Confusion, Setbacks, and a Way Out: The Troubled Path to HDTV Standards

by Dale Cripps
Tuesday, March 10, 1998

F. Scott Fitzgerald said that the first rate test of intelligence is the ability to open the mind to opposing ideas and, at the same time, still maintain the ability to function.

As we approach the turn of the Millennium we are on the brink of a technological leap that will put television, as we know it, into perspective as an artifact of the 20th Century. The name may change, but out of the alphabet soup of government and industry acronyms will come a communication system that can lead us into the future or leave us behind as an evolutionary dead end. --Edmond Chibeau Ph.D. Are we really on the threshold of a fundamental shift in the way people get their television fix?

--Tom Rogers, President of NBC Cable and Executive Vice-president of NBC.

How Did We Get Here, Anyway? Executives recall that fateful Spring day. They were in the Chairman's office of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That's when television changed forever. It was 1990 and the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services (ACATS) gathered to give an interim report to the Chairman. ACATS also needed to iron-out the approach to be taken for the new High-definition television standard.

Hand-wringing in Washington, DC, caused by fear that the United States was falling behind Japan with the next generation of television, left all players receptive to beef up the race for High-definition television.

Because of an enormous respect for FCC Chairman, Al Sikes, and his knowledge as a former broadcaster...coupled with his vision for High-definition television...all ears picked up when Sikes decreed that the next generation of television, Advanced Television (ATV), could no longer be compatible with NTSC. Technology had advanced too much, Sikes declared. Everyone had to be free to reinvent television from scratch without ties to the past. "Make it simulcast!"

Gasps were heard around the conference table, but advocates of compatibility nodded in quiet approval. Why? Rumors had circulated weeks earlier that an efficient digital transmission method had been developed in San Diego by General Instruments. With it, a 6MHz channel could contain compressed digital data enough to make a true HDTV picture, i.e., 2 million pixels on a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.

It became clear that rigid analog technology was dead, and that ATV would soon be all-digital. Since once- unusable-spectrum could now be used because of new efficiencies, there would be enough spectrum for every broadcaster to simulcast HDTV side-by-side with the old NTSC services at least until no more viewers were using the old. NTSC frequencies could be returned to the FCC for reassignment. That particular FCC meeting on "M" Street in Washington, DC marked the hour when HDTV began a long decent from king to mere pawn. HDTV was soon eclipsed by a sea of new technical and business inventions--the kind which digital breeds.

Contrasted to analog, digital is electronic silly putty. It is malleable to near-limitless technical configurations. From this "flexibility" any number of business ideas can be created from HDTV to a multiplex of low-definition channels.

The work on the new standard mirrored, then adopted the development of the MPEG II digital compression scheme. MPEG II transmission and receivers have a chameleon-like capacity. You want HDTV? You can do that. You want four or more lower standard channels? You can do that, too. You want a mix of these things--HDTV sometimes and four or more channels multiplexed the other times, data for the stock quotes, airline schedules, baseball statistics, or a gaggle of web pages? There is nothing stopping you as long as there is an encoder and a decoder of the same MPEG II family.

A slew of new business ideas surfaced once digital was confirmed as the way. Brilliant engineering executives offered well-grounded, though differing, business reasons for either beautiful pictures or dividing up the spectrum to make more programs at today's quality. Both tactics were designed to stem viewer losses to cable and DBS. Many went the middle ground and said a mix of these things would be the right thing to do.

Congress passed a law to balance the budget. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that analog frequencies were worth billions of dollars to the government if they could get them back and auction them off. Congress included that money in their budget balancing figures. To get the analog frequencies back, Congress passed laws saying that when 85% of the nation is capable of receiving digital television signals the government could ask for the analog spectrum back. The target date for doing that is 2006. (Many think it will never happen.) The public has to buy something if that 85% rate is to be reached. Congress thinks HDTV is what will cause the public to shell out and do that.

A slew of new business ideas surfaced once digital was confirmed as the way.

The idea of returning channels raises blood pressure among managers of media properties today. Just because 85% can receive digital television doesn't mean the audience will be using television the same way they do today. In a September conference in Washington DC Tom Rogers, Vice-president of NBC, said that television culture may change to something inconceivable today.

So where does digital broadcasting start?

It is now ten years since the drive for broadcast HDTV started and everybody is still fumbling in the dark searching for the best digital business to be in. Former Fox Television Network President, Barry Diller (now head of Home Shopping), expressed this in New York City recently when he said, "Digital is sure to happen, but no one knows how or when." His comments were echoed by fellow NBC and Paramount Network panelists. Local broadcasters and national networks, they added, continue to wrestle with the question of how to use the digital spectrum, and nobody is in agreement on anything.

Another former Fox Television executive, Preston Padden, has the task of charting the digital future for ABC (Disney). At a recent Paul Kagan Seminar in New York City, he said that there is no sound reason for ABC to do HDTV. Padden said a three-to four-channel subscription service is the better use of digital spectrum.

It is now ten years since the drive for broadcast HDTV started and everybody is still fumbling in the dark searching for the best digital business to be in.

Congress reacted quickly to Padden. A different tune from broadcasters had been heard prior to the allocation of spectrum just last April. Then everyone was "politically correct" declaring that they would do HDTV using the new 6 MHz channels. You could count on them, they said, to support manufacturers' urgent need for these high grade signals.

Padden's comments caused those in agreement with him to show their hands. Fearing a stampede by broadcasters to the position held by Padden, the Senate organized a hearing posthaste. They asked Padden if he meant that Disney and ABC were out of the HDTV business. Padden back-peddled, saying he never meant to suggest ABC wouldn't do some HDTV broadcasting during prime time and please reinterpret his original comments to say ABC would like to try some other business options as well as do HDTV. "Television broadcasters will do HDTV. We are committed to it. We see it as a competitive necessity," said hearing panelist, Robert Decherd, Chairman of A.H. Belo Corp., a Dallas-based broadcast company.

Sinclair Broadcasting, also a group owner of stations, agreed with Padden that some kind of subscription service was worth investigating. Many insiders said Padden had done irreparable harm to the HDTV movement with his Kagan speech. "Lousy political timing," said a Washington luminary. Manufacturers were sent reeling. Could this be the trend?

No Imperative to Do It

Even with badgering from the Senate, broadcasters are under no legal obligation to broadcast HDTV. Barring further legislation, they have every right to use the spectrum in ways which suit the business environment of the day. If they use the spectrum for subscription or pay-per-view services, they must pay the government for the spectrum. If they use it for free program transmission, the spectrum is also free.

To be in accord with FCC requirements, broadcasters need only have a 100 watt transmitter operating and then only for a few hours per day. That would be a modest investment for keeping the spectrum instead of losing it for some non-compliance reason.

To those at the National Association of Broadcasters in Washington, it makes a great deal of sense for their members to hold on to the spectrum by doing this minimum compliance until a real business reason shows itself. One could hardly blame commercial broadcasters for eyeing a low-cost way to stay in the game. They didn't invent HDTV or standard definition digital television. Other than from the engineering groups, most never wanted it. They originally asked the FCC to make HDTV compatible with NTSC.

That would have been a much easier business transition. They received no help from government or anyone else in the development of the standard. Some think the loan of digital spectrum is a huge value, but not until they learn how to make money with it.

That is another question. The major networks are identified today with their affiliate channel numbers. You likely have an ABC affiliate in your area radiating from Channel 7. Or, you receive NBC on Channel 4 in your home town. Those treasured numbers are a major part of the station and network identification. Such identification is lost in digital transition. Want to give up your News Channel 7 logo for News Channel 46A?

This is only part of the pain. The channel allocations are not as completely engineered as once thought. When multiples of digital stations come on the air, interference is likely to work mischief on a digital receiver. There might be something done about this if enough can be known in time. There are not enough engineers in the field, according to the FCC, to answer these interference questions and make the needed adjustments in time.

Many insiders said Padden had done irreparable harm to the HDTV movement...

The launch of digital television needs more time to sort things out, everyone is saying, but that implementation schedule, hammered out to satisfy the FCC, is a gun to the head. Much about that schedule relates to Congressional desires to complete the transition as quickly as possible in order to get back the analog channels. The auction proceeds of these channels, remember, is factored into the budget balancing act already. Another reason for needing a specific roll out date is to correspond with the retail introduction of HDTV receivers.

Pockets of Good News

It's more costly to produce HDTV programs. It's costly to send their signals. It's costly for the consumer to buy HDTV receivers. To most this means a slow sales rate, which means little profit for years to come for broadcasters. That has not stopped a few heroic figures in the industry from coming forward. They have ordered digital transmission equipment. They have gone on the air with experimental HDTV and have stood up to be counted.

WRAL-Raleigh, North Carolina has believers at the wheel in Jim Goodmon and John Greene. They saw HDTV in 1987 when the industry was trying to communicate by demonstrations to the FCC about it. They never forgot the excitement those demonstrations produced. They went on the air in July of 1996 with the first HDTV signal. There was nobody to watch them, but that has not swayed Goodmon and Greene. "You have to see this as an evolution in technology that you have to do." WRAL does not think the multiple channel idea is important, or even worth considering for commercial broadcasters. "We should have HDTV all the time." says Goodmon.

Pay channels are particularly odious to Goodmon's theories. "Look, the ratings are with the free broadcast programs, not the pay services," he holds out.

Public Broadcasting Stations are showing amazing agility in both raising money for new digital production and transmission equipment--and forecasting real uses for the digital spectrum. Many believe that PBS programming will work well for HDTV during prime time. Birney Clark certainly does. His Public Broadcast Services (PBS) affiliate, KCTS in Seattle, is already on the air with an experimental FCC license using a 1000 watt digital transmitter. They will be moving up to a megawatt transmitter the first of the year. KCTS has been producing programs in HDTV for several years and is scheduled to take delivery of the latest Sony HDTV camcorder in March of 1998. They have four separate HDTV productions under way today, many others already completed. Their vision is not clouded by the same concerns which worry commercial broadcasters.

There is every reason to do multiplexing to serve their adult and traditional student education audiences. PBS has been gearing up for a greater role in education for years. Digital enables that, and HDTV attracts the big donors to pay the equipment bills. Far-sighted Oregon Public Broadcasting has joined with its Seattle neighbor to be among the first to deliver a full slate of digital services statewide. You can expect a host of innovative services from this enlightened and public spirited leader.

CBS, the stalwart on the commercial side, continues to believe that HDTV is essential to broadcasting's future. Since as far back as 1984, CBS's legendary maven, Joe Flaherty, has been preaching that broadcasters will have to employ quality in order to compete in the multi-channel cable/DBS and pre-recorded universe.

Most readers of Widescreen Review read it to connect to the quality of laser discs. Consider that broadcast quality will soon outstrip anything (at least visually) you can buy on a disk by several magnitudes. You begin to understand why more forward-looking broadcasters believe that quality will recover some, if not all, of their viewers' lost to the alternatives. "The best you can get is from broadcasting!" That is the vision which keeps CBS plugging along faithfully to HDTV.

NBC has never embraced this vision. NBC supported a compatible system and has never believed a move directly to HDTV was good business. ABC has never been a technology-oriented company. ABC said in the 1960s it would not go to color.

Fox Network remains the least focused to the question, perhaps due to the appeal of its programming to the younger set, who may be least likely to buy special equipment to view a program.

HBO recently announced that it, too, would do HDTV--mostly with programs it owns, at first. HBO will distribute by satellite to all of its traditional outlets like cable and DBS.

Turner Broadcasting said it would be at the forefront of HDTV on cable with its movie channels. I had shown Ted Turner his first HDTV pictures years ago. He said then that it looked like it was good for his movies, but not his news services.

Does It Compute?

The computer industry--Microsoft, Intel, Compaq, and Lucent Technologies (called the DTV Team)--wants a big slice of the digital broadcast pie. They see their consumer growth tied to it. With a new proposal for standards, they are busy day and night discouraging broadcasters from transmitting true HDTV--at least the 1080 X 1920 line interlace version. The DTV team favors a pixel rate which their computers can decode as soon as 1998. While producing nice images on computer screens, many argue that doing what they want...when they want it...won't satisfy the early adopter markets during change-over, and suck wind out of the transition sails. It could also kill the incentive to go to true HDTV later on.

The DTV team wanted a 480 line progressive scanning standard or a 720 line progressive operating at 24 frames per second. Their entry has raised the level of confusion among both broadcasters and consumer electronic manufacturers. No one has a clear picture as to what to make for the consumer because they don't know what broadcasters are finally going to broadcast.

Despite any concrete signs of making headway, the DTV team continues to appeal to broadcasters around the world: It asks broadcasters to use their untested layered system and drop the all-format ATSC, Table III/FCC approach (the one the consumer electronic companies favor). If broadcasters agreed, all work done by the consumer electronics industry on ATSC all-format encoders/decoders would be wasted. The push for better display technology will loose momentum, too, if the DTV team achieves their aims. Why? The view is that if an installed base of 25 million computers occurs in 1998-1999...limited to decoding a 480 progressive or 720 progressive by 24 frames per second...images there will be little motive to further invest in a 1080 line progressive scanning system.

The computer team shrugs, saying that upgrading is a fact of life and they will progress to 1080P as soon as processing power permits. Displays should follow.

If High-definition signals go on the air in 1998 covering 43% of the U.S. population, as agreed by broadcasters with the FCC, the computer team, i.e., Microsoft, Intel, Compaq, and Lucent Technologies, must limit the pixel processing or raise the price of their computers. They simply will not be able to decode full HDTV signals at the "sweet spot" price point of a one hundred dollar premium for every personal computer.

So the computer team will sell a large number of computers able to decode only some of the DTV signals. At higher price points, computers will not sell as well. A compromise in the making? Yes, the DTV computer team wants broadcasters to limit signals to lower than true High-definition video rates. But the DTV team promises one thing: VIEWERS coming to digital transmission quicker. Quality may be compromised with their first designs. The bigger question is: Do you watch TV on computers? All and all, their suggestion of providing millions of viewers is still a compelling argument to an advertiser-driven business. The alternative is a slower penetration from more costly, all-format, receivers.

While fueling the confusion, few analysts believe the computer story will fly if it does not include, in the beginning, a true HDTV video format for sports. Talk all you want about the values of beautiful images propelling art to new heights; sports has been important in driving new media.

It should be noted that if broadcasters decide that a 480P image is the best business decision, there may still be more to carefully consider. That fateful decision by Al Sikes in 1991 did not foreclose on the idea of returning to a compatible approach--once a simulcast system had been completed. If 480P can be achieved in a compatible system, a new light on how best to proceed should flicker. A compatible solution to delivering a 480P video image is both achievable and, by far, the most compelling business solution.

When once asked what David Sarnoff would do in this situation, Sarnoff's disciple, Dr. Kerns Powers..the man who gave us 16:9 aspect ratio...told us that he would "first see that these images would be in everyone's home in 10 years, and also demand that advanced television be made compatible."

Tower-building Challenges?

Another challenge which may slow the transition to digital television is tower building and erecting. Hundreds of new towers must be built in order to support both digital and NTSC transmitters. Apparently, there is an unanswerable shortage of tower erector personnel. Tower building is a task which takes years of training and experience to master. It is dangerous, tedious work...often requiring long absences from home...and many leave the business just as they gain proficiency in order to be with their families.

Transmitter manufacturers are less problematic. They can be produced rapidly, and plant capacity has been added--about $65 million worth, to date--to fill the anticipated orders for digital transmitters. The anticipated orders have yet to materialize; and, oddly enough, new orders for analog transmitters are booming.

Coming Demonstrations

Manufacturers will be showing new HDTV sets in January, 1998 at the Winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. If all goes as planned, HDTV signals will be transmitted into the convention center to power the HDTV set demonstrations--aimed at eager commercial buyers and the press.

Already, Sony and Panasonic have announced HDTV products. Many others are expected to follow. High-end, home theater projection systems are expected to show this year as well. They will use recently developed ASTSC/FCC all-format decoders. Publicity surrounding new products is unavoidable. This may not be the best news. With broadcasters waffling on their true HDTV transmission commitments, this could be the last thing consumer electronic manufacturers need. Consumers will not buy HDTV sets until there is enough programming accompanying purchases. Consumers will not buy big screen NTSC sets if they think HDTV is just around the corner. Fictitious information about HDTV could cost the consumer electronics industry billions of dollars in lost sales while customers wait in the wings for promises to be kept.

The Bigger Picture

We are, of course, talking about changing the entire television system from top to bottom. It is staggering work, with enormous, almost unimaginable, risks. The only thing HDTV has to sell is quality. This means that programming and technology must be matched carefully . If a demonstration falls short, the potential of the entire industry is damaged.

The press is poised and ready to pounce on HDTV, with many reporters believing it is a scam promoted by wily broadcasters to gain billions of dollars worth of spectrum free of charge from the U.S. government. More informed industry players realize that to get digital television started on the right foot, a complete and concerted cooperation from all members of the industry is needed-full commitment which never looks back.

Still Bigger Picture

What can maximize the launch of digital HDTV/DTV? Certainly impressive and frequent demonstrations will help. Outstanding and assessable programming will help. Programming best fitted to the medium will help. Clarity concerning the standards will help. A clear public understanding of the benefits of HDTV will help. True believers will help.

Demonstrations are crucial. An overwhelming majority who have seen HDTV immediately want it. It's akin to a religious experience. One would think, then, that a fanfare the likes given to Caesar would be in preparation. Yet, there is no sign that any such fanfare is in the works.

So far, PBS and Harris Corporation have the only planned exhibitions and demonstrations scheduled. They will be trucking around the country teaching and giving demonstrations of HDTV, as well as standard definition digital TV, to public broadcast stations and potential donors (who might give money for the digital transmission gear needed in public stations).

An overwhelming majority who have seen HDTV immediately want it.

The consumer electronics industry has offered little support for this tour. They fear that any premature exposure of, and publicity about, HDTV will cost them big screen NTSC sales. This would be true if consumers are made to believe that HDTV is just around the corner.

With at least one widely-accessible HDTV signal source, the consumer would have at least one reason for making a buying decision. Customers who are excited by a demonstration, could decide if they wanted to invest in HDTV or stick with traditional NTSC a few years more.

Who Is The Right Pioneer?

There is no obvious way showing itself for broadcasters to recover their pioneering cost. The motive for broadcasters to pioneer a simulcast Advanced Television System is little more than fear--fear that a government mandate would force them to do it. Regulation is always a regrettable condition.

Broadcasters fear the following:

1) Loss of their old analog channel(s) with familiar logo-like channel numbers;
2) Having a digital business unequal in power and stature to the one they are being asked to abandon;
3) They will choose the wrong use of the digital spectrum.

A defensive motive, say experts, won't produce the edge in innovation that an offensive one can. While a defensive reaction may not sink HDTV/DTV, the aim of maximizing the potential of the new industry would be lost. Should broadcasters clear away these fears, there is still no exciting or compelling motive, economic or otherwise, to drive their start-up activities. Why are broadcasters assigned by industry the pioneering task for digital television transition start-up in the first place?

At one time, it was thought that HDTV could be so confusing to the public that only broadcasters had enough strength to instill clarity in the marketplace. But with digital, and its myriad performance levels allowed by the FCC decision, it is now exactly the opposite with broadcasters. Confusion reigns dangerously.

One could buy a set which receives over-the-air signals and has the new 16:9 aspect ratio, but is not an HDTV set. It might be limited to displaying 480 lines vertical resolution, but still widescreen. It might even be a 4:3 set able to receive digital broadcast signals. It also, of course, could be a true HDTV set.

Then, there is the fact that each broadcast network might emphasize one format over the other. For example, CBS has insisted on using 1080 lines interlace scanning, while ABC has said it can't see why 720 lines progressive scanned isn't the right thing--in light of display limitation.

Fox Television has intimated that 480 lines progressive is the right target and should be the choice, and now other networks are beginning to turn their heads in the 480P direction. Likely, whatever they broadcast, it will be held up as true HDTV in order to peddle it to the public.

Thus, in order for consumers to understand what true HDTV even means, there needs to be a massive information campaign launched...and not by manufacturers or broadcasters with particular axes to grind...to set the course right. This would require defining and then labeling HDTV with a recognizable symbol, much like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, or the public will be so confused that it won't be able to make intelligent buying decisions.

This is not to say that consumers should be restricted in choices of quality, image shape, or other factors, but that all these variables are understood clearly and labeled properly.

Does a new generation of television require a new generation of pioneers?

Why should something as good as true High-definition Television have any unnecessary baggage associated with its introduction?

When Al Sikes took his remarkable departure to simulcast, it should have signaled to the industry that nothing is the same. His comments should have told us that this is a brand new business and has to be introduced by a brand new business.

In designing this "new business," one would expect to optimize all of its parts, i.e., to take the most efficient distribution method and marry that with the most powerful programming attractions known.

Direct Broadcast Satellite is, far and away, the most efficient method for reaching the largest geographic area. Currently, it uses digital compression technology to deliver multiple programs on a fixed number of transponders. There is no technical obstacle to placing full 19.2 Mb/s HDTV signals on these satellite transponders. There is no trick to receiving these signals in most homes. Even apartment dwellers are wired for reception, with some notable exceptions.

All of these high-powered satellites--22,300 miles over the equator--are able to reach over 70% of the earth's land mass. With some imagination, one can envision a global pioneering HDTV signal service which is owned and operated by the stake holders of HDTV. This would be a true HDTV delivery medium, with early-released motion pictures, and masterful cultural events, running 24-hours a day to all corners of the world.

Such a pioneering service would put premium High-definition signals in the air wherever a buyer might be--e.g., USA, Europe, South America, Africa, Asia--and would resolve the chicken and egg dilemma. A subscription service, reserved for a limited number of subscribers...supported, in part, by selected corporate sponsors...appears to be the right pioneering service which will catalyze all that is to follow.

I am working to organize such a pioneering service. Properly seen, this service is a cost benefit to all involved. First, the 1,600 U.S. broadcasters will not need to finance the pioneering responsibility. That will be shifted to the new pioneer.

Secondly, manufacturers will be secure in knowing that a constant source of well--programmed HDTV signal exists, and that manufacturers can begin, at last, their promotional fanfare for true HDTV.

Once sales and marketing can begin...as the HDTV fanfare builds excitement in the marketplace...consumers will rise as high as they can possibly afford in response to meet the corresponding invitation from manufacturers.

This is the cleanest way I have seen to launch the High-definition Television industry, though it may not be the most popular way. Any faint-hearted financing of this industry, in any of its parts, is going to lead to "an unmitigated disaster," in the words of former Thomson executive, Dr. Joe Donahue. But if financed until things do take hold, this clearly would be the largest consumer electronic movement in history. It would be larger than all of television today, increased by what the computer industry brings.

In a nutshell, if we compromise true HDTV quality, it is no less than reducing the poles of a magnet: they simply have no power left to lift. At least one service has to be the most perfect in order than others following it may have a place to stand in contrast.