[opendtv] Why can't we get the story straight?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:13:21 -0500
At 10:54 AM -0500 3/4/05, John Shutt wrote:
>Could someone please point me to a single document that shows the FCC ever
>intended CABLE to convert to digital along with OTA television?
The FCC never had to tell cable to go digital. The benefits were obvious.
Cable did have several seats at the ACATS table and there were ACATS
and ATSC working groups with the specific mission of harmonizing the
standards being developed for terrestrial digital broadcast, DBS and
digital cable. You might want to consider how 16VSB came about - this
modulation standard was developed specifically for cable as a way to
develop dual DTTB/Cable receivers. The cable industry said thanks,
but no thanks, there are more efficient and cheaper technologies for
the protected spectrum of a cable system.
If you really want to understand why cable spent $70 billion for
digital upgrades, just look up in the sky.
They were driven by competition. Not from terrestrial broadcasts,
but from the death stars above. Then the Internet happened, and cable
saw the opportunity to use a common distribution infrastructure to
deliver the Triple Play:
1. Traditional multi-channel TV service via the analog tier;
2. New digital TV services - more channels, NVOD and VOD;
3. New digital services including cable modems and VoIP.
>
>Why did we undertake this transition in the first place? To free up
>spectrum for resale to wireless service providers. Period.
More hysterical revisionism.
Let's weave together several recent threads and look at the big
picture (not HD).
First and foremost, the underlying motivation has always been about
the spectrum. As we have discussed many times, this has manifested
itself in many ways over the years. But it would be incorrect to
believe that this was all planned in advance.
Opportunism is the driving force behind the digital transition for
ALL of the key players, although in many cases - especially for
terrestrial broadcasters - this has been manifested in the form of an
opportunity to control and delay the transition, rather than building
a new business as cable and DBS have done.
Broadcasters have ALWAYS been protective of the incredibly lucrative
spectrum franchise they were given, and for good reasons;
1. They are incredibly wasteful with the spectrum resource.
As i have been arguing with Bert for some time now, the NTSC model,
with big high powered sticks, leaves vast geographic areas where the
spectrum cannot be re-used because of potential interference between
markets. This fact is perceived as a huge BENEFIT by broadcasters, as
it limits competition (from potential new broadcasters). And it is
perceived as a huge negative by greedy politicians and other spectrum
users who would like to get their hands on some of this beach front
property.
2. The franchise has evolved to afford marketplace advantage to
spectrum users based in the concept that it is in the public interest
to protect broadcasters from competition. Must carry was bubbling up
at the same time as Advanced Television.
In the early '80s several emerging technologies began to bubble up.
1. Perhaps the most important was the ability to distribute TV
content via satellite. This enabled cable to offer more programming
choice, allowing them to do an end run around the broadcast oligopoly.
2. Enhanced and High Definition television. By the early '80s NHK and
Sony were trying to drum up support for what they believed would
replace NTSC and PAL, the 1125/60 HDTV system. Others were working on
methods to improve NTSC and PAL in a compatible manner. As some
members of this list have pointed out (Dale Kelly I think), the
original Advanced Television work in the U.S. was focused on
compatible enhancements. One of the leading contenders in this area
was the enhanced NTSC system developed by Yves Farudja. Farudja
understood that NTSC was ALSO inefficient in its use of the 6 MHz
channel, and that it is possible to put more information into the
spectra of the NTSC signal without interference in existing
receivers. His system may well have succeeded, were it not for
"spectrum politics."
In this context, broadcasters were beginning to examine ways in which
they could enhance the delivered quality of their product; but there
was no compelling reason to actually do something, until...
The Land Mobile threat.
In the mid '80s, under pressure from interests who needed spectrum to
deliver new (or to expand) wireless telecommunications services, the
FCC proposed that broadcasters share the spectrum that they were
using inefficiently. The FCC proposed that the taboo channels could
be used for telecommunications without interference into the channels
actually being used for TV broadcasts. Some two decades later, the
FCC is now moving forward with this idea again, issuing a NPRM on
broadcast spectrum sharing in 2004.
This was the motivation that broadcasters needed to move forward with
advanced television. As Mark Schubin points out, the plan was not to
free up spectrum, but rather to use more of it in a compatible way to
enhance the NTSC service - 6 MHz for NTSC and 6 More for the analog
HD enhancement signal. When the FCC created the Advisory Committee on
Advanced Television Services (ACATS) in 1987, as part of the first
R&O on advanced television, they were NOT trying to free up spectrum,
they were considering locking it up even tighter. In the end, that is
exactly what happened, but a few things changed along the way - a
testament to opportunism.
By 1987 interest in HDTV was NOT starting to wane...it was starting
to grow. In part because Japan was already doing it with Muse, in
part because U.S. broadcasters were using it as their Trojan Horse to
protect NTSC, and in part because Japan's competitors in the global
CE market were concerned that Japan could establish the next big TV
standard.
European interests settled on the embrace and kill strategy. "We'll
do our own HDTV system thank you very much." They did, they "proved"
that there was no market for it, and they killed HD in Europe for
another decade.
Much the same was expected in the U.S.
Broadcasters would tie up the spectrum to offer an HD system that
would be compatible with NTSC. Most broadcasters never expected that
they would need to do anything other than squat on the beach.
The interest in HD actually began to wane AFTER the decision in the
U.S. to go digital. Europe managed to kill the threat and decided to
use digital broadcasting to take full advantage of the digital (ITU-R
BT.601) upgrades that most European broadcasters invested in between
1987 and 1993. While some do not consider this to be an upgrade to
PAL, in reality digital component video delivers most of the benefits
of HDTV, especially when the screen size is smaller than 40 inches,
which STILL represents about 99% of the consumer TV market in Europe.
It was not the legislature that got on the DTV bandwagon, when they
realized that the technology would ultimately allow for the recovery
of some spectrum, it was the FCC. After the GI demonstrations the FCC
issued another R&O in the advanced television process in 1992,
proclaiming that the system would be digital and that broadcasters
would get just 6 MHz; after a "transition period in which they would
be loaned a second channel, the analog service would be retired and
the spectrum re-packed to free some up for the greedy politicians to
auction.
At the time there was no Congressional authorization for this
proposal. As this was still a development process under ACATS and the
ATSC there was no immediate need for such legislation. By 1995 when
the ATSC standard had been tested and ACATS recommended it to the
FCC, the process moved to Congress. The authorization was bundled in
with the re-write of the Communications Act in 1996. The FCC then
issued the final R&Os beginning the DTV transition. It took
broadcasters only three months to render those orders meaningless,
with the 85% rule in the Balanced Budget Ac of 1997.
To date, not a single Hz of broadcast spectrum has been vacated.
Congress will "try again" with the Telecommunications Act of 2006.
So yes, it's all about spectrum. Keeping it out of the hands of would
be competitors, while broadcasters rely on must carry and
re-transmission consent to protect one of the most lucrative
franchises ever granted by a government.
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:
