say,
leave it vulnerable to yet more (read endless) technical submissions for
consideration (thus a permanent delay to launch DTV/HDTV). HD-Vision vp
Engineering, Charles Pantuso says bluntly, "These people reveal a
lack of experience with real-world video images."
Robert Wright, president of NBC, claims delay is the strategy of the
computer industry so as to allow them time to improve their relative position
in the digital broadcast revolution. The computer groups say that is nonsense
because what they want most is a fast transition to digital transmission
so they can bid for the prime (NTSC) spectrum that is to be returned to
the FCC after the transition. This week at the Comdex Show in Las Vegas
the new big thing paraded around is hand held internet receivers. These
receivers today use phone lines, but their future is clearly to receive
data from over-the-air-sources. Surf the net from the surf, in the car,
on bus, train, and plane is the thing. Doing that will take the most ideal
transmission spectrum there is�the VHF broadcast spectrum, due to be returned
to the FCC for resale (auction) following a successful digital transition
by broadcasters and the consumers.
How it Hertz
Another issue under discussion is the refresh rate. The ATSC standard
uses 60 cycles per second for screen refresh. Computer people complain
that flicker seen at that rate will fatigue the user. They need 72 Hz.
Sixty Hz television never has suffered from this flicker complaint if viewed
from typical distances. Even at a distance of three times the height of
the picture (prescribed for HDTV) no complaints have been lodged about
flicker. If HDTV monitors are to be used also for computer work, then there
should be a demand for multi-synch options on the market. But they need
not, say defenders of the standard, be mandated or somehow made part of
the standard.
And Still More Trouble With The Picture
While the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) submitted to
the FCC their tacit approval of the ATSC standard, some within the motion
picture industry disagree violently with the 16:9 aspect ratio. They favor
a 2:1 ratio (or even modifiable on the fly to any aspect ratio). Steven
Spielberg heads the list of Hollywood notables arguing this cause, along
with some notable cinematographers. "An unprecedented coalition of
film and entertainment leaders," said an Americans for Better Digital
TV press release in mid October, "high technology companies, and consumer
advocates today announced plans for a nationwide campaign to ensure that
the future of digital television is not undermined by government approval
of outdated, inadequate, and expensive technical standards." The release
continued, "Americans for Better Digital TV, reads like a "who's
who" list of entertainment and high technology companies and organizations.
The group is launching a public education and outreach effort over the
next several months, as the future of digital TV is considered by the Federal
Communications Commission.
The coalition warns that the proposed new standards could cost American
consumers more than $91 billion, limit consumer choice, undermine US. industry
and lock in obsolete technology." This sentence infuriated the Grand
Alliance, who quickly challenged the economics with far different facts
which cost them considerable embarrassment within the FCC. "I thought
they should have done a better," said Saul Shapiro in the Chairman's
office. "They didn't make a credible case. Their economics sucked,
their presentation was weak" Indeed, the $91 billion surcharge on
the US consumer was calculated for additional memory needed by the Grand
Alliance system to decode the whole of their signal (when compared to)
of to a base layer version of the Demos submission. A Boston consulting
firm did the calculations, but took as their base costs the total retail
price of the DSS system, dish and all, rather than calculating just the
chip cost. "Unbelievable," said Thomson's Bruce Allen. "It
is by no means clear," advises TV engineering wizard, Mark Shubin,
"that the computer industry standards will cost less to implement,
especially regarding set-top converters for existing TV sets, VCRs, and
camcorders. Unlike those of the broadcaster-favored standard, none of the
frame rates of the computer-industry standards are compatible with those
home video devices nor are they compatible with millions of hours of already-
recorded video, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "The Metropolitan
Opera Presents."
Bill Gates said in his press release, "If approved, this standard
will become a roadblock to the convergence of the television and the PC,
and slow down the progress toward the digital future, where consumers will
be able to watch television on their PCs or access the Internet from their
TVs." This could be somewhat true. There is no doubt that a non-converted
image is more easily dealt with than one which must be converted. It has
never been the case with my own computer. I am constantly converting between
competing formats. No one is satisfied among computer user circles with
the computers operating under many standards. I have older software that
won't run on the same computer with a newer version of an operating system.
Would the computer business model infect the television business model
and end with the consumer grappling with hundreds of small standards and
extensions or plug ins to receive a program of choice? You can buy now
a WebTV from Sony and others which output to NTSC, much less than to proscan
HDTV. There are a dozen internet set top boxes for NTSC in the market for
under $400, web browser included and burned into a PROM. Internet content,
providers say they will always accommodate content to the dominant display
in the home, just as television does today.
The movie people added a note in that press release, "As we move
into the next century, it is important that the standards for advanced
television give the public the opportunity to see the images of film with
progressive scanning, without interlace, and in the aspect ratio in which
they were originally created. I and those who have made films in wide screen
formats for decades want to preserve that opportunity and insure that their
transmission will give future viewers the fullest possible experience.
Therefore, I have urged the FCC to reconsider its current proposal in the
interest of both the creative community and the public," said Steven
Spielberg, Academy Award-winning filmmaker. Supporters of the ATSC say,
"Follow the money to see why these people are saying these things."
Spielberg is in business with Bill Gates, which may explain his sudden
entrance on such a transparent issue. He never cared before about HDTV,
saying that it was not good enough to shoot movies with and he showed little
interest for it as a home appliance.
The new coalition warns that American consumers will face enormous costs
and will miss out on important new innovations in entertainment, personal
computing, and interactive media, if the FCC adopts the transmission standards
proposed by the "Grand Alliance," (and ATSC) a group dominated
by foreign TV manufacturers, and supported by broadcasters.
Had it not been for the insistence and foresight of the US broadcast
Caucus for the inclusion of interlace scanning, which insures quality of
both new and legacy programs, the Grand Alliance would have gladly embraced
proscan only. They feel blamed for accommodating to the needs of their
only customers�the broadcasters. Secondly, the ownership of a manufacturer
means very little in this century, the jobs created in the US as the result
of a standard being set and enabling an industry means considerably more.
HDTV is a big screen item and with labor rates less than Europe and Japan
here there is no way in which HDTV sets will be manufactured out of this
country. if for Shipping charges and accountability will dictate where
they are made more than who invented it. Some common items may be sourced
at their lowest cost origins. But that is true of every industry in the
20th century, including motion pictures and computers. For this reason
the Electrical Workers Union endorsed the ATSC standard since they recognized
more jobs were being created should demand occur.
"What the complaints boil down to," say members of the Grand
Alliance, "is that, in the crucible of open debate and thorough testing,
many, but not all, of the insights of this group were accepted. Now, they
want the rest accepted, without the discipline of an open advisory and
testing process."
Mark Shubin, one the finest television engineers in the world, writes
in the New York Times today, "The computer industry has not proposed
a single standard for advanced television. Like the one favored by broadcasters,
the computer-industry standards call for three different frame rates, multiple
aspect ratios, and multiple resolutions."
(The Americans for Better Digital TV coalition includes: the Directors
Guild of America; the Computer Industry Coalition on Advanced Television
Service; the Media Access Project; the International Photographers Guild,
Local 600, AFL-CIO; the American Society of Cinematographers; Digital Theater
Systems (owned in part by Mr. Spielberg), LP; the Todd-AO Corporation;
Panavision International, LP; the American Homeowners Foundation; the Computing
Technology Industry Association; the Business Software Alliance; and a
number of computer hardware and software companies including Compaq Computer
Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., Intel Corporation and Microsoft Corporation.
Hollywood leaders supporting Americans for Better Digital TV are Steven
Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Arthur Hiller, Martin Scorsese, Robert Redford,
Dustin Hoffman, and Robert Zemeckis.)
That's Life
The aspect ratio can be argued until the next coming, but the manufacturers
will not abandon easily the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on tube
plants tooled for 16:9. The aspect ratio question was settled years ago
for them when the production standard was voted in unanimously at the SMPTE
meeting held in the Motion Picture Academy board room in 1988 or 89. Subsequently
the 16:9 question was raised time and again in major meetings around the
world to see if objections could over rule the momentum. No one jumped
up then. Anyone who knows the manufacturers must sympathize with them on
this issue. Managers of Japanese and European plants are brilliantly schooled
in engineering and business. They are trained to accept standards that
are set by the technical bodies of the industries in which they serve.
The SMPTE stands for the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.
When something is standardized by that body it should mean you can take
it to the bank. Steven Spielberg means only one thing to manufacturers�he
makes famous movies like Jurassic Park and the Indiana Jones Trilogy. He
is not known for making aspect ratios famous.
Spielberg's spokesperson at Dreamworks, Rob Hummel, argues that the
investment made by the manufacturers is modest compared to the cost of
making motion pictures. They (manufacturers) should consider that just
one motion picture can now cost $100,000,000 or more, and there are three
hundred pictures made each year. A movie in his view is the important investment
to protect with all advantages possible�technical and non-technical. Selling
a movie at its wholest is more insurance of getting a return on the investment
than some compromised version. Hardware is a one-time investment and, in
this case according to Hummel, made for the wrong size picture tubes. Perhaps,
more to the point is that artist are artist because they get their way
in shaping the medium of their choice, be it paint, stone, film, or video.
Without that freedom in their chosen medium a significant artist may believe
someone else is interfering in his or her statement. On the other hand,
it said that it is a poor artist who blames his medium.
Most supporters of the 16:9 believe that the question is answered with
no more than a little education on what HDTV is. What wants to be avoided
by directors and cinematographers technically is the need for pan and scan,
even with the widest aspect ratios like the 2.4;1. To supporters of HDTV
the answer is already there in that any letterboxing on the true HDTV set
would not impair the viewing quality nor apparent resolution of the movie
as it does in the 525 line systems in 4:3. Some former opponents to 16:9
are coming to accept this view, so it appears that aspect ratio will not
to be a final sticking point (though a mighty touchy one). What would make
it a sticking point is if signal providers resort to using the lower line
480 proscan in their DTV offering, thus making resolution in a letterboxing
version undesirable. In that case, one might hunger for full 480 line resolution
in a completely filled screen of 2:1 aspect ratio without letterboxing.
Sound Bytes
Audio is still another story. Audio industry experts warned that the
proposed Grand Alliance standards would be a step backward, essentially
locking consumers into outdated technology. "The proposed digital
TV standard includes a mandated exclusive audio standard that is already
technologically obsolete, compared to more advanced audio coding systems.
The proposed mandatory exclusive standard would unnecessarily discourage
competition, create a climate for higher prices, and deny consumers access
to the highest quality audio as it evolves," said Terry D. Beard,
Chief Executive Officer of Digital Theater Systems, LP, which has developed
the audio system used in over 3,000 American movie theaters.
Hundt on the Hunt The FCC chairman Reed Hundt went to Hollywood in October
of this year to see demonstrations of the Gary Demos system and to talk
with Speilberg's representatives about the aspect ratio. The Demos system
sports a 2:1 aspect ratio, square pixels, and a two layer proscan system
(with a base layer of 480 lines lines by 960 H for lower cost decoders
and sets, and an enhancements layer that adds up to a total of 720 lines
for more spendy HDTV sets) operating at 72Hz. It meets the current technical
myths circulating in Hollywood, but has yet to stand up to a real test.
To conserve bandwidth the system resorts to lowering resolution in the
outer parts of the image (like a frame where it is least noticed). Still,
impressive as it is, it is not a system designed with a peer review and
remains only in software simulation.
One Change Opens Everything
"It is simply assumed," say members of the Grand Alliance,"
that these modifications to the DTV standard can be made now, without the
same sort of rigorous review and testing to which the ideas of all others
were subjected. Simple fairness would require that, if the FCC even considered
doing this, it should re-open the advisory and testing process."
And Still Congress Is In The Picture
Lastly, there remains bitter infighting in Congress regarding the terrestrial
spectrum required for a digital transition. There are many who favor auctioning
off the new digital frequencies as the most superior means for channel
allocation and government revenue enhancement. Others, most notably the
current administration, favor the auctioning of the old analog channels
upon their mandated return to the FCC in 5 to 20 years.
Nothing Merging
None of the issues are moving to a solution. Rather they have remained
stuck in end-game positions, producing only a general deadlock. Neither
broadcast�favoring interlace�nor computer seeking its elimination, have
shown any signs of compromise or capitulation. Professor William Schreiber,
long time electronic image expert from MIT says, "A solution to the
vexing problem of digital broadcasting standards will not be found by compromise
between "TV interests" and "computer interests," since
neither group adequately represents the public interest." If general
deadlock precludes the FCC Chairman from voting for a specific standard,
what can be expected?.
We're Outa Here
For the standard to be rejected just one more of the three remaining
Commissioners could entertain doubts and bolt. That would scuttle the standard
and force a run by broadcasters at a de facto standard, if they were to
move into digital at all, or better, unified behind the standard. But again,
the manufacturers have said "forget it." They cannot support
such a risk. If agreement is not reached soon it may be the end of the
line for this fantastic development. Money and audience will not tolerate
further delay. From my web page (/hdtv/hdtvnews.html)
I hear daily the complaints from consumers... How long, oh lord, how long?
What Is Now Being Done?
One would think these differences would be resolvable among reasonable
people. Despite meeting after meeting in Washington, DC�two sponsored by
the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) over the last
two months, one each by Congress and the FCC (about the same time), another
by the National Association of Broadcasters a few weeks past no movement
towards agreement has been detectable even with the finest of instruments.
"Maybe a good way to start to resolve the standards question,"
offers Reed Hundt, "would be to lock all the interested parties in
a room�the TV manufacturers, the broadcasters, the cinematographers, the
computer software groups, maybe the digital cable and digital satellite
industries, too �and keep them locked together until they hash out a de
facto standard that will accommodate each of the legitimate issues raised�and
that is good for consumers." Lending her hand to the process FCC Commissioner
Susan Ness sent a letter October 31st to those in opposition. She asked
for meetings designed to have each reach an agreement on all issues by
no later than November 25th�Thanksgiving. Critics warn that government
letters arranging a closed door meeting between commercial stackholders
to shape a related public policy can be easily challenged.
The only other "compromise" being discussed is:
The computer industry will drop demands for CICATS/Gary Demos system
if the broadcasters will volunteer to exclude interlace scanning in the
ATSC standard. The computer people will placate Hollywood on the aspect
ratio question (somehow) and peace will come over the land.
Alternatively, there could be a sunset clause acceptable to all parties
where after several years into the commercialization process specifics
in the standard are dropped in favor of an open standard. There will be
then, in effect, a de facto standard and if some want a new departure in
broadcast services through alternatives in the standard, they can do so
without an FCC action.
No compensation of any kind is offered by the computer industry to broadcasters
for their compromise or capitulation. Not only would broadcasters face
a more expensive transition�perhaps as much as a billion dollars more in
amortization of new progressive scan equipment, they would enter with arguably
lesser quality. Their agreeing to anything that cost that much and at the
same time eases the computer into the living room on their same display
while setting them up for a hot DBS competitor, can be a bone jarring threat
to the broadcast industry. It takes little imagination to believe that
when bandwidth inevitably increases for the internet the world wide web
becomes your cable with 50 million channels. A new Yankelovich Partners
Survey reported last week that due to lower cost and lower complexity internet
access by way of the television set is preferred by a majority of consumers.
When will people watch regular TV if they spend all their time surfing
the net on the set? Where does that place the broadcast industry? In protection
mode.
What Happens If No Standard?
The consequence of the FCC not setting a firm and specific standard
will be that no push comes from the manufacturers to further digital terrestrial
broadcasting. The Grand Alliance and their lobby efforts would stop. Capital
formation could not occur with such high risks hanging over the industry
and ill defined returns. That lesson was learned indelibly from the HDTV
production standards debacle. There may be a push by the digital transmission
equipment makers from a deluded self-interest, but receiver makers would
stay out (except for set top boxes).
The Pressure Cooker?
Broadcasters cannot (or larger ones do not want to) afford to be straddled
between analog and digital transmission as a result of some half-hearted
start. Many believe the public has already grown wary from these well-publicized
divisions (as reported in the NY Times, Barron's, US News and World Report,
etc.) to reject any DTV offering, especially if with proprietary standards.
Hundt sounded his pessimism in a recent speech, "And if digital television
isn't commercially successful, then none of our hopes and dreams about
digital TV's capacity to help answer many social and business problems
has any chance of coming true. It's all very well to talk about what digital
TV can do for the country, but if it can't do for itself, then we're just
wasting our breath on what will sadly turn out to be the digital version
of, say, the pressure cooker, the Edsel and Teflon�products with high hypes
that ended up with wide acceptance not as consumer goods, but as metaphors."
The Formula
The consumers must believe that manufacturers and signal providers�whoever
they are�are dead serious about their mutual commitment to deliver complimentary
signals & receivers to the market. The internet and computer issues
will for years be side ones in home entertainment rather than central ones.
Television, it is all-to-easily-forgotten, is the most successful business
ever created for this nation and will not falter just because there are
new distractions which may last as long as a summer romance. There always
have been distractions, even a neighbor visiting can turn the TV off. Television
is nothing if it can't weather a new assault.
Getting started
It is quite reasonable that broadcasters want to move up to digital
to maintain a full house of options. Even before a FCC decision broadcasters
are lining up asking for experimental HDTV channels. Some already are on
the air with their early allocations. WRAL-TV in Raliegh, North Carolina
became the nation's first to send digital signal, though no receivers to
process them. James F. Goodmon, President and CEO of channel 32 WRAL-HD
(operated by Capitol Broadcasting) said what many stations have claimed�HDTV
is critical to the future of free over-the-air television. "Broadcasters,"
he said, "must move forward to effectively compete with other digital
services."
Seattle's KOMO TV filed with the FCC in October for an experimental
digital television license. "This is an important step," said
their press release, "toward ensuring that KOMO TV and ABC offer viewers
the best television service possible, now and in the future." PBS's
WETA in Virginia filed for an experimental license as well as the industry
funded experimental station in Washington, DC�WRC-TV. That experimental
station is now on the air received by one HDTV decoder. PBS stations in
Seattle and Oregon have joined forces to apply for an experimental digital
channel while the rest of PBS is making concrete plans to launch HDTV any
way they can. The public television system has seen a legitimate opportunity
for capital fund raising with HDTV the reason, and are acting to take full
advantage. Many think PBS will have the better HDTV programming options
in the beginning. Birney Clark of KCTS, Seattle said, "According to
Joe Flaherty of CBS and Bob Rast of the Grand Alliance, some broadcasters
have been lobbying both Congress and the FCC to keep television from moving
to ATV spectrum because of capitalization fears. Some have said that HDTV
is not going to be a reality. This presents public TV with a real leadership
opportunity."
But signs are good that the digital bait has been taken. An independent
study conducted for the Harris Corporation in Melbourne, Florida showed
that a majority of the nation's broadcasters plan to convert to digital
DTV/HDTV within five years after the FCC accepts the standard, with some
converting within just two years.
"Two misconceptions have been heard frequently over the past few
months regarding HDTV," said the legendary Joe Flaherty of CBS, Inc.
"First, that broadcasters have no interest in providing HDTV; and
second, that consumers have no great desire for higher-resolution pictures.
Neither of these ideas could be further from the truth. The vast majority
of broadcasters recognize that HDTV is essential to their survival and
they plan to make HDTV the centerpiece application provided over the digital
television channel. " He continued with his kingly manner, "Consumer
research has demonstrated conclusively that consumers who have actually
seen HDTV are prepared to pay a substantial premium, if necessary, for
the dramatically improved performance it offers, and that substantial early
sales will provide the volumes required to drive costs and consumer prices
down rapidly. We've shown HDTV to thousands of people, and almost without
exception they only want to know how soon they can buy a high-definition
set. The members of the Grand Alliance, and many other firms in the industry,
have already bet hundreds of millions and are prepared to invest many hundreds
of millions more on our belief that HDTV will be a resounding success in
the marketplace."
Ten years ago we said in our HDTV Newsletter that to launch HDTV there
had to be truly spectacular public demonstrations in order to plant deeply
the will or demand in people to overcome the obstacles. If the best salesman
in the world was the guy who sold the first telephone, the next is the
guy who can sell the first HDTV set while explaining that there are no
signals for it to receive. We said that a showman would be welcome and
hopefully rise up in our midst in some densely populated area and strut
HDTV upon the stage of life until enough people were captivated with it
that they will do just about anything to have it.
All of New York In Less Than An Hour The pioneer of commercial HDTV
is David Niles. Native New Yorker Niles "enjoyed" the high costs
of early HDTV production for the nine years. Ever the innovator, he conceived
years ago of a network of theaters connected together with his own programming
and marketing... all operating in the HDTV format, of course. His first
attempt came out from his (at that time) Ed Sulivan Theater on Broadway
where he delivered a visual triptych show called Dreamtime. That show combined
live actors and HDTV video across three screens and a full stage in a sumptuously
remodeled theatrical setting. Reviews were mixed but the show didn't closed
for over 200 days of performances, mostly to a full house.
Now, Niles is due to open mid-December another show�this the most spectacular
and practical thing he may have ever done. Nestled next to the fabulous
Four Season Hotel on East 58th Street in the heart of Manhattan is his
new theater, complete with an old New York motif entry. A newly sculptured
head of Lady Liberty gives the first-time visitor to New York no doubt
as to where they are. Once the mood sets in from the first room patrons
are escorted past Lady Liberty by four actor/escorts to their seats in
the completely refurbished and fully automated Jules Stein (founder of
MCA) Theater. Hundreds of thousands of tourist from the world over will
be greeted by live-in-high-def-tape, Mayor Julianne, and then swept off
on a dazzling visual tour of New York, as if on your a magic carpet.
Nile's has showcased here HDTV, of course, though he tried to say the
project was independent of its use. But it is clearly as it should be�the
centerpiece�and radiates the fascinating parts of the city into the eyes
and senses of his tourist patrons (they shell out $11 for a nearly one
hour stay). In one sense he has opened the nickelodeon for the next generation
of entertainment media.
HDTV has been around too long to be a novelty. You don't spend millions
of dollars and suffer a near catastrophic personal fall holding on tightly
to a novelty. It is the strength of character of both man and machine that
makes the difference, and David Niles has had his character strengthened
by his resolve to launch the HDTV business the best way he could�by making
loads money with it even before there arises the traditional array of markets.
The payoff for the industry is that here is finally a world class demonstration
bed where the quality of the image is monitored by a man who paid several
million dollars for the privilege. He never lets that image drift out of
register nor suffer from other technical aberrations. You can send your
backers, your friends, your family and see the best that HDTV ever gets.
"Clearly," advised KCTC (PBS) president Birney Clark, "as
we have learned from the NHK experience, it will be some years before we
can fill the DTV schedule with HDTV programming, but we can work toward
offering a prime time service which can be transmitted by participating
Public TV stations."
From 22,300 Miles From Earth "Can digital terrestrial broadcasting
be competitive with digital satellite? " asks Chairman Hundt? "The
satellites after all are just real tall TV towers with very broad reach;
what advantage do the lower, earth-bound digital TV towers of terrestrial
TV have?" Satellite delivery of HDTV is waiting the move of its natural
entrepreneur. That move will carry with it most of those who doubt that
terrestrial television is the superior way to go.
Global Broadcast Corporation believes you can start it from space. GBC
has their FrontRow TM presentation series where theater patrons will watch
live HDTV musical Concerts, Professional Sports, World Sporting Events,
Conferences and Business Meetings, Broadway Theater, Movies, Education
and even Surgery from an Operating rooms. The premier program was shown
at HD-Dallas on the 16th of November. This start-up company of satellite
experts Howard Gunn and Tim Philips will turn to satellite delivered programming
in the near future.
Hundt continued his talk in Washington, "On a national basis perhaps
a couple billion dollars at the most could build a national digital TV
system (excluding the conversion of cameras and studio to digital, which
is going to happen even for analog TV transmission). This total cost for
the terrestrial digital broadcast system compares very favorably to the
price-tag for buying a digital satellite license and paying for a satellite
and a launch and an uplink."
"I expect, the new Congress directs us to give the licenses away
to today's broadcasters, many of those recipients, perhaps most, really
don't have to have this particular present high on their Christmas list.
They still regard digital TV as a burden they're being asked to carry instead
of a business opportunity they're being granted. If they're right, that's
trouble; and if they're wrong, then their attitude is trouble for this
nascent industry.
Many people have told me that the audience for simulcast HDTV will be
so skimpy that they believe it's not enough to support the construction
of a digital TV system. Where does that leave those of us who want to see
broadcast TV be economically successful and also successful in serving
the public interest in a digital age?
One industry executive said in a speech two weeks ago that the target
audience for DTV was the consumers who buy 60-inch TV's. He seemed to imply
that they would buy 60 inch digital home theaters. I have been told by
others that at $3,000 a crack these receivers are not likely to be purchased
by more than a few million American homes. I suppose that Mercedes Benz
will be interested in advertising to such niche audiences. But will Pampers
and Chevrolet and the others who underwrite our free over-the-air broadcast
TV industry?"
And that, Mr. Chairman, brings us to our next article entitled: How
To Launch HDTV Successsfully.
Stay tuned,
Dale Cripps
November 15, 1996
Copyright 1996 Advanced Television Publishing
All Rights Reserved
