The Big Picture: by Frank Beacham
More Fear and Loathing in DTV Land
In my memory, the first great public crack in the DTV wall of
illusion came in early 1998 at Sony's pre-NAB press conference in
New York City. Sony's chief technology officer, Peter Dare, stunned
his corporate colleagues by admitting to the press there were "pitfalls"
in a DTV technology that was "not quite there yet."
Until that day, DTV had been sold as a picture-perfect technology
– one that would energize and reinvigorate both television
broadcasters and their viewers.
Dare burst the balloon of hype. Among the unresolved issues he
listed were two that would loom high in the future: incompatibilities
between broadcast and cable television systems, and reception problems
without an outdoor antenna.
Sony's PR apparatus went into hyperventilation over Dare's candid
remarks. Though the Sony executive garnered high respect from his
engineering colleagues for his rare honestly about DTV's faults,
Dare soon went into a sort of public relations exile at Sony for
months to follow.
Today, Peter Dare stands more than vindicated. By having the guts
to tell the truth as he saw it, he remains one of the few genuinely
noble characters to emerge from the muddy mess now referred to in
polite company as "the DTV transition."
WIDESPREAD SKEPTICISM
Though many others have challenged the soundness of DTV technology
since Dare's speech, it would be 2001 before widespread skepticism
about the state of digital broadcasting played out in public among
the industry's top executives.
At one media conference after another this year, broadcast DTV
has been dissed by simple omission from the discussion. To the major
media players DTV – by its very definition – is now the
product of cable or satellite, not broadcasters.
When pressed on the issue, more than one executive has derisively
asked whether anyone actually believes that hordes of Americans
will climb onto their rooftops – just as in the 1950s –
to install an antenna in order to receive their local DTV station.
It's not just an issue anymore of whether terrestrial DTV can
be made to work well. Now there's a question as to whether free,
over-the-air broadcasting can remain a viable business in a multichannel
pay television environment where the vast majority of viewers choose
to pay for their entertainment programming.
When asked at the recent National Cable and Telecommunications
show whether AOL Time Warner might be interested in acquiring a
major broadcast network, CEO Gerald Levin panned the idea, expressing
doubt as to future prospects for the broadcasting industry itself.
"To be sure, the past is behind [broadcasters]. You can't exist
in this modern era with a single revenue stream," Levin, a proponent
of the subscription TV business model, told CNN's Larry King.
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
Doubt is not limited to broadcast industry competitors. At a press
event in April, FCC Chairman Michael Powell – noting that 85
percent of TV households now receive cable or satellite television
– speculated what might happen when that figure moves higher.
"If 100 percent of Americans don't get free, over-the-air TV,
what are we protecting?" the FCC chairman asked reporters.
At a recent industry event, FCC Mass Media Bureau chief Roy Stewart
noted that the spectrum now used by broadcasters is not a perpetual
inheritance. "I tell the broadcasters that you ought to start thinking
about what you are going to do if that [pay TV penetration] number
gets higher, and what you can do to be more innovative," Stewart
said.
So far, foot-dragging and intransigence – rather than innovation
– has been the hallmark of the broadcast DTV movement. The
continuing quagmire has raised the possibility of the previously
unthinkable: that broadcasters are now in danger of eventually losing
all their spectrum.
In a recent issue of Multichannel News, an article headlined "Could
TV Stations Lose Their Spectrum?" speculated on a "doomsday scenario"
that could mean the end of over-the-air free TV within a decade.
As the number of pay television subscribers moves toward 90 percent
or higher, writer Ted Hearn conjectured Congress and FCC could decide
that the TV spectrum is more valuable in the hands of companies
other than broadcasters.
UPHILL FIGHT
Perhaps that's a reason the NAB TV Board recently decided against
requesting an FCC extension of the May 2002 deadline for smaller
stations to begin DTV service. It could be that the broadcast lobbyists
think they should conserve their energy for the uphill political
fight to force dual-signal must-carry on cable operators.
After all, forcing the broadcasters' signals on unwilling cable
operators might be the only answer to those unresolved issues cited
by Peter Dare in 1998. How else do you solve those pesky problems
of DTV/cable interoperability and the public's lack of enthusiasm
to install rooftop antennas for DTV reception?
Frank Beacham is a New York City-based writer and producer.
His Web site is at www.beacham.com.
E-mail: frank@beacham.com.
|
