PBS
In high-definition TV, will public television
be a leader, follower or outsider?
KCTS, the public TV station in Seattle, has held several periodic
ATV workshops for public broadcasters. These are the closing remarks of
the 1995 workshop, Dec. 9, by the president of KCTS.
By Burnill F. Clark
During the past three days you have had the chance to take a crash course
in the opportunities and challenges presented by our transition to Advanced
Television. It is complicated, multilayered and exciting. There is not a
pre-ordained path from analog to digital for Public Broadcasters because
so many variables are involved. I liken the process of learning about advanced
television to taking a drink from a fire hose, and you should know that
the water pressure will keep increasing. Hopefully, this conference has
given you a lot to think about, and to begin formulating your own station's
strategy at home.
You have heard and seen a great deal about the strengths and limitations
of ATV. It is clear that the world is going digital. The unclear thing for
public television is whether we will be a leader, follower, or possibly
an outsider in the ATV equation. 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.
We are at a critical juncture in this situation where the architecture
for our digital future will be decided through the legislative and regulatory
actions to be taken by Congress and the FCC in the next few months. I am
reminded of Joe Flaherty's recounting of Gen. David Sarnoff's speech to
his NBC station affiliates in 1947. When we look back at this point in time,
I believe we will find that the actions and decisions which public television
makes now will have a profound influence on the future of our institution
and the services we provide people in our communities. I am fearful that
if we treat this as business as usual, or do not aggressively and resolutely
come together as a group of stations and present a compelling plan which
builds on our free, noncommercial, universally accessible services, our
digital future will be dim and unfocused.
We have heard that the ATV spectrum containing 6 MHz channels might be
in jeopardy if broadcasters do not plan to use it for HDTV. Some are saying
that 2 MHz is all the spectrum broadcasters will need, since they have not
shown a commitment to HDTV. To insure that the FCC assigns the full 6 MHz
ATV channels, broadcasters will have to make a strong case that they plan
to offer HDTV.
Besides, HDTV differentiates us from others, and it lends itself to showcasing
our quality program reputation and image. The nature, travel and performance
programs we offer lend themselves to this wide-screen technology. You saw
that in the examples screened during this conference. As the number of channels
proliferates, it makes good business sense to brand our channels and offer
HDTV quality programming.
Clearly, as we have learned from the NHK experience, it will be some
years before we can fill the ATV schedule with HDTV programming, but we
can work toward offering a prime time service which can be transmitted by
participating PTV stations.
As Jim Kutzner from KTCA in Minneapolis/St. Paul has told us, stations
have an opportunity to choose which level of HDTV capability they wish to
go for. Many will choose to be "Low Power," transmit-only operations,
with only LIS capability. Others will want to be "Medium Power"
operations with limited origination equipment. Still others will choose
to be "High Power" stations with a full production capability.
In any event we are going to need to secure capital assistance to afford
this transition.
One way of doing this is to build a sufficient Public Broadcasting Trust
Fund to generate both capital and operating dollars. The proposed $4 billion
trust fund may not be enough money to finance both activities. Capital campaigns
are going to be required for many of us, and we need to set about planning
for them and our transition to ATV right now.
We may want to pursue partnerships with the private sector to lease space
on our ATV channels. These will need to be long term in order to attract
investment, and we will want to be sure that our stations have a certain
amount of time available for HDTV broadcasting. Otherwise, we will be left
in the standard-TV world, while others are distinguishing themselves as
HDTV providers.
These partnerships can bring revenues to our stations, but we will need
to be sure that the regulatory and legislative environment allows PTV to
generate these monies and apply it to our not-for-profit public TV activities.
And we will need to become knowledgeable about which of these private sector
partnerships will generate the best return for our station.
The proposed timeline for advanced digital television is something we
need to pay particular attention to. As Jim Kutzner has pointed out, we
started with a 15-year time frame for activating the new digital spectrum
and returning our analog channels, but by the end of yesterday's session
it looked like we might need to do it by next year. Since the congressional
leaders want to balance the budget in seven years, it seems that they may
press for the return and auction of our analog channels by 2002.
Then there is the very uncertain political situation. The telecommunications
bill is delaying everything, and we learned yesterday that public broadcasters
are no longer being given ATV spectrum in the bill that is in conference.
Our situation is going to be handled through legislation to be introduced
by Chairman Jack Fields and Larry Pressler. Whether that will be this month
or next year is still uncertain, but we do know that we must work hard to
shape the provisions of the bill. Since all politics is local, we will need
to work closely with our delegation leaders in the two Commerce Committees
to insure that public TV gets a strong enough bill.
In terms of priorities, it seems the first order of business is to be
certain that we will receive 6 MHz of ATV for each NTSC channel. This should
be at no cost and should be assigned as soon as the FCC is willing to act.
Next we need to be developing a strategic plan that focuses on what we
will be doing with the new spectrum, how much it will cost to capitalize
and where we will get the money.
As we have heard from several speakers, our mission and uses of the spectrum
need to be clearly identified and articulated. Education and life-long learning
were suggested in this regard, and they provide a strong base from which
to build our own service in the digital world.
Changing the way we have traditionally done business seems to be called
for as we approach the transition to ATV. The old models do not seem to
work in the digital environment. New approaches built around partnerships
and efficient use of the ATV channels to provide multiple services can help
overcome some of the current flaws in our system. And redefining ourselves
beyond the confines of broadcasting is going to be critical, as the railroads
discovered many years ago.
Several of our presenters underscored the local importance of our service,
and we will need to protect that base and advantage. The ability to aggregate
programming and maintain a strong local presence will continue to be important.
Defining what localism means in the ATV world will need to be done. It may
be more off screen than is done at present.
This brings to mind the importance of interactivity. The new channels
offer sufficient bandwidth to allow the flow of a great deal of information
into the home. Feedback by voice or data will not require nearly as much
spectrum. But the importance of connecting with and involving the viewer/user
cannot be underestimated.
Throughout this whole process we have been reminded repeatedly that we
must not lose sight of the fact that it is the content which is important.
I would suggest that you make a sign and place it prominently where your
ATV planning takes place -- The sign should say: IT'S THE CONTENT,
STUPID. If we don't offer useful, valuable content, people will
not want or use our services. The quality of our content sets us apart from
others.
For the past three days we have been exposed to a broad array of technical,
legal and financial information. I liken it to drinking from a fire hose.
Now we need to take all this information back to our stations and see how
it affects the operation at home. Most importantly, we need to find ways
to share it with our staffs, boards and community leaders. The more people
who understand and "buy into" the importance of ATV, the more
likely we will be to succeed.
Thank you for joining us for this workshop. I hope you have found the
sessions informative and useful. None of us knows precisely which directions
this new technology will lead us in, but I think we have heard some likely
forecasts. Now we need to customize these forecasts to our own local set
of circumstances.
Just remember that it snowed this week in Seattle. The forecast said
it would snow, but everyone knows: It never snows in Seattle!
To Current's home page
Briefing
on public TV and digital ATV/HDTV
Web page created Jan. 27, 1996
Current
The biweekly newspaper that covers public broadcasting
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Washington, D.C.
[email protected]
(202) 463-7055
Copyright 1996
The Millennium Project
