[opendtv] Re: HDTV-Brochure_2005final
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:00:19 -0800
Craig wrote:
> 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'm very familiar with the history of this process for two reasons:
1. I personally observed these events as a member of the original Advanced
Television Systems group, who first met in Monterey, Ca. in 1980 and
continued meeting thereafter in Wash, DC, and I also am a member and
participant in SMPTE since 1977 and,
2. You've posted versions of this message on more than one occasion and I am
in general agreement.
However, there was major influence exerted by the CE community from the very
beginning, which was well before an U.S. HD broadcast system (analog then)
was seriously considered to be feasible. My early recollections are of the
CE folks being in extreme ecstasy over the potential for new product
development, which is the driving force behind this process.
The "broadcaster initiative" you mention was actually the result of the
(unholy?) alliance of CBS and Sony and was simply to protect their vision of
the future, which, unfortunately, is generally where we are now.
However, I stand by my original statement that it is part of a CEA long
standing agenda to marginalize broadcasters and the fact that they find
broadcasters to
be immaterial to their current business plan is simply a self fulfilling
prophesy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:02 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: HDTV-Brochure_2005final
> 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 -
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
