[opendtv] Re: HDTV-Brochure_2005final
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:02:18 -0500
At 2:20 PM -0800 1/18/05, Dale Kelly wrote:
>Bob Miller wrote:
>> The DVB Group said their hands were tied by their CEA members.
>
>My point exactly - from the previous post on this subject. This is another
>example of their efforts to marginalize US broadcasting. Unfortunately
>they've been mostly successful.
Dale
Before you assign too much of the blame for the situation that
broadcasters find themselves in, please remember who it was that
invited the major CE manufacturers to the HD party.
This began as a Broadcaster initiative, almost two decades ago, in
response to the threat that the FCC might authorize frequency sharing
in the "under-utilized" TV bands. I am not talking about audience
erosion here. What I am talking about is the inefficient use of the
TV spectrum by broadcasters.
The decision to use HDTV as the Trojan Horse to protect the lucrative
NTSC franchise WAS NOT made by CE manufacturers. It was initiated by
the NAB, possibly with help from MSTV ( I do not remember if MSTV was
involved in this back in the 1987 timeframe). Clearly NHK, Sony, and
Matsushita were thrilled that Joe Flaherty was championing their
cause. They were quick to respond with "Good Demo" for the folks in
Congress and the FCC, who needed to be convinced that terrestrial
broadcasting in the U.S. could not survive if those dastardly demons
in the cable industry got their hands on HDTV first!
If you really want to understand the depth of your current problems,
you need look no further than the decision by the FCC to create an
"independent" advisory committee, headed up by a former FCC chairman
- Dick Wiley. This should have set off immediate alarms, as one
needed only to look at the client list of Wiley's K-Street law firm
to understand how and why the CE industry was invited to the table.
Broadcasters abdicated their responsibilities, virtually handing the
CE industry an engraved invitation to create the U.S. DTV standard.
There were just a few strings attached:
1. Don't move too quickly - after all, this was a holding action,
not a mission to revitalize the broadcast industry. Most broadcasters
NEVER expected that it would get as far as it has - that they would
actually have to build a new DTV infrastructure. When the ball was
dumped back into the laps of broadcasters - to actually build it - it
took only a a few months to get Congress to undermine the entire
effort (the 85% rule in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act).
2. Don't do anything that might help potential competitors - the
initial plan would have kept the entire broadcast spectrum tied up
forever, using the second channel to augment the NTSC channel to
deliver HD to those who could use the extra picture details. When GI
upset the original plan by suggesting that HDTV could be delivered in
ONE 6 MHz channel, the Advisory Committee had to contain the
potential damage. When the computer industry started talking about
interoperability and the ability to support multicasts and data
services, the Advisory Committee had to contain the potential
damage...again.
3. Be flexible - while it might not be possible to ignore potential
threats to the lucrative broadcast franchise, it proved to be
relatively easy to contain them. In essence, there was no 10 year
plan driving the ACATS process; when you are managing a holding
action, you take advantage of every opportunity as it presents itself.
I am speaking here from personal experience. I attended many ACATS
meetings. I was a member of several ATSC engineering committees.
Every meeting I attended was dominated by CE manufacturers (at least
in terms of the votes they brought to the table). The situation was
even more lopsided in the ATSC.
I distinctly remember several meeting of the ATSC
interlaced/progressive scan task force. We were inundated with every
study ever produced in Japan on the advantages of interlace over
progressive scanning. Some of these studies were cobbled together
years after NHK determined that progressive scanning was the best way
to eliminate the artifacts that HIDE the underlying details in an
HDTV image. We spent weeks debating what the Kell factor was and how
it should be applied to the discussion.
This was somewhat of a turning point in my career; up to that point I
thought engineers worshiped at the alter of science - that good
science and good engineering go hand in hand. Instead I learned that
engineers can be manipulated just as easily as sales and marketing
types - that they can put science aside when praying at the alter of
economic and industrial policy.
Sorry Dale, but it was broadcasters who handed the ball to the CE
industry. There was but ONE thing that the CE industry wanted:
The perception that everyone must migrate to HDTV.
What better way than to get the U.S. government to establish an
industrial policy, using the force of government to help them cash in
on the IP that they embedded in the standard. The fact that this
standard left broadcasters at a competitive disadvantage was just
icing on the cake.
I can attest to the fact that COFDM NEVER had a chance in the ACATS
process. Why open up the patent pool, after the Grand Alliance took
control of the U.S. process. DVB and ATSC were competitors; not just
in the U.S., but around the world.
I can attest to the fact that the DVB did NOTHING to marginalize
broadcasting in the U.S. I can also attest to the fact that the CE
manufacturers did put pressure on them to stay out of this fight.
That station groups such as yours are now stuck between a rock and a
hard place should come as no surprise. The real power in all of this
has been, and will continue to be the media conglomerates, who are in
this for the long term play...
- To take national control of the TV spectrum, eliminating the model
of broadcast affiliates - i.e. to control the other half of the >$30
billion flow still controlled by broadcasters.
- To ultimately use the broadcast spectrum to put the squeeze on
cable and DBS, so that they can control the rest of the revenues
generated through user subscription fees.
We need to teach Bob Miller to be patient. The right technical
infrastructure for terrestrial broadcasting will emerge in due time -
after control of the TV spectrum has been consolidated into the hands
of the media conglomerates.
There is an alternative, but it is almost as unpalatable as the
current course. Local broadcasters can take the fight to Congress.
YOU can fight for the revitalization of Free TV. But in so doing, you
will be forced to take on the suppliers that now make your business
so lucrative.
Better to do it now, while you still have some credibility.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
