The Future of Video According to Richard E. Wiley, Part 1

by Richard E. Wiley, Partner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding
Sunday, March 29, 1998

Richard Wiley is the former Chair, FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service and offered these remarks first to the ITS Presidents Retreat held recently in Hawaii and has kindly ahared them with our HDTV News Online readers.
Dale Cripps

In 1 987, our country was not a factor in the development of advanced television, particularly in comparison to Japan and Western Europe where research has been ongoing for many years. To jump-start our national effort, the Federal Communications Commission appointed a broadly-based industry Advisory Committee to assist in developing a new national television transmission standard. The existing "NTSC' analog norm was established way back in 1941.

Well, what a difference a decade can made. Here in 1 998, the U.S. occupies a position of clear technical superiority. The Grand Alliance system, recommended by the Advisory Committee and largely adopted by the FCC as the basis of its new DTV standard, represents world-leading technology and probably the greatest advance in video since the advent of color.

For a look back at how it all happened, the best (and most accurate) reference is the book, "Defining Vision," written by The New York Times reporter, Joel Brinkley -- a work with which many of you doubtless already are familiar. No technical treatise, it reads like a novel -- and, of course, you know many of its leading characters (including, for better or worse, yours truly as Chairman of the Advisory Committee). In particular, you might enjoy Joel's account of how the Grand Alliance really was formed.

With the standard adopted, the service rules in place, a second channel effectively made available to all broadcasters, and a deployment schedule established, the key question is: what happens next -- for broadcast licensees, cable MSOS, programmers, receiver manufacturers, computer companies, post-production entities and, most importantly, American consumers? Let me hazard some fearless predictions in this regard with the prayer that I will prove to be right but, if not, with the profound hope that you won't remember what I said in any case!

DTV Timetable

First, with regard to DTV deployment, the FCC has decreed a very rapid build-out for major segments of the broadcast industry, a timetable which I think must be tempered by reasonably-applied waivers in the event needed facilities are unavailable or if other unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances occur -- for example, FCC policy-making delays which held up release of the final table of channel allocations for a number of weeks.

Specifically, the Commission has decreed that licensees affiliated with the four major networks in the top 10 markets must construct DTV facilities and be on the air within 24 months (ie., May 1, 1 999). For markets 11 -30, the date is 6 months later (or November 1, 1 999). Thus, by the end of the century (assuming the FCC's deadlines are met), over 50% of the American TV households will be receiving a digital signal. All other commercial stations are required to construct in five years and non-commercial outlets within six years. Moreover, some stations in large markets have made voluntary commitments to do it all within 18 months, (i.e., by November of this year), and the Commission has indicated that it intends to hold them to their promises.

The cable industry, which worked in close cooperation with broadcasting within the Advisory Committee, also intends to roll-out digital set-top boxes, modems and other necessary facilities. While critics have been skeptical about the industry's commitment and progress to date, my own view is that cable will and must get the job done -- with a little help, perhaps, from friends like Microsoft and others. After all, DBS (cable's major multi-channel competitor) already employs digital transmission; the telephone industry (if it ever does enter the video field in a major way) clearly will be digital; and with broadcasters now required to deploy digital signals rapidly, the technological die seems cast. Without question, the U.S. video transmission landscape is going to be digital -- and soon.

Analog Channels Return

An early DTV build-out by broadcasters also should mean an early give-back of the frequencies used for analog television -- clearly, many government officials believe that this must be part of the two-channel bargain. Congress and the Administration have agreed on the year 2006, with an auction of the spectrum scheduled for 2002 in order to include the revenues garnered within the balanced budget exercise.

However, the recent budget legislation delayed the analog channel return until 85% of a station's viewers can receive its digital service either off-air or through satellite or cable -- a nice win for broadcast industry lobbyists which could delay the give-back for some years, depending on how quickly the digital transition occurs. I personally am betting on a more rapid DTV implementation than was the changeover to color television. But, this may depend on industry concurrence concerning digital services and transmission formats, something that is lacking right now. Moreover, it also may be premised on the availability of low-cost set top devices that will convert digital signals so they can be received on the nation's existing universe of analog television receivers. Accordingly, only time and the marketplace will tell how and when all this will work out.

Digital Services Menu

The next obvious question is: what digital services will be provided -- in particular, will high definition television (or 'HDTV') be a major factor? The Grand Alliance system, with its tremendously flexible framework, is capable of delivering a single -- and very dazzling -- HDTV picture; multiple so-called Standard Definition Television (or "SDTV") programs -- the digital equivalent of today's TV picture; and also data and interactive services (including, significantly, access to the Internet). Moreover, it can shift dynamically, in different dayparts, between these varied offerings. Thus, and let me emphasize a point often missed, we definitely are not talking about an either-or choice here.

Some broadcast companies -- notably, CBS, PBS and Belo -- have focused primarily on HDTV, at least in prime-time. Such a plan would be facilitated by the fact, as you obviously know, that filmed programming -- the great universe of Hollywood movies and also most of TV's evening offerings -- are shot in 35 mm cinematography, the equivalent of HDTV. However, other broadcast licensees --such as Fox, ABC and Sinclair -- have demonstrated less interest in HDTV and more in SDTV and pay-television. These companies anticipate the potential of providing a wider variety of programming and, hopefully, garnering more advertising and subscription revenue. Accordingly, at this point, there unfortunately is no consensus among broadcasters.

Similarly, within the cable industry, important programmers like HBO and Discovery Network have indicated that they intend to deliver high resolution programming. Additionally, the industry's futuristic Cable Labs has announced plans to support HDTV. On the other hand, recent announcements by TCI -- the leading multiple system operator -- concerning the ability of its future set-top boxes to pass through an HDTV signal have been equivocal at best. The same dichotomy seems to exist within the Direct Broadcast Satellite industry as well, although some HDTV carriage (however defined) now seems likely.

My own view on this issue is that marketplace ultimately should determine what digital services will be successful -- and I agree with the FCC's decision not to mandate any requirement by broadcasters to air some minimum amount of high resolution programming. However, for the market to function properly, the public needs to be given choices -- be they HDTV, SDTV, data and on-line services, regular television sets, PC-TVs, you name it. And if broadcasters do offer high definition programming, I believe (and, here, I echo recent comments of FCC Commissioner Ness) that both our government and the American viewer will expect and demand that it not be degraded via cable transmission.

I expect to see considerable experimentation by broadcasters and cable/DBS programmers over the next few years in an effort to determine what the public really wants. In the meantime, my advice to transmission industries is to keep all service options open and to foreclose none during what is likely to be a long, evolutionary transition to digital. As I see it, this is prudent from the standpoints of the marketplace, technology and, given Washington's intense interest in digital television (and especially HDTV), politics as well.

Speaking personally, I remain an avowed, and unapologetic, advocate of HDTV. It is a giant, not an incremental, step forward in the state-of-the-video art. To those who contend that American viewers are not clamoring for high definition programming, I would respond that they have not yet had the opportunity to see it. And when they do -- all the skeptics and naysayers notwithstanding -- I personally am convinced that it will be the primary driving force in the development of digital television in this country.

Scanning Formats

A closely related issue involves the arcane, but important, question of what scanning formats will be employed in digital television. As this audience knows, a TV picture is transmitted via horizontal scanning lines, of which there are some 525 in the current NTSC standard. The Grand Alliance's design incorporates -- at minimal cost penalty -- both interlaced scanning (as used in television worldwide) and progressive scanning (as employed in computer displays). This compromise, largely endorsed by the many computer companies who worked actively within the Advisory Committee process, represented an attempt to accommodate the differing interests of various affected industries and audiences-- and, indeed, of the Grand Alliance members themselves whose individual systems diverged on scanning formats.

However, the Committee and system proponents uniformly agreed that an all-progressively scanned system, with over 1,000 lines, should be the ultimate goal. And why? Because progressive scanning (and square pixels) will facilitate interoperability between digital video and various imaging and informational systems, including computers; and over 1,000 scanning lines will double the image resolution of today's television picture, thus permitting the delivery of full HDTV. Unfortunately, while it is now possible to squeeze 1,000 interlaced scanning lines into a 6 MHz television channel, compression technology has not yet so advanced with the more demanding progressive scanning format.