This 1996 editorial defends the ACATS-derived DTV standard against computer industry proposals to strip out high-definition widescreen elements in favor of a reduced 'base layer' alternative. It argues the standard is flexible, rigorously tested, and that reopening the advisory process would be unjustified and harmful to over-the-air broadcasting.
The DTV Standard Is An Open Standard -Openly Arrived At
Reading the complaints and alternatives offered by some in the computer industry is a lot like peeling an onion:
What the complaints boil down to 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.
What some have proposed as an alternative is a stripped-down "base layer" derived from the ACATS* standard. The aspects that don't serve their own perceived interests - including the high-definition, widescreen picture - would be left on the cutting room floor. The notion that these elements could be added later is just that, a notion. They have provided no tests, or even working prototypes, to show that the idea is feasible.
It is simply assumed 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.
There is simply no flaw, no inadequacy, no justification worthy of reopening the pending DTV standard, and there would be no excuse for the blow that doing so would deal to over-the-air broadcasting. The relative performance and cost assertions put forward on this score are based on technical and economic notions and analyses that are simply wrong. The complaints about the advisory process boil down to: "We didn't get all we wanted./'
In reality, the DTV standard is significantly more flexible, interoperable and extensible than the alternative standard proposed by some of the computer companies. Their alternative would effectively jettison the wide-screen, high-resolution presentation of entertainment material to consumers, without any technical assurance that it could be added later. It risks the development of serious incompatibilities only after substantial commercial investment in infrastructure and home receivers.
The U.S. commitment to terrestrial broadcasting denies us the luxury of ad hoc decision-making. The FCC was right to appoint an advisory committee, and the advisory committee was right to insist that every proposal be tested rigorously. The end result - the DTV standard that the Commission has proposed for adoption - has withstood all but the most tendentious criticism. There would be no constructive point in reinventing this wheel.
*ACATS is the FCC's Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service.
October 1996
Progressive v. Interlace Scanning: A False Choice
While attacking the DTV standard as supposedly inflexible, some elements of the computer industry also are trying to REMOVE a key element of choice, flexibility and interoperability - the option for use of "interlaced" scanning techniques.
"Interlaced" scanning is a display technique universally used in the broadcast industry that halves the bandwidth relied upon, allowing the effective lines of resolution to be doubled. "Progressive" scanning is commonly used in computer displays; the lines of resolution are sequentially displayed, requiring twice the signal bandwidth.
Europe's "DVB' standard accommodates only interlace display. The earlier formulations of the ATSC standard also were weighted more heavily to interlace display. But as a result of the thorough consultations and attempts at maximum flexibility inherent in the ATSC process, the end result was that the DTV standard relies on progressive scan wherever possible - five out of the six HDTV formats in the DTV standard employ progressive scanning, while one uses interlaced scanning. (The complaint of the some in the computer industry that the DTV standard is really 18 different standards is a misleading semantic attempt to turn the attribute of flexibility into a perceived disadvantage.)
Having ensured the flexibility to use progressive scanning whenever it is not forestalled by the bandwidth constraints that apply to live broadcasts, some in the computer industry now try to make the standard RIGID by banning the interlace techniques that are often essential to broadcasting. The potential consequence they fear is that too many users would choose interlaced equipment.
This is actually a false choice. The DTV Standard is a transmission standard, not a display standard. Neither program producers, broadcasters, nor consumers will be forced to use an interlaced display just because it exists in the standard. Computers (or televisions) can use conversions to display the signal in any format they wish. Even material that is transmitted using the lone interlaced HDTV format may be displayed in a progressive format.
The proposal, now, to eliminate interlace scanning by fiat is simply anticonsumer. All present TV studio and broadcast equipment relies on interlace scanning. The bandwidth constraints on progressive scan technology will continue to limit its use and will not soon be overcome. Only interlace allows the transmission of a 1080 line picture-the full High Definition Television that will provide the consumer with the ultimate viewing experience.
The DTV standard is a model of multi-industry accommodation and flexibility. Eliminating interlace would alter the standard to make it rigid and inflexible. The inclusion of both progressive and interlaced scanning allows the DTV Standard to meet the needs of broadcasters and consumers, while accommodating those in industry and the public whose needs are satisfied by progressive scan technologies.
October 1996
The DTV Standard Will Cost No More Than "Bargain"Alternatives
Some misleading and clearly flawed economic studies have suggested that adoption of the DTV standard now will cost consumers more than the adoption of a partial and confusing "basic" computer-oriented standard. The only way such a conclusion can be supported is through wrong technical assumptions, double counting, and inconsistent application of economic assumptions. The facts are that, given the uncertainty and chilling effect on investment that the alternative would create, the DTV standard is clearly the most economical approach, in both short and long terms
The first color televisions, the first computers, the first VCRs, the first anythings were always relatively expensive. The price comes down through mass production and the industry Learning curve" - not just for computers, but for all electronics products. Critics of the DTV standard compile astronomical cost figures by attributing to the DTV Standard - but not to proposed alternatives the costs of both switching to digital techniques and replacing displays in their normal life cycles (which in fact occurs less frequently in consumer electronics than in computers).
Most egregiously, the critics assert that all consumers would have to adopt the DTV Standard on an "all or nothing" basis, or their screens "would go dark" when true HDTV programming is broadcast. This core assumption, basic to much of the opposition rhetoric, is simply false, and has been so demonstrated to the FCC. The fact is that under the DTV Standard consumers will have every bit the flexibility to watch the DTV HDTV programming through converters that they would under the proposed alternatives. Indeed, overall, consumers will have MORE flexibility, because they will have the option of receiving the HDTV programming through true HDTV receivers if they wish - an alternative unlikely to see the light of day under the computer-oriented standard.
There is no question that true HDTV would benefit from larger displays, and industry is Higher up" on this learning curve. But progress in such displays, including truly digital picture tubes, has been profound. The FCC can hasten this progress, and the associated declines in price, by approving a standard that will use, encourage and facilitate investment in these displays. Or, it can choose a partial alternative that may in fact be inconsistent with ever achieving a full HDTV display, forestall investment in such programming, and keep prices for large displays high into the indefinite future.
October 1996
Consumers Deserve the Chance
to Enjoy HDTV
An inevitable consequence of an FCC failure to support the full ACATS* standard would be the orphaning of the high-resolution, wide-screen display that fired the imagination behind a new format in the first place. Supporting this consumer presentation is not simply a matter of showing movies in or close to their original aspect ratios. It is, rather, a matter of offering consumers a view of the world that twice as clear and is effectively three times as wide - the difference between peering out an airplane window and standing on a mountain top.
The full, high-definition implementation of DTV provides not just a somewhat wider screen, but five times the information compared to a display of standard resolution and width. Sometimes this is indicated by comparing pictures of comparable size, showing how much sharper the images and better the colors are on high-definition presentation. But the impact of the comparison is lost if the pictures are too small or are viewed from too far away.
Another way to compare the two formats is to consider the different size and shape of the high-definition display compared to a display of material at the same resolution. For example, the close-up display of the quarterback dodging a pass rush fills a conventional TV picture. A high-definition display can show this picture in the same size and resolution, and show the same-size pictures of the receivers and their coverage down the field, too. Baseball fans can see the fielder catching a grounder and the batter running to first, all in the same picture and all at the same size and resolution of today's close-up shot.
If the high-definition picture is presented on a relatively small display, consumers can enjoy this presentation by sitting closer than they do today they will not see the "scan" lines or fuzziness that limits broadcasters to "close-ups" today. Ultimately, when a large screen presentation is economical, and broadcasters take full advantage of the greater information and wider viewing angle, consumers will be offered an entirely new "mountain-top" experience, very different from their narrow and relatively fuzzy window on the world today.
The trick is for the wide-screen, high-resolution implementation of DTV not to be suffocated in its cradle. False comparisons and false economies may persuade the FCC to settle on a "compromise" that kills any chance of the full system ever being offered to consumers. This would, indeed, be a tragedy.
*ACATS is the FCC's Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service
October 1996
What Happens If America Rejects
The Best Digital TV Standard?
Today, technology is international and knows few borders, but, right now, the world is watching the United States. What we decide about the Digital TV (DTV) standard that has been developed through the government's own advisory process can have a profound effect on both our role in technical progress and the prices U.S. consumers pay.
While no country or region can claim to have developed exclusively such technologies as MPEG video compression and other major elements of the DTV standard, the United States uniquely has arrived at a digital television standard which allows consumers to benefit from cutting edge entertainment technology. It resulted from regard for the needs of related industries, and an advisory and testing framework that has valued contributions from every point on the technical and geographical compasses. In this regard, the United States has in fact seized world leadership.
Critics of the pending DTV standard rightly dismiss the European and Japanese alternatives as inferior. But they also express concern that the elements in these standards that they condemn as inferior interlace scanning, non-square pixels - may be embraced by consumers and manufacturers if allowed as options in the pending DTV standard. Rather than approve a balanced, considered, and tested approach that provides for a migration path that meets diverse needs, they would have the FCC toss out this standard, or adopt only the parts that serve their own interests.
Ignoring the constituencies for key elements of the DTV standard would ieonardize U. S. leadership at a critical time. It would invite the non-standard, non-migratory use of these technologies in the United States as permanent "quick fixes" that hopelessly muddle any future attempt to achieve a leading-edge standard. It would create serious standards conflicts through disparate investment strategies drawn to these technologies and others. For those watching whether the U.S. will put its standards leadership into practice, it will teach that some other course is better. Any chance that other nations or regions will adopt our DTV standard - hence raising production quantities of components, lowering manufacturing costs and creating export opportunities for U.S. companies - would evaporate.
Is it preferable to have systems catering to particular needs introduced piecemeal, with most investors waiting on the sidelines, or to have a carefully balanced standard that allows technical growth and migration? Is it preferable to have the various technical concerns integrated elsewhere, according to local policies, or in the United States, in accordance with its unique commitment to terrestrial broadcasting? Is it better to create U.S. jobs and exports in accordance with the DTV standard, or put our own market into disarray while others forge ahead?
Clearly, it is better to preserve U.S. leadership by approving the pending DTV standard.
October 1996
