H/DTV's Health And Wealth
How To Make The Market For HDTV Hot - Part Two
Blame, Blame, Blame, But The Real Issue Is Cost
By Dale E. Cripps
"As a topic, HDTV looms large, and today embroils virtually the entire television industry, the larger electronics industry, and international administrations, As an issue, it can generate unusual levels of heated technical debate, political wrangling, confusion-even bitterness and fear."
Larry Thorpe, Sony, 1990
Not much has changed since Thorpe's comments. It's still high on the wrangle list. Those for it, are still for it. The detractors keep multiplying, most trying to modify it to their liking. Failing in that, they just want to stop it. Some are trying to make it into a PC service, often with less quality. So, there is nothing really new under the DTV sun. In its unalloyed form HDTV is still the most stunning consumer electronic product ever produced. It is still by far the most confused and contentious introduction in the history of consumer products. And, it is still the bedrock for the "new economy" for television. It is still a medium for relaxation more than work. It still moves forward one-half step at a time. And, it is still costing everyone involved a ton of money. It has reached, however, one important new point along its winding road to your home. Sides must now be taken. You are either for it just as standardized by the ATSC/FCC, or you are not. Standing in the middle is hopeless.
At the height of creative developments why should anyone be for it now? Surely new things have, or are surfacing, to blow away today's technology, much less this old political hot potato? Industry pundit John Rice called attention to this type of thinking ten years ago. "Technicians and inventions will continually create new devices and theories...which invites us to constantly wait for a better system to arrive." James Carnes, President of the prestigious Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, New Jersey, preaches that "there is a time in any development when you simply must 'shoot' the engineers."
In his book, HDTV, Tomorrow's Television, Mr. Rice got to the core issue which dwarfs all technical ones. "Nowhere in all of the debates and discussions has there been any definitive promise that HDTV will succeed in the marketplace."
Those words go along way towards explaining the present dilemma. This lack of a definitive promise aggravates such things as the modulation debate--something used to cover a more cowardly atmosphere in both broadcast and manufacturing groups. The real long-awaited American consumer test for HDTV is just beginning, and with only modest encouragement being felt from the results.
True, there is a great deal of enthusiasm for HDTV from those who already own receivers. Without exception they report that they love it.
Why shouldn't we all? HDTV delivers a truly exciting and intoxicating experience. It will continue to deliver it as long as humans have eyes and ears. It is hard to see why this visual standard will be changed again. Its 30 degrees of stunning artifact-free visual information is hard to beat. It is a terrific addition to life...for those who can afford it. And here we approach the crux of the whole matter.
There are those with more money than governments claiming it's too costly for we consumers. Perhaps it is, but before we decide that let me walk you through one of my little exaggerate tests to see where we actually stand on HDTV. I pose this question: If HDTV were entirely free (any size you like) and an abundance of satisfying programming came streaming into every home, who would not want it? Discounting the occasional crank who thinks winding his victrola is a divine duty I submit that everyone would take to such a bargain quickly. The issue is not its functions. Anyone with their senses intact would want it. The costs for those functions is the barrier to it being a runaway hit. This cost question is fundamental to the entire HDTV story, and in part illusional. The rest of the obstructions are a cover shielding this inevitableallocating and spending money for something you now realize you really want. You can cover this fact with technical snags, as with the terrestrial modulation fight now going on. You can say it's Hollywood's fault for not agreeing on a simple copy protection scheme. You can say it's cable's fault for not wanting to carry the digital broadcasters, or even agree on what a "cable-ready" receiver should be. You can blame it on the retailers (who don't know how to present it yet). but the real blamemore an issue than blameis just its natural inherent real cost. In the end, that is our issue--the consumers'--more than it is theirs, the manufacturers. It is regrettable that we consumers have no way to communicate to our television industry that we understand there is some costs to raising this standard, but it is something we want, and we will do like we always do, find a way to pay for it. If we don't demonstrate a willingness to work (pay) for it, we certainly won't get it.
Demand has a funny way of making price relative. Demand leads. Product and price follow. But we have to know what to demand. It is the industry's responsibility to carefully instruct us as to what the primary benefits are for HDTV, and where and how we can acquire them. Some critics are quick to say that manufacturers have not done a very good job in the roll-out and have confused everyone to the point of paralysis. We have to know what we are buying--no pig in a poke is going to satisfy us. One hears of the 18 format standards and strange occurrences going on with wide screens and narrow programs. There has been no gauge the consumer can use for determining the quality or performance of the monitor they may be looking at. How do these devices stack up one to the other? Are they all the same that are labeled HDTV-ready?
Since HDTV is a quality step we need a simple measuring stick for quality--a gauge that works for us when shopping at retail outlets. Some well-publicized symbols, perhaps, that label different quality and performance levels would make a good start. We need this references in both signal and display so when we are shopping both signal source and hardware capacity are known. Some displays/monitors are claiming themselves to be "HDTV-ready" but are no more than 600 x 800 pixel SVGA monitors. That is a far cry from their 2 million pixel big brothers (1080i x 1920). So, tell the dealers and manufacturers that we need a decent gauging system which allows us to do real comparative shopping. It is so unfair to us as it is.
We also need to know that the standard we buy will be around long enough to get our money's worth. If we buy the best display. one capable of true HDTV. we might be tolerant with periodic improvements in a separate new decoder--something that can be connected to our big investment display. I think we should tolerate that as a price for our early entry. There is always more work to be done on decoders. Let them do it. We should be delighted by any gains made if and when they move along. I suggest that the end of practical development can be recognized once they start pushing pure techno-silliness. In the mean time why complain about incremental achievements as long as the importance of backwards compatibility has been taken into account? I will likely buy a better display if I know it is usable far into the future regardless of how much I may upgrade the electronics.
This "too high cost" for HDTV issue has also been promoted in the press for over 20 years. It is always stated by these self-appointed watchdogs that it is all over our heads; a mess conjured in Washington; a sleazy trick about spectrum; a manipulation by foreign owned manufacturers, etc. Those both forecasting markets and writing in magazines/ newspapers invent statements expressing our revulsion over price as if the repetition of this unsubstantiated view makes it true. They never consider the total hours in which an HDTV display is amortized in our homes, nor by how many people who may come in and out of range of that display. The press has set consumers up to think, "Oh my God, this is really terrible. These money grabbers want to force me to buy HDTV, but it will break my bank. I can't afford that!" But we buy a $20,000 vehicle to drive to work. I don't spend a fraction of the time in my car as I do home with my family. How many hours and days and months will I be involved with an HDTV set over its lifetime? Sure, you can spend a quarter of a million on a media room. Sam Runco is thrilled to sell you his latest "Rolls Royce." But there are "Fords" and "Chevrolets" in the market today along with "BMWs" and "Buicks" that will give you tremendous performance for what is in the end a modest price for anyone who values the HDTV experience. And prices will continue their graceful slope downward, as always in consumer electronics. I am no expert on the "new economy," but if the "new consumer" made by that new economy isn't financially fit for HDTV, perhaps that consumer is stuck in the old economy without knowing it.
In my book HDTV is the centerpiece for the new television economy, even the crown jewel of the information age. All digital media will display on it. How can it be too costly when it is an essential ticket to the cultures of the future? Unlike radio or standard television, HDTV is not a necessity. It is rather a conscious step towards a higher quality of life. That is what you are acquiring with HDTV. The folks trying to bring that to you have hardly a clue about the social significance that is inherent with this movement. If they did, they would advertise it to the limit...for who could stand against as social good? To most in our business it is some kind of very dangerous economic movement. It is, of course, both a quality-of-life movement and an economic one. While this generation on the way up thinks life is free, as with Napster downloads, we know that there are things always worth paying for. I may be preaching to the choir here in Widescreen Review but I do believe this is one of those things in life you find well worth paying for.
Happening-Not Happening
New figures just released show that in the roll-out the numbers for actual ATSC decoders sold remains paltry and "disappointing." HDTV-capable displays are fairing better. In terms of revenue, the roll out is actually quite successful--surpassing a billion dollars. In late July CEA reported that for June alone more 26,750 DTV displays were shipped to dealers. That brought the year's tally to 139,000. Those numbers surpassed last year's, which tallied only 121,226 DTV displays. The pain for many in broadcasting is that only 17,671 stand alone 8-VSB decoders were sold since January. This number is held up by COFDM advocates as proof-positive that 8-VSB has driven buyers away like garlic does vampires.
But the controversy is taking new twists and turns, always avoiding the inevitableits success. The ATSC is again reviewing new broadcast criteria for DTV. Broadcasters say the old criteria fostered the development and selection of the 8-VSB standard They say this old criteria (of just a few years ago) no longer works for them...even if it does for us. If we have a standard based today on the old criteria, and we buy it, won't that mean that the old criteria is working for us and broadcasters? We consumers know that all electronic gadgets get better with time. Should we worry about 8-VSB? The opposing side claims it is broken. From professional observations we learn that the standard cannot possibly be exploited yet to its technical potential if for no other reason than technology keeps marching on. New algorithms and chip speeds, architecture...they all change by the day. Experts argue both ways leading one to believe that it's a very close call, and one likely insignificant to consumers. Seasoned experts offer the most encouragement. "What looks good (about 8-VSB) is simulated results," said Philips Senior Vice President, Dr. Barry Singer. "Also preliminary results in very limited field tests (look good), but until we really get to test in more difficult sites... we won't know for sure how big the improvement will be." According to Singer. "... the VSB difficulties that we're facing today are surely implementation, not fundamental to the system."
Can We Take That To The Bank?
Fox News Technology Group Executive Vice President Andrew Setos seems to take it there. "The mathematics say we shouldn't have any problem with mobile (applications); we shouldn't have any problem with multipath, and we still retain the benefit of payload and coverage, which are the Achilles heel on the flip side of (C)OFDM, which is tremendous reduction in coverage," Setos is certain that power costs are going to be greater with COFDM for reaching the same distance served by 8-VSB.
If Its Good Enough For Rupert Murdoch... Why Should We Object?
Broadcasters are in two camps with the line being drawn deeper by the second. Those that must extend signals far and wide across flat environments insist upon 8-VSB as their lower cost solution. Those with viewers in inner cities cling to COFDM for superior multpath performance. Sinclair Broadcast Group's call to the FCC to allow an inclusion of COFDM drew the first dividing line which many now think only can be erased by Sinclair. In my last article I said that a time-delay is absolutely certain with an inclusion of COFDM at the FCC unless all 8-VSB advocates just roll over and die--a very unlikely scenario-and no one else shows up. Sure, I wish there was magic I could perform which proved beyond all question that 8-VSB will offer trouble-free in reception in the toughest conditions. I can't. Along with Dr. Singer of Philips I can say that it is getting better. I trust that it will continue to get better if we keep focus upon it. Will that be a bother (to us) if the HDTV program services you want are so good? What trouble did you or your parents go through for color, or for even black and white? If we want something bad enough we will scale Everest to get it. Trust me, 8-VSB does not require the scaling of Everest. To most it is a walk in the park. Only to some is it likely to be a little uphill for part of a day. That little effort (which Sinclair says we will not tolerate) is the heart of this technical controversy...unless you consider mobile applications. Even Sinclair walked away from that notion (mobile) saying there was no real money in it. There certainly is in the core business of broadcasting.
Will you walk up that hill to have HDTV ? They did in Congress the other day. Elsewhere in this Issue 42, Editor Gary Reber has a piece on hearings held on the 25th of July. I won't repeat here all of the testimony since new ground was not broken. I will say that both 8-VSB and COFDM had integrated receivers working nicely side-by-side. And that's a tough environment. Did it take a little more work to get 8-VSB receiving well? I think about as much as you would in opening any shrink wrap item. If we tolerate that...we will not think twice about 8-VSB, at least in coming generations in most locations.
Leaving the modulation question behind, we really must focus on the most serious point raised by John Rice. "There is no definitive promise it will succeed...under any circumstances." How can that view bolster your confidence if you find yourself managing some HDTV project for your company?
I must admit to being a bit loony (or more kindly stated, farsighted). I looked out one day to this very time and saw that HDTV was such a huge undertaking that no single company or person could manage it alone. It had to be a collaborative work better organized than just a batch of independent armies fighting for new grounds without a general. One reason the FCC was made to force a time-table for the stations was to signal to the manufacturers when to build and market receivers. They could look at the implementation schedule and trust that broadcasters would toe the line. They knew just how many markets would come on-line and when. But they didn't calculate how much programming would be needed to move the market. This shortage of exciting programming is proving to be the biggest problem to stimulating growth in the transition.
Once enough programming is available it takes little imagination to see HDTV soaring. It will then overcome the inertia of the old system and go on to be one, if not the most successful product in the history of consumer electronics. There are things being commercially developed now in the way of displays and fiber optic light switching methods--with cost slashed dramatically--that all of this fuss raised in the year 2000 will look naive in 2010. Fiber capable of carrying thousands of uncompressed HDTV signals will criss-cross the nation, inching up to the last mile thanks to fabulous new light switching devices developed by Cyprus Semiconductor. That same company bought Silicon Light Machine for just one chip that not only performs this non-electronic switching of light but serves as a display driver--a solid state device with one row of many pixels that indexes down line-by-line (as in scanning) and light is reflected from little mirrors and color filters to deliver the sharpest and most colorful images ever seen from an electronic source. Sony has sought to replace the Trinitron for some time and licensed this technology with that in mind. This chip will work with projectors serving huge motion picture screens down to a small desk top monitors. It is inherently copy proof as cameras recording the screen image wind up with hum bars rolling down the picture.
We are in such a creative revolution that to say the restrictions of today will restrict us tomorrow is faithless. Broadcasters may change, more their transmission vision then business model. Cable will run to keep up with other ground-based systems, and satellites will be used to fill-in rural locales where wire is an unreasonable solution. I say this to encourage us staying with the course for HDTV. There are serious threats, mostly from short-sighted thinking, which wants to compromise your HDTV experience before it even gets started. We consumers are the only power left that can be concentrated enough into one body to do anything about getting true HDTV to our homes. You will do a good deed for the cause by giving HDTV as your Christmas present to the family, just as you have been thinking about doing. You won't be sorry. You will certainly give very nervous manufacturers a renewed reason to focus their resources upon something which is now in danger of being lost.
There is some good news about programming due to break. Soon, CBS will announce their fall schedule, which will be fuller with HDTV than last year's. NBC still has no plans beyond the Tonight Show. ABC is lost in space on this question (though some movies keeping showing up and I heard just yesterday we may be in for a surprise). Fox has a vision, but they are not eager to lead with it. We hear unconfirmed rumors that DISH Network will have as many as 6 channels of HDTV from their satellite services and DirecTV will expand their pay-per-view as they see us buy more receivers. HBO is nervous about broadcasters getting lost but can be encouraged if they see you at the check out stand this Christmas.
With this encouragement goes also a warning. I need to tell you that there is absolutely no guarantee that any HDTV programming of any kind in will be found in the near or long term future. I don't know what you may have heard but the facts are that Congress authorized the FCC in the Telecom Act of 1996 to grant the digital channels to broadcasters, but did not mandate any HDTV. They did not preclude the FCC from making that mandate, but stopped short. The FCC granted the licenses for the digital channels with no mandate for any HDTV programming at any time. The FCC requires only that broadcasters have at least one channel equal in quality to their existing NTSC channel. Satellite has no mandate. Cable has no mandate. You are in control of this only by your willingness to become a receiver owner and do so while broadcasters are being badgered by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) to do some HDTV...at least see if the American public wants it. It's all going to be up to people who are readers of this kind of magazine to offer courage and hope to those who must make huge investments on our behalf. We can't expect broadcasters or satellite people to burn capital on us if we are not responsive. So, we now must decide if we are people of the new economy and with the new way of seeing, or not.
If we don't show up for the movie, they will change the bill on us.
End of Part Two
Next Month....Some Novel Approaches To Programming and Signals
