INTERVIEW WITH MR. ANDREW NELKIN,
VICE PRESIDENT DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
PANASONIC.
Mr. Nelkin has been with the consumer side of Panasonic since 1985. From his New
Jersey headquarters at One Panasonic Way he now oversees all of the digital developments
for his company in the USA . We approached Panasonic for some insight into the recent
agreement made between themselves and CableLabs--their signing of the famous PHILA. This
agreement allows Panasonic (and any others who sign) to produce cable-ready
televisions--plug and play. The importance to the consumer is in the portability and
convenience. No matter where you buy a cable-ready digital set you will be able to take it
to any other part of the country and it will still operate with a digital cable hook up.
While the focus of this conversation was finally upon this historic agreement we
began with a quick left turn towards the copy protection topic. While his comments broke
no new ground it becomes importantly clearer with repetition that fair use rights are
central values embraced by both manufacturers and content providers.
I opened the discussion asking about the changes he has seen during his career in
consumer electronics. The questioner (me) is signified by DC, and Mr.
Nelkin is identified by AN.
DC: What has changed in consumer electronics since the time you started?
ANDREW NELKIN: Products were all analog then. They were all individual devices. Now it
has become a digital world and it is all networked. In the future you will see products
that are all-digital based electronic media--very little tape, very little analog products
left. It is totally different.
DC: How far do you plan ahead in developing new markets?
AN: We have a shorter term vision that is typically eighteen months (time for
development and marketing new products). We also have a longer term vision that can go out
five or more years.
DC: Whats coming up?
AN: We are at the beginning of the trend towards networked products. Products are not
going to be just hardware, but software enabled. There will be features as a result of
software. I think we are just at the beginning of that trend. You will see a lot more
sharing of information, more migrating of files around the home, and ultimately out of the
home.
DC: This 'out of the home' has been a nightmare content providers who see this
networked world is an invitation to end the copyright value-based economic system. What is
Panasonics view with respect to the value of copyrighted material?
AN: Firstly, we firmly believe that the person who owns the content does have rights to
that content. The person who owns it absolutely has a right in a say to its distribution
and where it is used. At the same time we also believe that there is fair personal use of
a lot of information by the end user that has nothing to do with moving content around.
Companies within the 5C agreement have been able to fashion agreements with the content
providers that meets everyones needs.
DC: Is that an iron clad system that you can still envisage working in five,
ten, fifteen years from now, or is it compromised?
AN: The beauty of the agreements within 5C is that they dont have to be iron
clad. The agreements are flexible enough so that new business models can be brought to the
table and new copy protection schemes can be proposed to fit those business models.
DC: Considering that great new processor power being handed to children do you
remain confident that protection being sought is sound ?
AN: In a single word, yes.
DC: With 5C you have this security far into the future?
AN: Yes.
"Our
own company philosophy is that people should be allowed to use something for their own
personal use. The industry question is: What is personal use? In answering that they need
to be sure that personal use doesnt invade the rights of the copyright owner?" |
DC: The analog hole -- people who have analog sets today have
concern that their investment will be devalued. How do you answer those folks?
AN: Our own company philosophy is that people should be allowed to use something for
their own personal use. The industry question is: What is personal use? In answering that
they need to be sure that personal use doesnt invade the rights of the copyright
owner?
DC: What is the current thinking on this question within the industry? How do
you define it?
AN: We clearly think that if you want to record a program and then later play it back
for yourself, that is very fair use. At the same time there are event programs which
should be record never because the nature of the business model which is that
the content should be used once, and only once.
DC: Is this not a slippery slope where the all programming starts to fall under
this vent category, leaving fair use to wither? Or, is this something which
the marketplace finally dictates?
AN: You ask a lot of questions there. The marketplace will find a fair and balanced
answer for copy protection. I dont think we need to worry that either side is going
to overstep its bounds. To maximize everyones business the market will find the
balance. We dont need to worry about it swinging too far either way. If all else
fails the government will step in.
DC: The government has already asked for a solution on this matter. Is this a
good thing?
AN: I think the industry should be able to work these things out. Whether that requires
legislation in the end, we will have to wait and see.
DC: Lets talk about the recent cable agreement that you signed. How is
the layman to understand this?
AN: What Panasonic signed was an agreement which allows us to create a unidirectional
host which will allow for a digital ready cable television--a truly
transportable digital television.
DC: What do you mean by transportable?
AN: What we were signed was an agreement where if you moved you could call up your new
cable company and get a new POD for the television you already have.
DC: What is the POD to the layman?
AN: That is a PC card-sized device that allows the conditional access?
DC: This installs like a PC card?
AN: Yes.
DC: Does this mean sets employing this agreement will be rolling out in 18
months or so?
AN: Right now we are in development of the televisions that will include the
unidirectional POD?
DC: Was the POD a major sticking point?
AN: I would not say that. By limiting our discussions to a unidirectional device (and
not a bi-directional one) we were able to table, for lack of a better term, the discussion
in certain areas that still need to be addressed.
DC: What services are enabled with unidirectional?
AN: A unidirectional device will allow you to get premium services on your television
without a set top box. Things you will be able to get in a bi-directional device would be
things like impulse pay-per-view.
DC: Does this have anything to do with the data services being sold by cable
via cable modems?
AN: No.
DC: What are the benefits of this agreement?
AN: The first is to the end user. They can now enjoy all of the features of the
television--the famous picture-in-picture. Now it can be done.
The second is that the customer no longer needs to lease the set top box. It is inside
the television.
From the retailers perspective
well, if you are a nationwide chain you can
now sell one television that will attach to all of the cable systems. You dont have
to sell a different television for each individual regional area.
The win for the television manufacturers is that we can bring in some of our
functionality into the television set.
DC: What might be some of this functionality that would have us pulling out our
check books?
AN: I think the fact that there is no set top box and picture-in-picture and the fact
that you can control the entire TV with a single remote control.
DC: Lets talk about DTV and HDTV.
AN: All of the televisions that we anticipate incorporating this into are true
high-definition televisions. This will definitely bring high-definition quicker than
anything we could have so far done. Sixty-five to seventy percent are receiving their
programming by cable. They are not getting it via terrestrial broadcast, which is 13 or
14%. They are not getting it through the satellite providers. Now that we are embedding
the POD and allowing conditional access the result is that we are definitely going to
accelerate the transition.
DC: Panasonic has taken the lead in forging this agreement and we see in other
published reports that others are following.
AN: We have signed a private agreement and I dont know what the CEA agreement
will finally look like. What we have done does not undermine anybodys ability to do
whatever they have to do. The business deal we signed will allow us to make a set that is
a unidirectional one which is very good for the industry.
DC: Let me change the subject a bit. Is the making of a high-definition
television set a major challenge over making of a standard resolution set?
AN. In so far as the resolution is higher, there are some challenges.
DC: Could HDTV have been made 20 years ago?
AN: You could not have made these sets 20 years ago. These televisions are a direct
result of the advances in technology that in manufacturing and micro processor design.
DC: Some people have voiced a concern that as price becomes more important
there would be a dumbing down and HDTV might diminish into something less. Is that a valid
concern?
AN: I dont think there is too much to worry. If prices come down, they come down.
That doesnt mean that the quality necessarily comes down. The more people who can
enjoy high-definition television the better off the industry is.
DC: How do you personally feel about HDTV? Is it just a nicer technical toy or
does it have some social significance?
AN: I think it really changes the way you can enjoy television, especially things like
sports. When I watch sports on HD instead of on standard 4:3 I feel that I enjoyed
programming more. I am like your readers in that respect.
DC: Yes, many of our readers are unable to go back to standard definition once
they have had a good taste of HDTV.
Thank you very much for sharing your views with HDTV Magazine.
Post Script: POD-HOST INTERFACE LICENSE AGREEMENT
PHILA
by Dale Cripps
The long-sought agreement between CEAs TV membership and
CableLabs--the famous PHILA--is done in principal. This is an agreement for licensing and
marketing the technology that has been jointly developed by CableLabs with several
of the CE manufacturers. It is the technology to receive and process digital cable signals
making for plug and play television sets. "The final agreement needs polishing, and
then to be signed, which it is expected to be in a week or so." offers one source
close to the action. Unless dramatic changes come it will be a unidirectional
agreement similar to Panasonics with a notable exception being that of Samsung. This
aggressive Korean giant is focused upon fully interactive functionality, which will be the
next thing resolved with the rest. The first signing will get the ball rolling for
cable-ready and keep Congress smiling.
Its been tough getting any agreement. Cable has been charged with driving too
hard of a bargain--not from price, for the licensing fee if very modest, but from what has
to be done for compliance. From a distance one might think these two behemoth industries
would be in a mad rush like long lost lovers running from opposite sides of the field
towards one another with arms stretched open wide, and after a smashing embrace you would
expect the two love birds to set out together arm-in-arm on a colossal adventure to
conquer the digital world. But it has been years since this work began in earnest and up
and until the Panasonic signing every attempt has failed. The big question to the layman
has been why?
It is not a technical reason. It is a business reason. said
Mitsubishis Bob Perry to me a few weeks ago. There is no new technology in the
agreement. It has patented features, of course, but there is nothing fundamentally ground
breaking, like the blue laser. Some say the full interactive functionality, where
pay-per-view can be ordered and T commerce can take root, is still too expensive to be
embedded into a TV set.
Cable is sympathetic to costs added to consumer electronics but doesnt see the
cost involved here as having been the honest obstruction to making any agreement. After
all, it already is found in a little box that is sold or rented and the signal goes to a
TV set. The signal has to be acquired some way if you are to receive a digital cable
service, so that cost must be found somewhere in the consumers pocket, be it for the
box or inside the set.
Since the agreement has yet to be finalized I will refrain from any specifics for the
on-going business negotiations, which I dont know anything about anyway. Those
negotiations are far more sophisticated and detailed than what is presented here. I
thought you might like this background illustrating the generally articulated points and
counterpoints-a snapshot taken from both sides. My sources are unassailable and their
observations are scattered throughout this story.
Other than being threatened by Congress to reach an agreement why should the cable
industry welcome the TV set makers with open arms? They may at times act like it, but they
are not in competing businesses. Cable companies buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth
of set top boxes annually to distribute to their customers in order to sell them the more
lucrative digital services. They presently bear the cost of acquisition and the selling
expense in developing consumer awareness and demand. They must inventory, install, and
service them all, and for all of this they receive a modest rental that hardly pays for
the box. All of this comes rushing to the foreground at a time when capital for
cable is less available. The digital box is a large capital outlay which is naturally on
the heals of another massive outlay upgrading cable systems to 750 MHz plants.
While the set top box is a sweet business for the traditional cable set top box
suppliers--Scientific-Atlanta, Motorola, and Pace--it is a burdensome management problem
for the cable companies. An attempt to shift sales and service responsibility off to
retail outlets has so far failed as retailers demanded an unwarranted bounty
much like they receive when selling new satellite receivers with a programming package.
This demand for bounty escalated to $500 for each subscriber that a new box
created and cable had budgeted $100 per sub. Being so far apart on bounty cable
companies once again assumed the greater responsibility for buying and distributing their
boxes. To be sure that is not all bad. The boxes do give cable complete control over what
services the viewer/customer has. This control they don't want to give up either.
In the analog world a sticker claiming that a TV set was cable-ready meant
little more than channel 2 or 3 would accept the output of a cable box, or that a tuner
was included capable of detecting one hundred or more analog channels. Now comes the
digital era with its many interactive impulse-related complex promises that must be
built in firmware with software that can now be integrated into digital TV sets for the
making of an exceedingly attractive retail package called cable-ready hDTV. This
time it means what it says and plug-and-play is the result. One can hardly question the
wisdom of cable in wanting more allies aligned to their mission of revolutionizing their
business. How could you hasten the roll-out any faster than by marshalling power of the TV
manufacturing business? Services is where the big money is made for cable--not
in set top boxes. Like with the over-the-air transition a greater transition speed means
more attractive economics. The analog bandwidth can be retired sooner and assigned for
still-more digital services. And it only makes sense to the mainstream that you have the
option to buy your digital functionality in a TV set or rent or buy it in a set top box.
How can the cable industry fail to benefit from having more power-players actively working
for the completion of their transition? Just how many wins do you have to have before you
ask the question: Why has this taken so long?
Fear.
Manufacturers of television receivers build sets for all markets
of the world. In some regions they are heavily regulated and must follow government rules,
which frequently add costs. But like our own mandated UHF tuner the costs are evenly
distributed. It doesnt disadvantage one or the other, though higher costs may lower
the total dollars a market can deliver. In the case of PHILA specific rules must be laid
down (not unlike regulations) by someone of authority as to how two way interactive
devices work, or they just wont work. CableLabs has assumed the responsibility of
rule making, licensing, and enforcement. Given the size and power of cable that has been a
scary story to our future licensees. We want to protect our network and so we want
to certify compliance of these television sets to this technology and be in agreement on
the way security measures are handled. It is no less than an audit to make sure that the
TV cable functions are built to the specifications. Manufacturers dont like
rules from outside their own walls. Industry-wide agreements are notoriously difficult to
come by much less inter-industry. Now comes PHILA with all of the rigorous rules which
make digital work and it is equally available to all of the fiercest of competitors. The
ATSC tuner/decoder mandated by a government agency is now joined by a major free market
power who is casting a large shadow over the entire consumer electronics television
business. That has given pause for deep thought. Anyone doing MIL SPEC work might
understand the security and management measures that must go into dealing with outside
inspectors who have rights to your facility, and your documentation, and who hold you
responsible for handling their secretes and who examine your products and then
go to your fiercest competitor to do the same. Does that bee carry pollen? They have
never been asked to do this before, declares one cable insider. The traditional
manufacturers of set top cable boxes -- SA, Motorola, and PACE -- have grown a business
culture around this kind of security and certification agreement.
When something does go wrong in a cable system the first to be called and blamed by the
cable customer is the local cable company. These specifications and compliance rules are
designed to minimize any errors from the technology and indemnify the manufacturers though
certification against liability should a product fail to work for the customer and at the
same time insure to the cable industry that such failure problems will be minimal.
So, what is wrong with all this, you might ask?
Not as much as has been made of it. Thomson helped develop and build millions of the
DirecTV digital boxes. They signed with Hughes similar agreements using the same kind of
certification process that is in PHILA. All those making these DirecTV boxes today have
the same agreement. In fact, many of the PHILA rules were authored by CE companies and
passed around the cable industry, who have stamped their approval on them. So why is this
cable agreement different and why has it become the main bone of contention in reaching an
agreement? Those close to cable report that manufacturers generally hated the
certification part of the agreement because cable is such a large part of the overall
television business (making them scary' in size and power). The set top boxes for
DirecTV were a relatively minuscule part of Thomsons business and had none of the
overpowering presence which cable has in just their sitting there. Its our
power they fear. said another cable executive. They are afraid we can hurt
them. While cab le could do something silly like turning off all recording rights,
it takes a pretty uptight person to believe that is a serious scenario. But if it did
happen you can imagine the reaction from the public. The underlying fear is that once
dependant upon the cable side of the business that cable will end in telling TV set makers
how to run their businesses. And to a certain point that is in the agreement with its
stipulations on how materials and intellectual property must be physically managed and how
inspections and certifications are scheduled and done, and what happens if, God forbid,
one is out of compliance, or worse, someone snitches the secrete codes! Cable genuinely
feels these compliance and domination fears are entirely without validity. What has cable
to gain from assuming any responsibility in a historically low margin TV business that is
only tangentially a part of its business and nearly no part of its core expertise? They
chiefly want to protect their network. Still, they can put on a unified front and unlike
bickering TV set making cultures, be a formidable power.. They can specify technology that
will be honored country wide. Cable has the power to do things to impact consumer
electronics over night. This is seen as a power not to be trifled with.
Perhaps in defense, or as a means to deflect that power, TV makers have charged that
these difficult rules, even though complying with FCC and Congressional wishes, really
mask the real intent of the cable business, which is to discourage TV set makers from
getting into the game so cable can keep their pet manufacturers--SA, Motorola, and PACE
making set top boxes exclusively. Why? Because a set top box can be more quickly swapped
out, say the TV makers, if newer technology pops up which has a better financial pay off
than the older technology inside of a set. With embedded functionality consumers would not
be so anxious to swap out devices for new ones. This would impede he way for prosperous
new digital business models that could be introduced if it were only a matter of swapping
set top boxes. With the new 3 GHz Intel chip peaking over the horizon one can see that
software alone might not meet all new functionality that is yet to be invented, but
lets get real. If these TV set manufacturers come to be full partners with cable, as
cable earnestly desires, they are going to be the first asked to build the new set tops to
sit upon any outdated embedded ones.
Breaking the ice with cable is the thing and Congress says it needs to be done. The
same electrifying atmosphere should arise when these two industries are plugged into one
another as occurred in the days when companies were bound in the joint mission of landing
on the moon. Anyone around the aerospace industry in those days remembers the tremendous
spirit of partnership that existed and exhalted them, and we did land on the moon on
schedule. What is the reward for such a partnership. It is very clear. said a
cable insider. We offer services, they offer features, We want to sell services.
They want to sell features. All we have to do is get together and decide what those are
going to be and how they are going to be connected electronically. We are very willing to
do that. PHILA is the keys to the cable system (kingdom).
More than anything this long reticence by TV set makers to sign PHILA appears to be a
defense against the fearsome beast. Control over access and differentiating
features could be lost under the agreement, but it is in cables best interest to see
that those signing are offered every encouragement to reach their highest
possible market success. Retailers will be given a very salable package where no longer
must they beat around the bush saying,, Well, you can use this big monitor with a
DVD and if you are not afraid of heights, put up an antenna and you might get some
HDTV. Now they can say to the hottest and most willing market emerging in this
nation, When we deliver it to your home in a few hours time you just plug it in to
the cable socket, turn it on, pop your popcorn, and get ready to be blown totally away.
SOLD! __Dale Cripps
Post post script
Reference: http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2002/02_pr_panasonic_phila_101702.html
Also www.opencable.com click on DOC
page.
And from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-11-07-digital-tv_x.htm
***
NCTA: Cable-CE agreement on digital TV 'premature'
In response to Friday's USA Today article, NCTA President and CEO Robert Sachs said in a prepared
statement that negotiations between cable operators and TV manufacturers "concerning
'plug and play' DTVs continue on a constructive path...[but] it is premature and
inappropriate for any of the parties to comment on these ongoing negotiations."
Further, Sachs said no final agreement between the parties has been reached,
"notwithstanding some reports in the press."
***
CEA COMMENTS ON STATUS OF DTV MANUFACTURER-CABLE OPERATOR NEGOTIATIONS
Arlington, Va., November 8, 2002 The following statement was released today
by Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) President and CEO Gary Shapiro regarding the
status of negotiations between manufacturers of digital television (DTV) products and
cable operators regarding plug and play compatibility between DTV products and
digital cable systems:
Talks between digital television product manufacturers and cable operators
concerning 'plug and play' compatibility continue to move forward. CEA remains optimistic
and committed to the process. Since the parties have not reached a final agreement, it is
premature and inappropriate for anyone to comment on the details of these ongoing
negotiations at this point.
As we have long said, resolution of the cable compatibility issue is
critical to driving the DTV transition forward. Seventy percent of U.S. households choose
cable to receive their primary television signal. A national plug-and-play cable standard
will help enable these 70 million households to participate in the wonders of DTV.
In working toward this standard, our industry is responding to the
leadership provided by House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (D-LA) and Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell who recognize the critical
importance of resolving this issue and have called for an inter-industry negotiated
solution. We remain committed to this goal and optimistic that we can develop a
consumer-friendly, national plug-and-play standard.
***
While on the subject of Gary Shapiro let me take this moment to
print his response to a piece in our last issue, which speculated on the suit asking to
withdraw the mandated tuner.
**
Dale,
CEA's Video Division and Executive Board approved the suit filed challenging the
tuner mandate. While certain companies have questioned that decision, it is simply
speculation to suggest that the suit would be withdrawn. I am unaware of any vote or
decision by any relevant CEA body doing anything but supporting the decision to challenge
the FCC action, so I think your report is inaccurate.
We thank Gary for the clarification. A report had circulated from a usually
reputable source that the suit had been withdrawn and we asked in our last issue of Page 2
more than reported it as fact. Again, we thank Gary for his untiring work in support of
HDTV and appreciate that the time taken to correct a mistaken circular. _Dale
***
Dale,
We met at a SMPTE show a few years back while I was with Tiernan
Communications. I have recently joined Sencore and moved to Sioux Falls, SD. I was looking
at your www.ilovehdtv.com and it made me
think of my latest HDTV display experience.
Last Friday night my family and I took a trip to "a large
electronics store" to pick up some music and browse the new DVD's, I walked over to
the HDTV section to see what was new and could not figure out why the picture looked so
bad on some monitors and great on others.
I ran through the mental check list, down converted - no, up converted - no, poor
resolution on the suspect monitor - no.........
After a few minutes I figured it out, they were down linking HDNet which
is already 16:9 and on about 3/4's of the monitors they were stretching, again, to
"16:9." You can imagine how bad this looked. When I asked the salesperson about
this all he had to say was, "Yes, that's what were doing."
I have been apart of many Digital TV launch's around the world and I'm
sorry to say that the market with the most potential (the US) is doing the least. Part of
the problem is these terrible displays and sales people who just don't understand. Am I
really going to spend $3,000 or $4,000 on a large screen TV when the store display shows
me wide people with the sides cut off? In this instance is was really bad because of the
onscreen score box, in the lower left corner, that was cut in half.
My co-horts and I are working very hard for the success of HDTV, let's
just hope we can over come these poor and unprofessional store displays.
Best regards,
__Rich
***
Dale,
The biggest problem I have is in tuning in HD broadcasts when they are
broadcast. My schedule does not often permit it. INDEED, UNTIL WE CAN TIME SHIFT IN HD, IT
WILL NEVER BE AS POPULAR AS IT SHOULD BE.
After a very long wait, I was so pleased that Samsung would release a firewire equipped
HD set top box: the TS165. I got the specs and sure enough, it has firewire! This
then would permit it to be connected to the JVC DH3000 for HD recording in D-VHS. At last,
I could time shift OVER THE AIR HD programming.
However, what I TRULY wanted was a dual function (Over the Air and DirecTV
Satellite) HD set top box with the same firewire connectivity. And, Samsung's second new
HD set top box, the DUAL function
TS160 was
released at the same time. But, I looked at the specs and it
does NOT have the same firewire! What? They merely "failed" to put it on their
upgrade model???
So, unless I'm wrong, this means that:
(1) if you buy the TS165
you can record
HDTV via firewire from terrestrial sources, but you cannot receive satellite (eg. HDNet)
and time shift it,
OR
(2) if you buy the TS160
you get both over the air and
satellite HD, but you can't record from it in HD since it lacks firewire.
Or
am I to presume that this omission of firewire was intentional since, instead, the
TS160 has DVI outputs which have the HDCP system to prevent duplication of certain HD
content. Very unfair and unfortunate: the HD world better realize that time shifting in HD
will ENSURE their success. Indeed, without it, I am not sure it will ever succeed. No one
at the high end of the market is going to be able to stomach watching HD time shifted to
300 lines of resolution!
Or am I missing something. Is there ANY way to connect the JVC HD recorder to ANY set
top box to record HD off of satellite?
Keep up the good work!
__Ron W.
***
Dale:
I just upgraded my STB from the Sony HD-100 top the Sony HD-200. I have recommended the
Sony HD-100 to friends and affiliates and the HD-200 is even more refined. Sony has, in my
opinion, done a far better job than others in simplifying the operation so that users go
from NTSC to HDTV without additional steps or pressing additional buttons. The HD-200
takes this one step further. All stations are combined in numerical order irregardless of
the source. Here in St. Louis under channel 5, KSDK is the first Direct TV
local-into-local, then the over-the-air, then the HDTV (5.1), They are also all listed
this way on the program guide. Nothing else to do to view the station in HDTV, only stop
at the last Channel 5. When setting the box up, you call also elect to only have 5.1 come
up between 4 and 6 when channel changing buttons on the remote. The fact that the STB has
3 RF inputs (Direct TV, DTV and Cable) plus well thought out software makes this possible.
The user manual makes set-up and operation easy.
I have heard reports that the Sony HD-200 works better with distant stations. I cannot
say personally if this is so since both the HD-100 and HD-200 gets every local DTV station
with a $29 Channel Master 4 bay bow tie antenna in my attic, even though the stations are
located at 70 degree angles to one another.
I am not sure the cost of upgrading is worthwhile but I can recommend the Sony HD-200
as having the best user friendly software on any STB to date.
Hal Protter
Sr. VP / Distribution Development
The WB Television Network
Hal has been with the HDTV movement since the mid 80s
championing it all along the way against major opposition. You can thank Hal in great
measure for the HDTV programming on TheWB.
FOX FOX FOX when will you enter the 21st Century?
I spoke to the chief engineer @ Fox53 today...He said they have no plans at this
time to pass 480P wide screen on FOX53 or 1080i on WB22. He did say that they are
considering their options. He explained that the equipment that has been in place for 6
months would only transmit basic digital content. They would have to replace that
equipment with HD stuff for around $100,000.
IMO this is a perfect example of a network (station) not embracing this
technology, suddenly finding themselves having to spend more money to even the playing
field. They claim money has been the issue from day one since few people were watching.
How could they not have known at least about 480P wide screen? They invented it.
The engineer told me they are running WB22 on about 5% of "full" power
since the FCC decreed only the top 4 networks of any city run on "full" power.
Again, money is the issue.
Although the conversation was informative...I was left with the impression that
this station (network) has no clue as to what to do. They seem to be guessing what the
future holds. Why is the future so clear to most everyone else? Why are all the birds
flying in the other direction? The "Come & We Will Build it" approach will
not work in this environment. As a matter of fact, it's going to cost you.
