Should it finally come that broadcasters gain the spectrum but delay indefinitely their transition to digital (or HDTV) the FCC advises that every major market could find two to three 6 MHz channels for HDTV. Those frequencies could be auctioned off to anyone-broadcaster or not-and a high definition terrestrial network or two could be built as a brand new service to eventually threaten the traditional ones. This scenario is not welcome by manufacturers who fear that a niche market would build some while the old NTSC continued in an AM radio status. This would not make HDTV the next generation of mass TV, just a new specialty item. And make no mistake about it, the manufacturers are very eager to revitalize their business with a new mass appeal item. The Electronics Industry Association has circulated a news release (see elsewhere in Widescreen Review) decrying the proposed digital auctions and giving as the most important reason the vastly improved jobs that will come from such an elevation in standards. Needless to say that improved revenue and profits is pretty high on their unpublished list (public relations departments shy away from expressing such a nasty thing as the primary motive for business in a free enterprise system).
Blessing In Disguise?
Broadcasters know audiences are moving on to new experiences like the internet and world wide web. The loss to cable is no longer growing, but very meaningful. National advertisers do not want to see their greatest asset-national network broadcasting-weakened or lost. From the advertisers point of view something has to be done to insure there will always be a mass audience for national network television. When television threatened Hollywood, widescreen formats (with stereo audio) were employed to retrieve customers. They didn't take that step, of course, until driven by competitive urgency. They delivered these technical advances and never turned back to the narrow black and white screen productions except where a novelty pays (like Ed Wood). Whether they stopped the erosion of their audience with technical advances is debatable. Had film not advanced ahead of the alternative media one can certainly ask if movies would be as important today as they are. Television-broadcast television-may draw a lesson from film's history and use technological advances to woo their straying audiences. The unique advantage of network broadcasting today is their power to create original programming. Couple that with HDTV and the competitors could suffer. If the networks drop below their ability to create original programming the ball game changes completely. This view is prompting serious discussions within network television that HDTV may not be so bad after all. In fact, it may be the proverbial blessing in disguise. In anticipation of HDTV most all television shows made in Hollywood are shot with a 16:9 protection. Still, the old style view that people watch programs, not technology, prevails in many discussions around the world.
In the transition the consumers must do their part without fail. Nothing can replace them. Should broadcaster choose to employ standard digital television (without HDTV) one wonders if there be enough advantage to cause the average consumer to buy a digital decoder, or digital TV set? If not, that could be a big problem for the transition itself. We have talked about that straddle nightmare in these pages before. In moving to digital the signal provider may be able to cover or write off their losses. But if the viewer gains no obvious advantage he is not likely to make up the expense in any way. It is Reed Hundt's view that viewers will be able to turn to analog sources as long as there is a business to be realized by an analog signal provider. If a digital decoder (like the DSS box) will be required to receive the same program at the same quality level only in digital, the question can be asked: why would the consumer buy that box? For more choices? For digital tricks? Some don't think SDTV is reason enough to drive the revolution.
Who Is To Drive It Then?
Will demand for consumer HDTV be generated alone from the works of the broadcasters? That is not a proven approach. RCA became the most important name in radio broadcasting in order to sell the radios they made. A time came in the diffusion of radio when too few stations were on the air to sustain the growth of radio set sales. Manufacturers rushed in and built station after station to fill the threatening void. It is nearly impossible for a sane mind to conceive the scenario where the broadcasters act voluntarily (if not altruistically) to amputate their existing business in favor of pioneering one they know nothing about. An experimental station was being equipped by manufacturers in Atlanta, GA (a Cox station) as a model to show that 1) the digital equipment works, and 2) there are lots of cool things you can do with digital. But going got to tough and it came to a halt. Dr. Joe Flaherty of CBS favored moving the experiment to a Washington, DC station and work to do that is in progress. But it has reportedly been slow going.
Where Is The Consumer-The Most Important Player?
There has been no consciousness raising among consumers about HDTV. The consumer has been excluded from the HDTV discussion and demonstrations due to their ignorance. There is no great lobbying from consumer advocate groups for HDTV (or digital), nor is there any arm twisting on the home turf of Senators and Congressman (since no one knows which way to twist). Manufacturers have been like deer in the headlights-fearful to make a move. They fear most the loss of today's sales as the result of any public anticipation of HDTV coming tomorrow. It is better, they think, to keep quiet (even if the policy issues suffer) and spring HDTV on the public when all the ducks are in a row. While they look for a commitment from broadcasters, manufacturers have not given a public notice declaring that they will support the retail markets with HDTV sets. The EIA HDTV Task Force does say that HDTV is a very important to them and, as a group, they will take measures to advance it. But so far nothing has come along like the full scale commitment that manufacturers and program providers have made with DVD. Quite to the contrary. There was no HDTV mentioned at the Winter CES by any manufacturers. Those questioned said they had to take a "wait and see" attitude.
What Is The solution?
Two interdependent industries-manufacturing and broadcasting-must come to make a simultaneous commitment to spend billions upon billions of dollars to create the market for HDTV. It is very difficult for governing bodies or industrial managers to act intelligently on public policy in the absence of a public voice or mandate. In this absence policy makers will yield to interest groups of all kinds. These interest groups represent themselves in Congress and the Administration as righteously as did Moses, complete with tablets offering proof of their holiness. But these tablets or charts invariably support the conclusions they believe best for their stockholders, as it should be. Occasionally, they are in coincidence with the public interest, but only occasionally.
What is the solution to this public ignorance about advanced television? How does the public come to know enough to make a contribution to the process? Certainly not by listening to industry spokespersons. Stanley Hubbard sat on panel after panel in the 80s promoting DBS, his now famous USSB. But before digital technology arrived to permit multiple program choices he said DBS would be first to deliver high definition programs into the homes of North America. HDTV was the killer application for DBS, he said repeatedly, noting the advantage of a national footprint compared to the paltry reach of a cable system or single television tower. His comments were aimed then to pleasing potential investors. It is a different story today. He now says that digital television should be the redefinition of what high definition is. He is having nothing to do with a "bandwidth hog" like HDTV. But his signal is a digital representation of analog NTSC signal. How is that HDTV? It isn't, of course, but who in the general public would question Stan Hubbard-a recent inductee to Broadcasting's Hall of Fame? He is, after all, a member of the Advisory Committee for Advanced Television Services (ACATS)-an organization chartered to serve the public interest.
Yet we are at that juncture where government bodies and multiple units from two private industries (three or four if you count program producers or advertisers) are about to make lasting decisions destined to impact the quality of every citizen's life for the next 5 to 10 decades! The citizens are totally unaware of the issues to be decided. They don't know who is influencing who, when, or why. The public doesn't know if HDTV is good, bad, or even if its a computer chip, or a television set. In the absence of a public voice the FCC says it represents the public's interest. But many say that despite good intentions the FCC knows little of the interests of the public. They know little of the interest of its most frequent petitioners-the broadcasters. They certainly can't be expected to divine what is in the minds of an unsolicited public-a public with zero education on the subject.
"What does the public know about all of this digital stuff? Its too confusing. Let someone else figure it all out." When you feel like throwing in the towel on any issue in a Democracy, you weaken that Democracy. Remember that HDTV, if successful, will occupy more hours of your life than does your work. If HDTV fails NTSC will continue to occupy more hours of your life than your work. But for your work you will spend tens of thousands of dollars on a college education, not to mention the 4 to 10 years required. You will study like a monk for years to learn a trade. But for things other than work we abdicate our rule to those already in power. Any decisions regarding HDTV or ATV cannot help but have a major impact on a very large percentage of your home life for the rest of your life, and the rest of your children's children's' lives. No public involvement in this decision? Wow.
What To Do?
The public deserves a full explanation of what high definition is & what standard digital television is. The demonstrations of both must be given to large bodies of the American public in order to form public opinion. If this movement has created an opportunity for the government to rake in $100 billion on future spectrum fees, let us borrow some from that to fund these demonstrations. Should no interest result from the demonstrations, the market is speaking and useless spending can be stopped. The HDTV standard is done, handed up to the FCC. The time has come to create this public education by demonstration of that which is about to occupy our public airwaves and our lives.
(The Dole push for auctioning the digital spectrum may have triggered the beginnings of these demonstrations. In an effort to persuade Senator Dole to alter his position on auctioning the new spectrum the National Association of Broadcasters met in Palm Springs the weekend of January 21-22 and resolved to initiate a public wareness campaign to inform the public, the broadcasters and, hopefully, the Congress on the importance of free-over-the air broadcasting and its ability to move into the digital age without suffocating encumbrances. The campaign is being devised at this writing and we do not know if HDTV will be the centerpiece of the argument, but it would appear it must. If this occurs the manufacturers will be cued to follow suite should Dole dig in. Then they will have to support the initiative to complete the educational process with the electorate.)
On The Other Hand..
There is always "on the other hand" to any question. On the other hand former Thompson vp, Dr. Joe Donahue, makes a compelling case when he says the public just doesn't need to have a say in these decisions. Even our sources at the FCC point to cellular phones and other things which had no public involvement in decision that effected millions of people and cost billions to launch. The issues are far too complicated. The public will not take time to educate itself and become a viable representative of its own best interest. After all, the consumer electronics companies do have extremely well-trained experts (well, no one is around now who ever transformed TV standards) in broadcasting, cable, telephone, prerecorded, and DBS. They know what is best for their industry. Presumably, it is what is best for the marketplace. The marketplace will sort things out under any circumstances regardless of the tests and demonstrations. Build an enthusiasm among the broadcasters, says Dr. Donahue. Get them to carry the ball. They will light the fires under the public when the time is right (and sell our TV sets). Then everything will be as it should.Maybe...
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
If I don't see a demonstration of HDTV once in awhile I start to lose sight of what it is I have been fighting for. I start feeling complacent, saying, to myself, "What the hell, NTSC is doing pretty good after all." I don't even own a laser discs! So, who am I to complain? (I do have DSS) About the time I am losing interest I'll get invited to a terrific HDTV demonstration. I see it and my adrenaline starts to pump and I am up again saying, this is terrific. Why did I feel to give up just because it looks like the impossible dream? Am I not fighting for everyone alive now and for the next 100 or more years? What, after all, is going to replace HDTV? More HDTV? But the value of it is so easily forgotten at a distance. It gets so mixed up and covered over by issues of spectrum auctions, protecting little stations in Walla Walla Washington, and what about this multiple channel thing? I thought I had that with DSS! From my experience demonstrations are essential to firmly establish what we want, and what we will demand, and the price we will be willingly pay. Demo us, please, frequently!
Out Of Focus, Out Of Business
Having asked this, another request must be made. Don't Screw Up The Demo. The Only Thing HDTV Has To Sell Is Quality. If a poor demonstration is given all is lost. The point is lost. The reason is lost. The criticism is one thing not lost and raises to heights formerly unimaginable when a demo fails. This comes fresh to my mind since there was a local SMPTE chapter meeting in Culver City at the Sony HDTV facility January 17. There, where money is no object, a demonstration was given by Sony hosts, Dr. Robert Hopkins, and a co-host from the Grand Alliance, Robert Rast of General Instrument. Both film and television professionals attending the demonstration complained that the HDTV images were not even as good as those of NTSC. They said that such a system they just saw was simply not good enough, so why not wait for something better? Maybe with something with a 2:1 aspect ratio? Well, there were some "natural born killers" there from the film industry-cinematographers who consider video little more than an "assist medium". This group may also feel threatened by video as it inches up to film quality. It is just not a film person's medium and any opportunity to discredit it seems to be seized. What looks sillier than a recognized pro from one field fumbling like a rank amateur in another? Very often the comments for and against HDTV are religious wars with no absolutes other than entrenched positions. So, I will toss those complaints aside. (By the way if the aspect ratio is wrong it is because it was selected in an open process in the absence of cinematographers except one, Harry Mathias.
Not only film, but video people complained or expressed disspointment in what they saw. Gary Reber, publisher of this magazine reports that the contrast ratio was so bad that none of the rich blacks and shades of grey were visible. Detail also suffered. "The strings on the guitar were not even visible," said the inventor and patent holder of the laser disc, David Paul Gregg. Visual veteran Gregg, a self proclaimed loose cannon, thought the problem was from too much compression and that the details were not even in the signal. Reber reports that most of the grousing came from video people, not film. Since I was not there I won't comment on the cause. I will say that if demonstrations are not up to the higher levels there is going to be big trouble in River City. There is no way that Congress, hearing of this demo through the press or grapevine, is going to love giving freely $50 to $100 billion of spectrum for what would have to sound to them like a scam. Those who sponsored the demo stop and ask yoursleves honestly if you think that a fickle, but careful, consumer would buy your demonstrated image as being five times superior to NTSC? If up to par you could. That is why there is an HDTV business. We know there is a tremendous picture in the signal and there are tremendous output devices to prove it. Don't compromise with anything, or you lose the whole. It is the compromiser who let the air out of the tires of civilization. Compromise with the price, not the picture.
As we approach the realization of a market driven HDTV era every natural enemy will arise to denounce HDTV. Feed that demon anything and it will grow fatter and harder to overcome. This poor demo should be a powerful lesson to the rest of the industry that it needs to develope a demonstration team, and a set of specifications for demonstrations that are never compromised.
It Takes Imagination
One of the most intriguing pieces produced in HDTV was a music video of John Lennon's Imagine. It reminds me to imagine a new era where the public is led enthusiastically to spectacular demonstrations at every mall and gathering place, and in the process whets a ravenous appetite for HDTV. Imagine, then, the publicity power of the entire entertainment/broadcast industry orchestrated in the promotion of HDTV as the "coming thing", leaving us all informed about the new high quality era on the threshold. Imagine a day when everyone was saying, "Yes, yes, this is what we are going to have, and I hope in time for Christmas! This is what we waited for!" Such an attitude among the public would make the decisions of those trying to second guess markets considerably easier. No one would have to worry if they were going to end their NTSC, PAL and SECAM transmission or old standards TV set making businesses because the new demand from this spectacular product introduction would guarantee a bright and growing future for everyone. The old would be discarded and the new introduced. Governments would know what to do because the public would be speaking out clearly on what policies they wanted. Officials would open the pathways to fresh opportunity and business growth (no doubt with self-congratulatory slaps on the back for having performed such heroic public service).
Well, we know that is not how it is. But certainly the manufacturers, signal providers, program producers, and the government must see that with demand from the public the orchestration of an HDTV launch is much, much easier, and far more certain. A poisonous climate where doubt, suspicion, confusion, and fear of market failure prevails is a gaurantee of market catastrophe, which will prove costly beyond mere pain-the innocent public included. Laws governing spectrum use are not easy to change either. We need to get this transition as right as it can be from the beginning. But that goes without saying, doesn't it?
The fact is commercial television began with 7 inch black and white tube.
Still not convinced?
Let the imagination go free again. Suppose David Sarnoff had not introduced to us a little black and white television set at the 1939 World's Fair in NYC, but rather a sleek 60 inch HDTV model with five channels of discreet digital audio! What would the public have thought back in 1939? It would look like pure magic-a miracle! There would be no question that everyone would want and then have HDTV. There would be one in every home as there is today with NTSC. People would be seeing the world differently, of course. They would likely be navigating in groups the world wide web, a system designed then not for individuals peering into small screens, but rather with the whole family in mind. Why? Because of the big screens introduced by television. Computers would likely have started off being big screen as well, using the fine pitch of the HDTV displays. Collaborative computing might be years ahead of what it is now and work at home be the norm instead of a trend. Well, it didn't happen that way. But does that mean HDTV is any less magic, or less of a miracle because it is being introduced in 1996 instead of 1939?
Back To Reality,
Commercial television began with 7 inch black and white tube. Things evolved from that humble place to where they stand today. Not bad! The market momentum we have for NTSC was established from that tiny 7 inch black and white beginning. It is that primitive force and the economic inertia from its terrific success that is obstructing the launch of an HDTV era. The HDTV era begins, however, with a 35, 55, 60, perhaps 100 inch or more color high resolution digital television as its initial offerings. It is going to get nothing but better from this point on as displays and electronics improve. We have come a long way from that 7 inch humble beginning. Speculate for a minute on where we will be in 50 years following a successful launch of HDTY in 1996/97! Then speculate on where will be if we don't get HDTV off to a good start? NTSC has run its course. Yves Faroudja (see interview last edition of Widescreen Review) gave us all there is in that limited signal and his $20,000 line quadrupler is too expensive for the masses. Commercializing HDTV will direct huge resources to making very high quality very affordable for the masses. That will leave the high end beneficiary of all those attempts that wound up too expensive, but blow your sox off. One can only speculate on the professional spin offs, but count on them.
What Are You Talking About? NTSC Is Good Enough There are many who will say, "What are you talking about. You can't tell the difference between a good NTSC set today and HDTV if you are back at the 9 foot viewing distance we are accustomed to." They are right, of course. We are accustomed to little images rather than big ones. And, there lies the fundamental difference between HDTV and the old standards. What is this distance thing? What is this widescreen idea all about? What's HDTV good for? The entire television industry could devote a great deal of attention to developing the answers to these and other relevant questions. Once the answers are formulated then deliver them to the public in clear and precise terms. Once a benefit is grasped by the public, it quickly becomes demand.
And Now For Nicholas
Finally, Nicholas Negroponte, president of MIT's Media Lab responded to an E Mail of mine recently and said he was surprised that anyone was left in the HDTV movement. He suggested terrestrial broadcasters should forget HDTV. To be exact he said, "It is too much bandwidth for too little value. Maybe use it for Super Bowl, or a few sporting events of that real-time kind. Meanwhile, let cable and DirecTV deliver "Gone With The Wind" in massively high resolution. At the same time, let current broadcasters decide how to use their spectrum. If they want to use if for telephony, so be it. Take a look at New Zealand if you want to learn about how to run our Communication Policy in the USA.
Well, Nicholas, I have never agreed with you on your HDTV views, even less so today. I have seen the world you are promoting. I have joined it to the extent of opening my own internet web site. Now, where you and I come together is seeing the immense potential of the internet world wide web as a distribution means for anything, including high def programs. For those who don't believe that broadcasting can, or should carry the load, look at the possibilities provided by the ever-widening bandwidth of the internet. Is every program in the future going to be a web page?
Dale Cripps January, 1996
PS I have opened a new web site in Portland, Oregon. You can reach it using the address a href=. The HDTV Newsletter address is /hdtv/hdtvnews.html. My aim is to create a center for high definition news and analysis. You will find on it many links to HDTV sources and I will add industry links upon request.
High-Definition Television has, give or take a little, twice the horizontal and twice the vertical resolution of current 525-line and 625-line systems. It has component color coding (e.g. RGB or YCbCr) and a picture aspect ratio of 16:9 with a frame rate of at least 24 Hz.
The Grand Alliance has submitted the complete specification for their fully tested system to the FCC . It supports the following spatial formats:
1280x720 : 23.976/24Hz progressive scanning
29.97/30Hz progressive scanning
59.94/60Hz progressive scanning
1920x1080 :23.976/24Hz progressive
29.97/30Hz progressive
59.94/60Hz interlaced
1440x1080 : 59.94/60Hz interlaced
The system has square pixels, a 16:9 aspect ratio and 4:2:0 chrominance sampling.
The formats are all progressive-scan, with the exception of 1920 x 1080 x60. which is planned to start out interlaced. Reasons given: there is currently no way to acceptably compress 1920x1080x60 proscan into a 6 MHz channel, nor is there production equipment in the field to support it. This has been a large bone of contention with the computer groups.
Broadcast HDTV will, by FCC mandate, occupy a single 6 MHz channel, starting out in the currently unused and taboo channels and coexisting with the current NTSC broadcasters. The video compression is a variant of MPEG-2, and the audio is Dolby AC-3 (a five-channel system) . The modulation scheme is a variation of the 16-VSB scheme orignally proposed by Zenith. All data packets would be 188 bytes long, with 4 bytes of header/descriptor and 184 bytes of payload.
The Grand Alliance consists of the earlier proponent groups which came up with the final four systems considered by ACATS and the FCC. The major players include AT&T, Zenith, General Instruments, MIT, NBC, the Sarnoff labs, and others.
Major areas of debate include whether or not there is truly a need for an interlaced transmission format, and the exact set of permissible transmission frame rates. There is some disagreement from the motion picture community. They have proposed abandoning the 16:9 aspect ratio in favor of 2:1, at least for transmission. The U.S. and Canada have formally agreed to use a single standard, and Mexico is expected to follow. Japan and Europe are watching the U.S. process closely, but it is unlikely that there will be a single worldwide broadcast standard.
Part 2
