An end to squabbling over digital TV? Maybe.

An end to squabbling
over digital TV? Maybe.

Chessen's got one thankless job: Speed things up

By David Everitt

   For months now, experts have been conceding that broadcasters will not make the deadline for converting to digital transmission.
   And it's a deadline that's fast approaching.
   By next May, all the country’s commercial TV stations are supposed to be transmitting digital signals. Only two-thirds are expected to be able to deliver.
   Unwilling to let the situation drift any longer, the Federal Communications Commission has set up a digital-TV task force, headed by Mass Media Bureau lawyer Rick Chessen, to speed up the process and help usher in the next age of broadcasting.
   Observers have argued recently that the FCC needs to get involved in this issue, but now that the agency has dealt itself in, what will its transition squad be able to accomplish?
   Even FCC chairman Michael Powell has said that Chessen is taking on a "thankless task."
   Anyone wondering what he means by that just has to take a brief look at the difficulties and squabbles that have undermined the transition so far.
   TV stations aren’t too eager to invest in a second, digital version of their broadcasts when there aren’t many new TV sets out there that can receive a digital signal.
   Then again, there also isn’t much consumer demand for these new sets as long as there are so few digital signals to receive.
   The cable industry is another factor. It still hasn’t devised a technical standard for an interface that would allow consumers to receive digital cable signals on their digital sets.
   And then there’s the dual must-carry issue. Cable operators say that it would be an unfair burden if they were required to carry both analog and digital versions of each TV station.
   Broadcasters, on the other hand, insist that it would not be a burden, or should not be.
   Both groups, represented by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the National Association of Broadcasters, have recently published studies to support their opposing positions.
   Is there really anything the new digital-TV task force can do to untangle this medium-wide mess?
   "The first thing to be done," says Josh Wise, analyst for Allied Business Intelligence, "is that the FCC has to say to the different sectors of the TV industry, ‘You all are right, and you all are wrong. Now this is what needs to be done.’ And it has to be something definitive and constructive, instead of everyone firing salvos at one another."
   Next, Wise goes on to say, the task force has to devise a new, practical timetable. According to the original deadlines, TV stations not only have to start transmitting digital signals in 2002, they have to complete the transition by returning their analog signals in 2006.
   "In the last year, most people have come to realize that the 2006 deadline is completely unrealistic," he says.
   "Even when the new transmission towers are in place, the question remains, when will consumers have the products available, both the sets and the programming?
   "Tax incentives might be one way to get more digital-capable boxes and TVs into living rooms."
   The task force should also examine some basic mistakes in the way the government and certain parts of the broadcast industry have promoted the next generation of television, according to George Back, Hofstra University’s dean of communication.
   "They should find out why high-definition TV took precedence over digital TV," he says. "That preference really held back the transition."
   HDTV requires changes in both the shape of the TV image and the amount of visual information that it contains. As a result, Back points out, HDTV gobbles up more of the signal spectrum than digital TV without high definition. One signal devoted to HDTV could accommodate several non-HD channels.
   "With the onset of [non-high-definition] digital TV, you will get higher-quality images–not as much as you would with HDTV, but there will be an improvement–and you also will get a greater number of channels, which is more meaningful to people. HDTV was a technological diversion from a better, alternate choice. The market should have been allowed to decide this issue."
   In dealing with dual must-carry, the FCC task force will face especially contentious adversaries.
   The NCTA asserts that over-the-air broadcasters are looking for a free ride by demanding that cable operators carry both their analog and digital signals.
    "The cable industry made a huge investment in upgrading to digital so that it can handle the History Channel, Oxygen and other channels to compete in the marketplace," says NCTA spokesman Mark Smith.
    "But here the NAB is saying, ‘Give the capacity to us so that we can provide redundant signals.’ So far, consumers have not been screaming for a redundant version of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’ "
   The NAB answers that the cable industry is falsely crying poverty when it comes to channel capacity.
   "The cable industry has constantly overstated the channel capacity issue," says NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton. "What this is about is that cable operators prefer to carry those channels that they have a financial stake in."
   Wise suggests a possible solution to this controversy. He believes it can be decided on a market-by-market basis.
   "I think in some cases it’s fair for cable operators to say, ‘We’ll offer one version of a channel, either digital or analog.’ In some cases, cable companies will see an advantage in carrying both.
   "In smaller markets, dual carriage could make sense. In the top-10 cities, with all the channels offered in those areas, it would be very difficult. It could hamper the cable companies’ ability to offer more advanced services like interactive TV and video on demand."

-David Everitt covers technology for Media Life, writing from Huntington, New York.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us