The Big Picture: by Frank Beacham
Broadcast DTV: It’s Time to Go On the Record!
Here we go again. Another NAB. Another embarrassing
go-around for the terrestrial "DTV transition." Privately,
many of the nation’s best broadcast engineers now shake their
heads in disgust. How, they ask, could something have gone so terribly
wrong and why can’t it be fixed?
Very few industry figures of credibility will publicly
express their honest opinions about DTV anymore. It’s a political
hot potato. Too many mistakes have been made. Too much money wasted.
Too much crow to be eaten. Never before in broadcasting have so
many conversations begun with, "this will have to be ‘off-the-record.’
You understand why."
NOT A GOOD SCENE
One respected veteran broadcast engineer put it this
way: "This is not a good scene to be dealing with. Tradeshow
after tradeshow, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars pretending
things are getting better. Trade organizations are all presenting
a supportive face, while the broadcasters and consumers remain confused
and skeptical.
"It is time," he continued, "for all
associated with this transition to call a halt, fix problems, finish
writing critical standards, and have cable, satellite and terrestrial
broadcast harmonize their efforts and standards. If this takes another
four years, so be it. To do nothing will simply ensure pain for
all of us for the foreseeable future."
Increasingly, a new question is being asked –
What problem are we trying to solve? If more than two-thirds of
U.S. households are now subscribing to cable and satellite TV services
and the movement toward pay TV continues, why implement a new terrestrial
DTV system at all? Are we building a new highway to nowhere? Why
not just let analog service, with which the viewing public seems
content, to continue to serve that diminishing number of over-the-air
viewers?
WHAT TO DO
There’s even suspicion that upcoming "enhancements"
to the flawed 8-VSB transmission system will actually make the situation
worse. "I am willing to bet that HDTV cannot be supported,"
an engineer speculated to eventual changes to 8-VSB. "Can you
imagine such a stupid decision being made? This is supposed to be
a standard that we can live with for the next 20 years. I would
guess that there are only two to three people at those ATSC meetings
who believe that what is being done is the correct thing. Others
are too afraid to speak out, and this includes the FCC.
"What is a broadcaster to do? Sacrifice bandwidth
for the sake of robust reception? If I were the NAB, I would say
NO," he continued. "Change the modulation system to something
that can do the job and stop delaying? Remember, it was the promise
of HDTV that kicked off interest from Congress."
Others think it’s too late to fix what’s
already a sinking ship. Perhaps, it was suggested, the industry
should quit tinkering with on-air transmission technology and begin
to focus on a serious, workable integration of all TV services into
a single, easy-to-use receiver.
"I would suggest that total confusion exists
in the consumer marketplace," said a senior executive for a
leading equipment manufacturer. "I have seen content in the
stores with an HDTV logo burned into the image that was, in fact,
SDTV. Sales people will say anything to please the consumer."
The executive also ridiculed the way the transition
is being measured and portrayed as a success. Citing the percentage
of U.S. households within signal reach of a digital station means
little, he said. "Who cares about population coverage? Viewers
care about choice. There are some five to 10 cities where a wide
choice is available. This after six years since the ‘go’
button was pushed. Is this real progress?"
With the recent relaxation of FCC transition rules,
he said skepticism has escalated. "This is a joke. Already
there are reception problems related to assigned power levels being
too low. Along comes the FCC to say ‘you can even go lower
for some period.’ What does the poor consumer do when he can’t
receive the DTV channel? He gives up and returns his set. Are we
crazy?
"I wonder who believes the rollout plan anymore.
Are the broadcasters really interested in DTV when they can all
make more money with NTSC services?"
DTV CZAR
There was agreement among our "off-the-record"
sources that a genuine resolution to the broadcast industry’s
problems is not going to come from existing organizations. Repeatedly,
we heard suggestions for an appointed "DTV Czar" with
the status and power to force the resolution of standards and copyright
protection issues among various players in the television industry.
"This could be done with some head-bashing and
a desire to solve the problems," an engineer said. "This
person would have to be tough ... very tough. For a while he would
be vilified and then – if successful – he’d become
a hero."
More than once, the name of the late ABC engineering
executive Julius Barnathan came to mind when describing the kind
of individual who’d be up to the task. Barnathan, a brash,
no-nonsense pioneer of new broadcast technologies, was known to
use his considerable power in the 1970s to force fiercely competitive
equipment manufacturers to agree on standards.
Another executive suggested that the industry designate
an official "rest period" to sort out the issues. "Who
would have the intestinal fortitude to suggest this? I don’t
know. But it’s possible if some people swallow their pride.
The FCC, CEA and NAB could make it happen. They’d have to get
past the problem that it would be viewed, politically, as a delay.
"Another problem is convincing consumers that
DTV is for real. The CEA-NAB marketing alliance is a poor effort
and will fail. Consumers must be protected while the industry sorts
out its technical problems. We must promise that current products
will be replaced, free of charge, when we have a standard that we
can be proud of," the executive said. "I don’t know
who would fund this. But if we move quickly, the cost could be minimal.
(Pausing) Oh, I’d say about the price of one day’s war
in Afghanistan should do it."
Frank Beacham is a New York City-based writer
and producer. Visit his Web site at http://www.beacham.com.
E-mail: frank@beacham.com.
|
