Before diving in, I want to make clear that what motivates me to write this post isn’t ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel nor the ending of Stephen Colbert’s show by CBS. My interest in watching late night network television ended when Craig Ferguson left the "Late Late Show" at the end of 2014 followed in mid-2015 by the departure of David Letterman from the Late Show. I tried watching their late-night replacement for a while as well as the other offerings, but I didn’t find the content to be sufficiently entertaining or compelling enough to hold my interest.

What motivates this is reading this blog post from NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. He makes some great points about the protection of the First Amendment and the propensity for government to try and pressure broadcasters to a particular slant on their coverage. As Mr. LeGeyt points out, it is nothing new and it is wrong and I agree wholeheartedly with him on these two statements. He concludes that protecting the First Amendment is “essential for the health of our democracy” which I also agree with.

Where I have concern is in the change in “local station” ownership. While I started working in local radio broadcasting in the 1970’s, I spent most of my career working in local television broadcasting beginning in 1982 so I’m going to focus my comments on local television.

The 1980’s were an interesting time for local television. Prior to 1985, a single entity could only own seven television stations nationwide which was part of the 7-7-7 rule (7 AM stations, 7 FM stations, 7 television stations). In 1985 the cap was raised to 12-12-12 and the collective reach of the 12 television stations could not exceed 25% of the total television households nationwide.

The percentage of households covered was increased to 39% sometime later and thanks to maintaining the UHF discount (a curious holdover from the 1985 ownership rules update), an entity can now own multiple stations in the same market and potentially cover significantly more than 39% of television household nationally.

So where we currently stand is that according to the FCC’s latest tally (June, 2025), there are 1,384 commercial television stations in the United States. As best as I can determine by searching the web, as of 2020/2022 about 30 owners’ control more than 1,000 of these stations. Currently there is a move to revise or eliminate the ownership caps and assuming that happens, I expect that most of the smallest owners and many of the mid-sized owners will be acquired by the largest owners and significantly fewer than 30 owners will control significantly more than 1,000 of the commercial television stations.

So what does all this have to do with concern over the First Amendment? Well, if you peruse the business plans and reports of most large companies, the metrics of success for the company and its leadership are often shareholder value and profitability. The reports often include plans for consolidation or centralization of services as a means of reducing operating costs and improving operational efficiency.

In a structure such as this, government pressure like Mr. LeGeyt describes becomes potentially easier and more effective. Threatening license renewal at the national level on a few large organizations that own and directly control the vast majority of local stations could certainly negatively impact the real or perceived shareholder value and profitability of the organization. This in turn could potentially generate a climate of national owners telling their local stations’ leadership to get in line with what they cover and how they cover it regardless of local community needs or sentiment.

I understand the need for broadcasting companies to grow to stay competitive with Big Tech but as we have seen in many businesses that consolidate, the mission and commitment to serving the customer is often diluted or completely abandoned in favor of the bottom line. It’s not hard to imagine maintaining shareholder value being in direct opposition to maintaining First Amendment rights.

When I started working in broadcasting, stations were licensed to operate in the public interest. Station ownership was limited to ensure that there were diverse voices in the market. Stations were required to regularly and proactively engage with the communities they served and document those findings.

While the media ecosystem has certainly changed, maybe broadcast station owners need to relook at those metrics and find a way to ensure that the local stations they own meet the needs and expectations of the communities they serve. Local stations may be “the most trusted source of information” but only as long as the local community sees them as local and worthy of their trust.

I’ve been attending and writing about CES for about 25 years. Think back to what changes were taking place in the television industry and media in general back then: High definition video was in its infancy, there were no smart devices with 4K or better screens, the internet was used for email and still images mostly delivered over a dial-up modem and over-the-air digital television was just starting to roll out. Wandering around CES in those days finding companies touting their ATSC or DTV solutions and displays was easy.

Going to CES this year with a focus on ATSC 3.0/NextGen TV presented a different challenge in that with the exception of the ATSC booth in the Central Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC), the only written reference I could find on the exhibit floor was on a few of the information cards near displays. I was pleased that when I asked staff at most of the larger manufacturers whether their television displays included a NextGen TV tuner, there wasn’t that “deer in the headlights” look I have experienced in prior years. They knew what I was asking them about and if they didn’t know for sure if the display had a NextGen TV tuner, they found out from someone in the booth.

TV Sets
I am pleased to say that most manufacturers I asked do have NextGen TV tuners in some of their new models and a couple have them in all models. The obvious notable exception was LG, which has “paused” on the rollout of NextGen TV while the patent infringement lawsuit goes through the appeals process. That’s not to say that LG didn’t have any televisions on display, they just couldn’t talk about tuners within the sets. LG’s primary focus in display technology was on 4K wireless transparent OLED displays.

The notable manufacturer aberration was the complete lack of any new displays at the Sony booth. Sony is one of the manufacturers that made the decision to put NextGen TV tuners in all new model sets, so it was somewhat concerning that they didn’t have anything set up. Conversations with booth personnel revealed that Sony is planning a standalone display exhibition in the Los Angeles area, primarily for the film and television studios. This is good news as I was hoping to see their A95 series which many of my colleagues in the media are giving high marks.

The big news from display manufacturers is that TCL will be incorporating NextGen TV tuners in their new lines of sets beginning this year. They will begin initially with their high-end models and eventually all models will incorporate NextGen TV tuners. I was pleased to hear this as my colleague Merrill Weiss and I spent a considerable amount of time looking at the TCL 115QM891G, a 115-inch MiniLED TV which according to the booth personnel will be available in the spring and priced at under $20,000.

The story on NextGen TV tuners was the same at Samsung, Hisense and most other manufacturers: The tuners are initially being introduced in their premium line sets first. I was told by several manufacturers’ representatives at the show that the primary reason for this is not a lack of belief in NextGen TV, but the extraordinarily low profit margins on smaller, more affordable televisions, (I say “smaller” because after looking at sets up to 163 inches, a 65-inch display just doesn’t seem all that big and when you can buy a good one for as little as $400 you can understand why the manufacturers are counting every penny when it comes to production).

Catching up with Madeleine
I caught up with ATSC President Madeleine Noland at their booth and we spent a few minutes talking about NextGen TV and the future. No surprise, Madeleine is excited about the future with NextGen TV now available to 75% of US households, the successful rollout in Jamaica and the adoption of critical components of ATSC 3.0 as part of Brazil’s conversion. From the initial conception, the vision was always that ATSC 3.0 could be a global standard and it is gaining some traction as countries look at the next iteration of content distribution.

I asked Madeleine to look forward and tell me what she saw as the next element in the evolution of NextGen TV. “Consumers getting excited,” was her first observation. That will take place as the broadcasters start to implement content that utilizes the capabilities of the standards, according to Madeleine.

“Pro sports networks and leagues are also taking notice,” she stated and then pointed out the logos in the booth of several sports organizations that are now working on plans to support NextGen TV. “They weren’t here last year,” she said but the 75% household coverage is compelling, “especially when it includes all of the top markets.”

What About Dongles?
In the ATSC booth there were quite a few devices and demonstrations. Devices included the ADTH outboard tuner which is priced at just under $90 and is A3SA certified and verified which is critical as local NextGen TV broadcasters activate security encryption on their services. 

Also in the just under $90 category was the Stavix outboard receiver; Zinwell offered the ZAT-600 outboard receiver (which does not need an internet connection to operate) with an MSRP of $149.

The Zapperbox was also on display with a suggested retail price of just under $250 it initially seems a little pricey, but that price includes full featured DVR functionality contained within the unit. There were also two complete PC board implementations from AmLogic and MediaTek that allow display manufacturers to implement NextGen TV.

On the Road
One other intriguing element of the booth was the Automotive Infotainment demonstration by ONE Media/Sinclair. Mobility was one of the fundamental drivers for the development of ATSC 3.0 and while getting receivers included in handheld devices is still proving to be a challenge (for both technical and financial reasons), motor vehicles of all types may prove to be less of a challenge. 

Offering things like radio as a service via the NextGen TV network is the tip of the iceberg for Sinclair. Sinclair’s Senior Director of Technology Business Development Tony Rangel told me that their target was to use 75% of their broadcast spectrum for non-traditional services. 

In the car, manufacturers using OTA to push updates to vehicles is very intriguing, especially for safety updates or recalls. Safety updates aside, making run-of-the-mill updates that improve customer satisfaction in the background is a win-win without having to inconvenience customers or worry about the costs and data capacity budgets associated with cellular services. 

Rangel sees services like these as well as augmenting precision navigation for autonomous taxi fleets as opportunities to expand and grow revenue while still delivering high-quality broadcast services to viewers. 

So while there was no huge fanfare about ATSC 3.0 at CES 2024, there was a lot of good news and not a lot of people asking “Is it worth doing?” That in itself is a vote of confidence for an industry that is redefining itself and its place in the heterogeneous network of wired and wireless, data and media, public and private information infrastructure. 

JOHNSTON, Iowa—Longtime Iowa PBS director of engineering, William (Bill) Hayes, is planning to retire after working for 50 years in broadcasting. 

Iowa PBS executive director and general manager Molly Phillips notified the Broadcasting Board of Directors and Iowa PBS staff of Hayes’ plans to retire on Feb. 2, 2023. During his long broadcasting career, Hayes spent more than two decades at the statewide public television network. 

“Bill has been a passionate advocate for our broadcast services. His experience and expertise have allowed Iowa PBS to maintain and grow our reputation for providing a quality viewing experience anywhere in the state, for free, over the air,” said Phillips in the announcement. “I feel very fortunate to have had him on my team these many years and wish him well in his future ventures and adventures.”

Hayes began his career in broadcasting in 1973 while pursuing his bachelor's degree in communications from Loyola Marymount University. He has worked in both radio and television with extensive experience in the planning, design and construction of all facets of a television station. 

“The 24 years I have spent at Iowa PBS have been wonderful. Helping the station through the transition to digital and plan for the future has been some of the most challenging and enjoyable experiences of my career,” said Hayes when notifying his team of his plans. “Working here has been an honor, and while I will be sad to leave, I am looking forward to continuing my work in future broadcast planning on the national level.”

Hayes is a life senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, one of the founding members of the ATSC and has served four terms as president of the IEEE Broadcast Technology Society. He is a member of the committee that started the Future of Broadcast Television (FoBTV) initiative in Shanghai, China, which developed the use cases for NextGen TV. He is a life fellow of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, as well as a member of the Society of Broadcast Engineers and the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers. 

Hayes is also a contributing writer for TV Tech; some of his writing for this publication can be found here. 

A national search for Hayes’ replacement will begin immediately, Iowa PBS said.

JOHNSTOWN, Iowa—Iowa PBS has been a national leader in TV for decades.  We have centralized master control of four program streams, distributed statewide via 17 transmission facilities as well as outputs to streaming services. We produce nationally syndicated TV shows, use our studio facilities for widely viewed specials and have received many awards from our programs and live sports. 

When our Avid-Sundance system reached end-of-life, we carefully accessed all master control automation and found Aveco a stand-out leader. There are many important innovations in playout and we wanted to use them now!  

However, our transition period had to happen during COVID-19.  We were amazed at how smooth the process went—a major master control replacement, adding many new features, while no one could come on-site!  A well-designed transition plan and the workflow automation scripting in Aveco helped a lot. 

The Transition Plan
Aveco has a direct database conversion from Avid-Sundance (and others) as well as BXF integration with Myers ProTrack traffic and API integration with Telestream-Masstech. All existing media and metadata migrated easily into Aveco. 

Via BXF, whenever a trimming or segmentation update is made in Aveco, the updated “confirmed timing” instantly updates both ProTrack and Masstech. Bi-directional MXF was one of our first steps.

In the past, Iowa PBS used many video server ports for ingest but Aveco’s equipment pool management efficiently allows sharing of ingest ports for program feeds, studio feeds, archival ingest, etc. It implements priorities to ensure important scheduled feeds are never missed and provides equipment pool sharing of video server ports for video roll-ins during live production. Aveco also controls live graphics—bridging master control and production use of shared resources. 

While Iowa is the center of political hurricanes every four years, we’re also in the center of “Tornado Alley”—our Intelliweather system is integrated with Aveco master control to bring instantaneous storm updates; every second matters. 

Iowa PBS has a great staff and training remotely due to COVID—on a new advanced automation platform—was expected to be a big challenge. There were many new features and workflow improvements to learn.  The new Aveco software was easy to understand, the trainers had a great grasp of what’s needed, and our staff got up to speed surprisingly fast.

Cloud Leadership
There are many features our staff especially like in Aveco—the integrated MAM, multichannel timeline, BXF bidirectional integration between Aveco-ProTrack and Masstech, the efficiency of equipment pooling, the easy sharing of master control and studio production, ease of use, great reliability, the safe client-server architecture, and the flexibility of unattended and remote operation. We were and continue to be very pleased with Aveco’s responsiveness to our comments and concerns and their flexibility at working with us on refinements to the overall operation of the system.

Most broadcast technologists see current or near-term use of the cloud for a variety of functions—MAM, storage, playout, pop-up channels. It was impressive to see Aveco’s early leadership in this area, with on-prem, hybrid cloud and full cloud operation on air for a range of quality broadcasters. Aveco controls our Harmonic Spectrum platform on-site and the Harmonic VOS360 cloud system which we may use in the future.

TV is in another fast rate of change—over the years, there have been many major waves. We’ve found some smaller companies are the best in innovating and adapting and we consider Aveco one of these and are honored to work with them and other quality manufacturers helping lead our industry. 

For more information, visit aveco.com.

When I was asked to review what had happened in television media over the past decade, the breadth and depth of changes in this industry reminded me of the changes I saw in my daughter as she moved from an adorable, wide-eyed 10-year- old to a more sophisticated young woman attending college and plotting out the course of her life. This analogy is further enhanced as I spend time with my 14-year-old grandson and try to comprehend the tumultuous times and “interesting” choices he makes as he navigates through adolescence. So let me welcome you to the end of the adolescent years of the first century of 2000 millennium. But where to start?

DIGITAL TELEVISION

While digital OTA technically began in the first decade of this century in the United States and a few other countries, it is really in this decade that we have seen terrestrial digital television become the primary standard and analog television service cease operation. The conversion to digital has enabled some very obvious benefits when it comes to the quality and quantity of services offered. Widescreen HD has become the baseline standard for content delivered to home receivers with pristine quality. Multicasts abound as even at my own Iowa Public Television we broadcast four independent program streams, two in high definition and two in standard definition, all with surround sound enabled, descriptive audio and closed captioning. I would venture the majority of OTA television platforms are now multicasts offering as wide a variety of content choices for over-the-air consumers as they may find in the basic subscription of the available MVPD’s.

But digital is not without its more subtle challenges. There are those who viewed the transition from analog to digital as a journey from one location to another location. However, digital was never a destination on a map but a continuum whose ultimate end is still beyond the perceivable horizon. I think the recognition of this fact by everyone involved in this industry is crucial because we have started on the path and we are accelerating. Case in point—NEXTGEN TV.

In 2009 as we joyfully shut off our aging analog transmitters, some here at Iowa Public Television were approaching 30 years old—how many of us were thinking that in 10 years we’d be contemplating shutting off our 15-year-old digital television transmitters? Not to mention convincing the entire viewing population to purchase new televisions because their “old sets” can’t receive the new OTA services. I’m not a big fan of quoting Moore’s Law because I believe the under-lying principle is an unsustainable growth pattern. However, I do believe there are corollaries that should be added if we are going to use it. One of these corollaries is that nothing digital is ever finished.

INFINITE CHANNEL UNIVERSE

While the internet certainly isn’t a product of the last decade, some of what it has enabled is. The internet has transitioned from an optional service to a utility, not unlike power and water. Technology has increased the speed and capacity of internet connectivity, both wired and wireless to enable a plethora of new over-the-top, streaming and on-demand services to be added to the over-the-air and MVPD subscription-based services available. The 500 channel universe that John Malone envisioned in the 1990s has morphed into an infinite selection.

Let’s not overlook another change, probably the most significant one of all: Mobility! I started my career as talent working in radio and back then we knew that the audience was mobile. I was never a good enough disc jockey to land one of the coveted drive time slots on the air but we knew that the vast majority of our audience was listening to us while they were on the go in their cars or laying on the beach on the weekends. The audience was taking the receiver with them and with an audio service it was pretty easy. Video services obviously presented a real challenge since one of the traditional driving forces in consumer television sales is increasing screen size and that the belief that the audience will opt to wait and watch content when they have access to the larger fixed screen.

In many cases however convenience trumps quality and just as people will skip going to see a movie in a theater and wait for it to come out on Netflix, they will likewise watch content on their smartphones while riding and sometimes even driving rather than wait to get home. The industry as a whole now has to come to grips with creating content that will be, not may be consumed on whatever device is most convenient for the audience. In my opinion, this nomadic consumption model is probably one of the most significant changes in our industry—not only bringing challenges to creating content but also new competition as wireless providers evolved, bringing 4G to market in the early part of this decade and the promise of 5G in the next decade.

COMMODITY CONTENT

Looking internally at the industry, the angst of the adolescence analogy still holds up as we adjust our business models, workflows and long-range plans to create content for audiences that have little knowledge or loyalty to the scheduled appointment, channel-based infrastructure of the past. An important concept to grasp is that the vast majority of consumption of preproduced content is still basically streaming in real time. What has fundamentally changed is that the scheduling of the stream has migrated from the content distributor to the content consumer.

Add to this environment the challenge of the ease of distribution and the growth of user-generated content. We saw this in its infancy when shows that took funny, cute and/or embarrassing home movies from VHS tapes and created hit television programs watched by mass audiences. Commoditized technology now allows anyone to purchase a 4K camera for under $100. While there are still “hit” shows based on user generated content easily found with a Google search, there are actually talented story tellers creating compelling content and making it available for free or by donation. This commoditization of the very content being created presents a whole raft of trials for the industry.

My friend and colleague Fred Baumgartner, director of NextGen TV Implication at ONEMedia once suggested I read the book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” by Clayton Christensen. It is a book I have actually read a few times because I want to be reminded that my mindset needs to be open to all possibilities.

One of the fundamental takeaways from the book is that when dealing with disruptive technologies, you cannot use the same metrics for success that are used to measure the success of the existing technology. The proof of that in our industry is apparent when you look at who is driving the market and who is struggling to survive. Companies that were barely blips on the radar of content creation and distribution at the beginning of this decade like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google (FAANG) are now the big dogs and the long established leaders are consolidating to try and stay relevant.

VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE

Digital’s entrance into the world of television began decades ago with the first time-base correctors, character generators and still store that allowed analog tape to replace film chains, paper graphics superimposed over video and 35mm slide projectors. Analog tape became digital tape, character generators became graphic systems and still stores became clip stores.

So the transition was from proprietary, on-premise analog hardware running no software to proprietary, on-premise digital hardware running proprietary software to commodity off-the-shelf (COTS), on-premise digital hardware running proprietary software (exhale). They still require the content creators to make a significant investment in hardware that has a significantly shorter useful life and software that is never finished and undergoing constant updates and improvements. Improvements that while increasing the capabilities of the system are simultaneously accelerating the end of life of the very systems they run on.

Enter the cloud and virtualization. The cloud is basically remote hardware and virtualization is running software on that remote hardware. Initially the low hanging fruit in virtualization was storage. Who didn’t love the idea of having their content available to them from anywhere they were at any time they want as long as they had an internet connection?

Initially concerns about security moderated the charge forward including some well publicized hacks at the major film studios. However, we are currently seeing some significant improvements is securing access and making the idea of more permanent cloud storage pick up speed.

At IBC, MovieLabs discussed their 10- year vision for the future of production, post production and creative technologies. One of the key elements is that their pristine content is in the cloud and the applications and software they use work on the content in the virtualized space. So clearly some of the largest creators of content are committed to the concept of virtualized workflows.

My colleague Chris Lennon, CEO of MediAnswers has been talking about microservices for awhile. Microservices for me is somewhat reminiscent of my early days writing programs where the computers had limited memory and the largest program you could execute was 64 kilobits. Pathetically small by modern standards, it required us to write code efficiently to fit the program into the space available and we also had to learn to modularize our programs to allow for seamlessly running a module and then using the results to execute the next module and so on.

This is how complex programs were designed. The commoditization of memory allowed for programs to grow in size so that they were a single large complex of code rather than separate modules. A microservice architecture harkens us back to the original modular programming and therefore allows some modules to run on user equipment and other modules to run on virtualized equipment.

While this is a complex arrangement, if properly managed and executed it brings some of the most astounding and compelling tools into the hands of anyone who wants to use them in a “pay by the drink” arrangement. Chris and other colleagues at SMPTE are in the process of putting together a working group to develop the standards and recommended practices for the development and application of microservices.

THE ENEMY OF GOOD

One of the other key concepts that I picked up for “The Innovator’s Dilemma” is that within a business there is often the push to develop the quality of the product or service far past the expectations and pocketbooks of the end users.

In some ways I think we are seeing this in the home television display marketplace where 4K and 8K television displays are being marketed as the next big thing. I had a conversation with another friend and colleague about this, discussing the shift in what content creators were looking for and what manufacturers were working on, with John Ive, director of Strategic Insight for the International Association of Broadcast Manufacturers.

“With technology I’m noticing that content image quality is maturing with small incremental improvements because we’ve reached the limits of perception,” he said. “So now more money is spent on the management of content and the business processes with image quality and content increasingly taken for granted.”

To an engineer or scientist who may believe that every improvement is worth the resource investment, this may sound a little like heresy but in the real world “good enough” is a valid metric that determination is made by the end user. The technologies needed to create and distribute content are mature and while they will improve and become even more affordable, that simply means that the sea of content will grow.

To be successful will require a focus on making content discoverable and available and this is why as the adolescent decade of this century comes to an end we are seeing a focus on business processes and content management.

So let’s raise a glass to a decade of change and upheaval. I hope that in 2029, I am asked and still capable of writing another decade in review. I wonder if I’ll even be able to recognize the business.

Bill Hayes is the director of engineering for Iowa Public Television.

The annual NAB Show gives us the opportunity to look at every type of equipment, service and system required to successfully operate a media enterprise in the 21st century. But let’s face facts, it is virtually impossible to see everything you need to see let alone the things you want to see. So if you are like me, you make the typical list of A, B and C priorities and you get through the A’s and a couple of B’s that happen to be on the route between two of the A’s you are looking at.

NEXT GEN TV

So what are the hot technologies that have made it to my A list? Let’s start with the obvious, ATSC 3.0. As someone who has participated in the standards creation process, I am excited to see all the work done by so many colleagues come to fruition. There are enough real work applications and technology demonstrations going on that there is no question that ATSC 3.0 works. The real questions that need to be answered are “what will stations do with it and how will they do it?”

While the “what will we do with ATSC 3.0” question will be debated at very high levels, there is no denying that one of the promises of ATSC 3.0 is the flexibility to dynamically reconfigure services in real time, thereby allowing stations a level of control over their services that they have never had before. Since much of this control is through configuration of the physical layer pipes (PLP) that make up the services being broadcasted, understanding how to change these configurations without breaking reception is critical. Remember that just because the standards enable capabilities, this doesn’t guarantee that receiver manufacturers will incorporate them. I certainly plan on spending time meeting with companies like Enensys and TeamCast to get a much better understanding of the system scheduler and manager.

Probably the best advice I can give to anyone with ATSC 3.0 on their A list is to download and review the ATSC 3.0 Transition & Implementation Guide. Google it—it’s available for free from any number of websites. It is a great resource to provide a general understanding of ATSC 3.0 and enable some meaningful conversations with vendors at the show. As I have spent more and more time working through ATSC 3.0, it has become obvious to me that while not necessarily easy, the RF system is the easiest part of the equation.

5G

The next hot technology to look at is 5G. I know that we have all heard the hype about how 5G is the “be all and end all” technology that will do everything, including cure the common cold. I am not going to try and separate the hype from the facts, let’s just say that like ATSC 3.0, 5G promises a lot of capabilities, and like 3.0 it will depend on what receiver manufacturers implement that determines the quantity and magnitude of capabilities actually enabled

But there is no denying that even a basic implementation of 5G may make a fairly dramatic impact on the bonded cellular systems that are becoming ubiquitous in newsrooms. Given the promise of low latency and higher capacity, many stations may see this technology as the full replacement for their microwave ENG systems. While my station is not a user of ENG systems, we do broadcast live sporting events and there will be a number of vendors showing 5G infrastructure that can be used within venues for some (possibly all) cameras that would eliminate the need to run camera cables within a venue. I am not sure if I would ever be comfortable using public cellular service to deliver the feed from a venue to a remote control room; deploying a private and secure 5G service certainly could be an attractive alternative to rolling a truck and support crew to an event. This could make live broadcasts or streaming of minor league and high schools sports a valuable asset for local broadcast stations.

IP FOR LIVE PRODUCTION

For this next group of hot technologies, I spoke with my colleague John Ive of the International Association of Broadcast Manufacturers (IABM), who had just finished drafting a report from the recently completed EBU Production Technology Seminar held in Geneva on Jan. 29–31 of this year. John’s role at the IABM is the director of Strategic Insight, a position for which he is uniquely qualified and he is a wealth of knowledge and vision.

IP for live production. I encourage everyone to study and understand as much as they can regarding SMPTE ST 2110 and its implications and capabilities. While I know that this standard has been in the press a lot, it is vitally important to understand that while ST 2110 is substantially complete, the devil is in the details and as with all things digital there is no shortage of details.

For me, literally everything I will be looking at for use in content creation I will be asking “is this device or system ST 2110 capable and if not, what is the path to ST 2110 if selected?” I firmly believe that this is the future of facilities large and small. If you are currently looking at deploying a 2110 environment, you need to understand at this juncture that you are probably looking at a more expensive version of what you currently have. To me this is the same concept I embraced when building my first HD facility and paying a premium despite many folks saying that much of what we produce will always be SD.

Try not to let shortsightedness and sticker shock force decisions that will ultimately be even more costly. There is an immense amount to learn about 2110 in order to be able to administrate and manage a facility. Even if the plan is to hire an integrator for the initial build—in the world of Moore’s Law—unless the plan is to bring the integrator back every time a subsystem is upgraded or replaced, station technical staff will have to understand how to configure systems to work within the environment. We have all had to come to grips with the new reality that just because a product is on the market and delivered, that doesn’t mean it’s finished, and we are still a long way from plug and play. I encourage everyone reading this to stop by the IP Showcase at NAB and get a look at some real world implementations. If you get a chance, ask someone working there how long it took to get everything set up and working.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial Intelligence is another hot topic that certainly has received a lot of press in all areas. AI has become a catchall term for everything from simple sensor-driven operations like automatic doors, optical and voice recognition to machine learning and autonomous decision making. In many ways AI is like modern standards, a toolkit containing a multitude of capabilities and capacities that can be implemented in an almost infinite variety of ways. As with 2110, my plan is to ask about how AI is implemented within the device or system of interest and what benefit the manufacturer believes it provides or capabilities it enables.

CLOUD

I have a hard time calling the cloud a “hot” topic, but in a way it is. As the nature of the infrastructure and systems within our facilities changes from purpose-built hardware to software applications running on COTS platforms, the next question I have to ask the manufacturers is “what is your path to virtualization?” Recently, while watching one of our weekly news shows as it was being produced, I envisioned the director letting Amazon’s Alexa AI interact with the Grass Valley switcher, Chyron graphics system, SSL audio console and all of the other manually controlled devices involved in the creation of the show. It made me wonder how long it would be before I will be subscribing to a service that provides cloud-based platforms that do everything that currently happens in hardware systems that are housed in the local facility or control room.

VIRTUAL/AUGMENTED REALITY

The final hot topic areas that I would really like to explore are augmented reality, virtual reality and mixed reality, but in order to do that I have to change my thinking and really and truly get “out of the box.” As I watched the producer/director of the show mentioned above create the program, it occurred to me that he was making decisions about the show by watching the flat screen monitor, which makes sense since that will be the consumption device. It therefore seems implausible to me that a director creating a program in the AR/VR/MR space will be able to do this sitting behind a desk watching a flat screen representation. It will take an immersive control room that is reliant on AI and cloud-based services to effectively tell an immersive story. I am not sure how much of that will be at NAB 2019, but there is always NAB 2020.

Can’t Miss Events at the 2019 NAB Show

With more than 1,700 exhibitors covering the entirety of the Las Vegas Convention Center and more speakers and presentations than you can likely remember, it’s no small feat to figure out how to spend your time at this year’s NAB Show. Need some help? Here are four events that you’re going to want to make sure you catch before the conference ends. For details, visit nabshow.com.

50 Years Later, ‘Apollo 11’ Recreates Moon Landing
2019 is the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s giant leap for mankind. Whether you were alive for the initial broadcast or not, Todd Douglas Miller’s “Apollo 11” documentary brings the historic feat to life with restored, never-before-seen footage. Miller will keynote the Future of Cinema Conference on April 6 about recreating the moon landing in high-resolution.

Game on at eSports Experience
For the first time, the NAB Show will put a spotlight on eSports with the inaugural eSports Experience. With a designated area in the North Hall, the eSports Experience will feature exhibits, a theater and educational programming devoted to the live gaming industry. Many influential figures in the space, including professional gamers and eSports leagues team owners, will take part in the mainstage presentation, “The eSports Evolution: What’s Next in Gaming,” on April 10.

Streaming Summit Returns, Gets Bigger
After debuting the Streaming Summit at last year’s show, the OTT-focused event returns and this year will go on for two days. More than 100 speakers will give an insight into streaming’s latest technologies and the best strategies to monetize content. Executives from big-time players like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Comcast, Hulu and other OTT platforms will also be giving fireside chats throughout the two days. The Summit runs from April 8-9 in the North Hall.

Let NAB Be Your Guide
Even if you know there are a couple of things that are must see for you this year, there will be plenty that you won’t want to miss, and who better to help you catch the biggest exhibits than NAB itself. NAB is offering curated tours Monday-Wednesday that either cover specific topics (Future Technology, Film and TV Production, Live and News Production) or attendees can customize their own tour. Individual or group tours are available.

JOHNSTON, IOWA—One of the mysteries that has perplexed me for a number of years is how traditional broadcasting became so uncool at the same time that wireless connectivity for watching content became cool. Our industry has been wireless since it began more than 100 years ago! What’s up with that? I could also make the case that the earliest wireless communications were done with Morse Code, a sequence of dots and dashes that equate to 1’s and 0’s and are therefore digital, albeit painfully slow digital.

But be that as it may, thanks to the cord-cutting and cord-shaving and cord-nevering that is going on, we may actually be seeing the beginnings of a bit of a renaissance of over the air broadcasting. Assuming this is actually happening, this may be just the groundswell our industry needs to begin embracing ATSC 3.0 and the capabilities it adds to the services that local broadcasters can offer. Like in surfing, if we start paddling as the swell is approaching we can ride the crest of the wave to completion.

BACK TO THE DARK DAYS

However, to help insure that this renaissance actually happens, I want to take us back into the dark days of the past and the birth of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, TV broadcast white spaces and the processing of waivers to allow for the importation of distant signals. For the most part these issues have gone away as satellite antennae became smaller and local-into-local became the norm. I would, however, remind you that one of the most common reasons given for why a viewer within the coverage of local television deserved a waiver: My homeowners association or condo association or local association doesn’t permit the installation of an outdoor television antenna.

[FCC Overrules Condo TV Antenna Rules]

In those dark times, the consumer was looking for a reason not to put up an antenna to receive a service that was theoretically available via their subscription to satellite. For most, they were looking for something to replace their cable service, which was too expensive or not available because they were too far from a high density population area to run the cable system past their house. Remember at this time, we were still using dial-up phone lines to access the internet and 24.4 kpbs was a relatively common connection.

Now we are seeing this rediscovery of over-the-air reception and thanks to the digital conversion, where there once were fewer than 10 program streams available over the air in all but the largest markets, there are now 30 or 40 depending on what stations are doing with their ATSC 1.0 services available at no cost. Couple that with the OTT and on-demand services available via broadband and suddenly both packaged cable service and satellite service seem unreasonably expensive and restrictive. This new generation of consumers will begin looking for ways to put up antennas. Guess what? Those homeowner, condo and local associations mentioned above probably still have those same restrictions against television antennae. Does the renaissance end here?

SEEKING ANTENNA WAIVERS

I spent a good portion of the 1990’s reviewing waiver requests and became intimately familiar with 47 CFR 1.4000, the Over-the-Air Reception Device Rule or “OTARD.” The rule has been in place since 1996 and while it has been through several amendments, it is still in place. The rule prohibits most of the restrictions that local associations place on members in regards to the installation of not only traditional television antennas but also direct-to-home satellite and MMDS antennas. It encompasses rental property as well as homeowner-owned properties.

The key with rental properties is that the renter must have an “exclusive use area” such as a patio or balcony where the antenna can be installed. While the rule isn’t perfect for every instance, I spent my last five years in commercial broadcasting working for the CBS affiliates in New Mexico where we had a network of a few full power stations and a plethora of translators throughout the state and the vast majority of time I was able to secure an agreement from the association that the viewer had the right to install the antenna. I would point out that this included military bases that had strict rules regarding antennas of any sort on base.

Now again, this work was done during the “dark days” where people were looking to get waivers to not watch the local stations, so they were not always happy when the waiver denial included a letter from their association stating that they could put up an antenna as further evidence of why their waiver was denied. However if the audience wants to put up an antenna to receive the free local stations so that they can cut, shave or forego the cord, they will be happy to have additional information that they can take to their association. And let’s also recognize that there are now options for over-the-air television antennas that are a lot less unappealing then the old multiband Yagi’s of the 1950’s and 60’s. Couple the new design with the increased robustness of the ATSC 3.0 service and suddenly broadcasting is cool again.

The FCC also maintains a webpage on the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule with an FAQ that provides some talking points. I would encourage anyone working in television broadcasting to consider using this information to put together an educational presentation to do to local community groups to promote the renaissance of over-the-air television and whet the appetites of the local audience for what is freely available to them now and the incredible potential of what is to come as ATSC 3.0 comes into its own.

Bill Hayes is the director of engineering for Iowa Public Television.

I recently read an article with a headline that posed the question “The Death of Linear Television?”

I have been writing long enough to know that headlines are designed to grab the attention of the reader as they are scanning the page (whether on paper or display) and entice them to read the rest of the article. I guess it worked in my case because I did read the story but I was more interested in looking for the incorrect assumptions then I was about getting the full story. I was pleased to read that a number of the folks quoted have what I would consider balanced views.

Let me share with you three facts that are in my view immutable. Life is linear. Life is analog. Life is finite. While we have created and used technology in media to digitally capture and distribute content for information and entertainment, we are still consuming in the linear, analog and finite world.

The change is more about the birth of new methodologies then it is about the death of old ones. It seems to be human nature to think and express momentous and non-momentous changes and events in absolute terms. To justify the United States’ entry into World War I, President Woodrow Wilson paraphrased author H. G. Wells by calling the current war as “the war to end all wars,” a pretty ironic statement given the history that has occurred since then. But even on the personal level, I have heard and may have said in my youth after breaking up with a girlfriend that I would never love again. Now, having been married to the same person for 40 or so years, probably not my most factual statement or prediction.

REFINEMENT TO WHAT ALREADY EXISTS

So what is happening in our business and what should we do about it? Well the first thing I suggest is to recognize that “television” is not the business any more than “broadcasting” is the business. Television is about the transmission of content to receivers and is traditionally thought of as a linear service. But that is based on the limitations of the technologies used for creating content, not the limitations of the underlying distribution technology. Digital capture, compression and packaging technologies now enable using television to transmit multiple content elements and packages, faster than real time. The methodology of broadcasting is also thought to be linear based on the same traditions and limitations from its earliest incarnations. These are but two of the tools or methodologies that are used to interact with the consumers. We will continue to use and refine these tools.

[What Are We Going to do With TV?]

As a local “television” station and a “broadcaster,” I look at ATSC 3.0 as a refinement to a tool that we are currently using and while it is an important tool, it certainly isn’t our only tool. The content that we create is certainly distributed using these tools as well as others. The real business is creating valuable content and using the distribution tools to insure that the consumer has access to the content, whether it is via traditional and linear methodologies and devices or via nontraditional and nonlinear methodologies and devices.

We must therefore understand what exactly our businesses are and adjust our practices to take advantage of the refinements in the tools and technologies that we and the consumers use in the creation, distribution and consumption of content.

Having worked closely with many of the brilliant engineers that have written the ATSC 3.0 standard, I have to say that I am amazed at the capabilities that this new standard enables. I also certainly hope and believe that as it is adopted by the “broadcasters” and the consumers, it will be a tremendous success. However, I think it is important to realize that regardless of how great the success of ATSC 3.0 is, it will be one of the tools used by content creators and content consumers, not the only tool.

WHATEVER WORKS

In the summer of 2017, the BBC reported that, according to linear channel measurements, there were zero viewers for a repeat episode of the “Blue Peter” children’s magazine show.

Going back to the article that inspired me to write this column, one of the elements in it was something that happened in the summer of 2017 at the BBC. They aired a repeat episode of a children’s magazine show and based on the linear channel measurement for that airing, no one watched it. I think we all would probably freak out if we aired a piece of content and no one watched it.

So is this actually proof that linear television is indeed dying? If you look at the piece of content, it was actually viewed linear during its initial broadcasts by more than a quarter million people, played over the top by some 39,000 people and the show’s website had about 1.5 million kids visit. The viewers were using the tools that made the most sense for them to consume the content and get the job done. Sometimes it was the traditional tool and sometimes the non-traditional tool.

One last thing to touch on and it has to do with the traditional tools and the non-traditional tools. Don’t make the error of impressing your views and values on to others. For those of us who have been involved in the business for decades, viewing “television” content on a smartphone is consuming traditional content on a non-traditional device. For the kids in the U.K. watching the children’s magazine show via the iPlayer on their smartphone, there is no traditional or non-traditional content or technology involved.

Bill Hayes is director of engineering for Iowa Public Television.

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

“What are we going to do with TV?” I am willing to bet that there are media companies all over the world asking this question. Terrestrial television broadcasters are caught in a pickle. They see the growth of broadband connectivity and wireless services growing in strength and capacity at a rate that may make them obsolete in the very foreseeable future. There is of course, the Next Gen Television (ATSC 3.0) standard with its promises of expanded capacity, capabilities, mobility and seamless integration with the internet of things.

But, it is a tough gamble. While traditional OTA broadcasting doesn’t garner the mass audiences it did in its heyday, it still generates a considerable amount of revenue for station owners and provides local services to communities. NGT has great promise but its success is far from assured and it will take a leap of faith for the early adopter to make the move. So it is no wonder the question is being asked “What are we going to do with TV?

Here’s the funny thing, a colleague of mine (Trista Peitzman) recently shared with me a Reader’s Digest article titled “What are we going to do with TV?” by Millard C. Faught. It appeared in the November 1950 issue and was condensed from the original article “TV: An Interim Summing-Up” from the August 26, 1950 issue of The Saturday Review of Literature. Doing a little digging, I was able to locate the original article and it was a fascinating read. I thought I would go through it and share some of the amazing parallels and predictions that were made.

TELEVISION’S INFLUENCE
The paragraph in the original article is a quote attributed to an unnamed observer in reference to television, stating the “The big problem with television is that it’s hard to lie about it fast enough to keep up with the truth.” I am not sure if this is the birth of “fake news” but it seems interesting to me that in 1950, there was great concern about the impact of television. The author notes that the influence of television on the daily lives of millions of Americans far exceeds the “sundered atom.” There is even concern expressed regarding television’s potential impact outside of the home in portable and mobile forms. Concerns are expressed about television sets in cars and mention of a couple of “successful” experimental installation of sets in a bus in California and a transcontinental airliner.

The societal and business impacts are further described in the form of a New York laundry’s complaint that TV owners are dirtying up to 40 percent fewer dress shirts, and kids cajoling their parents into purchasing “TV horse-opera” gear to the tune of $200 million. According to the inflation calculator on www.saving.org that is a little over $2 billion in 2017 dollars. That is a lot of Hopalong Cassidy paraphernalia. Even in the light of an impending war, in the first six months of 1950 there were upwards of three million sets sold at an average price of $300 ($3,069.00 in 2017 dollars). All of this impact was from the 107 VHF television stations that were on the air by mid-1950.

In 1948, the FCC had frozen the issuance of new construction permits while it sorted out where to find the additional spectrum needed to accommodate the tremendous demand for more television channels. The UHF band was already being looked at but there was the concern over how to protect the investment millions of consumers had made in VHF-only televisions. In 1950, a 21 year-old Gordon Moore had just received his B.S. degree in chemistry from UC Berkeley and was a decade and half away from the original theory that in 1975 became “Moore’s Law.” The televisions of the time were significant investments that had life expectancies many times greater than the two-year product replacement cycle we see now. There were other challenges noted such as the inclusion of color with three separate potential systems being argued by their proponents.

WHAT’S IT GOOD FOR?
The article also asked “What is television useful for?” According to Faught, while there may be hundreds of uses, they have been obscured by the belief that television is the “greatest advertising medium ever, and that’s that.” I don’t think that in 1950 this claim could be disputed, but in 2017 I think there may be other contenders that utilize television’s capabilities along with the interactive components of other technologies. But as I pointed out at the beginning of this article, the original piece was brought to my attention by a member of the educational staff here at Iowa Public Television.

Educators here in Iowa were quick to recognize the value of television as a method of providing distance learning. Remember, in 1950 there were 107 television stations on the air and one of those was WOI-TV then licensed to Iowa State College (now Iowa State University) and in addition to commercial programming from ABC, CBS and NBC, the station aired academic and educational programming that continued until 1959 when the Des Moines Public School signed on KDPS-TV, (now KDIN), the primary station in the Iowa Public Television Network. An interesting sidelight that I came upon while doing some online research for this article is that the funding for starting WOI in 1950 came from excess grant money that Iowa State received for work on the Manhattan Project. If that is accurate, then WOI-TV is sort of an unplanned chain reaction from the previously mentioned “sundered atom.”

“Via television it is possible to project almost any sort of educational subject matter—lectures, exhibits, experiments, demonstrations and even field trips and examinations—outside the classroom.” This is a quote from George Jennings who at the time was the director of the Radio Council of the Chicago Public Schools—a pretty bold vision for a technology in an early stage of development. At IPTV we have certainly seen the evolution of this type of educational content with improvements such as high definition adding to the quality of the material presented. Looking forward to Next Gen TV, couple immersive concepts like virtual reality or augmented reality with the interactivity that is enabled by the hybrid return channel and the ideas expressed in the 1950 article become even more compelling and impactful. Imagine a large class being able to explore the space, or ocean depths or the inside of a human heart through immersive images and sound and being able to interact with the material and each other in real time.

While this is a noble vision, there is the reality of how do we pay for it? So the question then and now is not “What is television useful for?” but “What uses of television can we pay for, and how?” Then and now the monetary engine that drives television is advertising revenue and that revenue comes from audience share and ratings. But even that engine is starting to show its weakness. Advertisers are starting to move their dollars away from the traditional one-way streams to the more narrowly focused broadband services that allow for a more targeted spend with measurable metrics for effectiveness. While not a selling point for the consumers, one of the capabilities that gets the most notice from broadcasters considering Next Gen TV is the capability to better target and measure the audience. I suspect that some of these same performance measuring technologies may have applications in measuring the effectiveness of an educational program as well as providing some guidance regarding what additional information or programs the student is interested in.

DIFFERENT TIMES, SAME VIEWS?
Different things in this article will resonate with different people depending on their focus and interests. One of the items that resonated with Trista when she discussed the Reader’s Digest version was the statistic that according to a “recent survey in Stamford, Conn,” children are “’mesmerically’ glued to the television screen for as much as twenty-seven hours per week.” According to my colleague Trista, the most recent data suggests that children currently spend about 28 hours per week with a screen. I am still pondering what this small increase means in a universe with hundreds of streaming channels and internet connectivity. In 1950, Stamford could not really be considered typical when it came to television, being that it was serviced by as many as eight television stations from the New York City area and since on an average television, stations were on the air for approximately 70 hours a week.

This meant that children were watching more than 33 percent of the time the stations were on and the concern according to the article, was that “never has a generation of impressionable youngsters been instructed on the best ways to commit murder, mayhem, and bank robbery as they have of late on television.” What this seems to indicate is that the screen is the primary draw for children and the content is secondary. I wonder if in Mr. Faught’s view, for children, a bad television program is more interesting and engaging than a good book.

One of the more amusing parts of this article was in regards to how to fund television. The author compares the costs of creating content in Hollywood with the costs of creating content for television. Since television is “sort of like a movie in your home,” it costs “sort of like a movie” to produce. The pot boiler movie in the day might cost $2,000 per minute and the really good films were in the $15,000 to $30,000 per minute range. According to a New York Times article, only six of the television stations on the air in 1949 made a profit. Based on a linear extrapolation of the financial numbers from 1949, the cost of operating 1,000 television stations nationally would be $1,740,500,000 (almost $18 billion in 2017 dollars) and would require the sale of goods advertised to be $80 billion (or about $820 billion in 2017 dollars). Clearly based on that 1950’s evidence along with the pending potential Korean War, television broadcasters should have shut down and cut their losses because as the author concludes, television “cannot be sponsored by advertising.”

One of the solutions according to the article is to find ways to collect fees for premium programming from the viewers—no kidding, in this article, there was already talk about pay-per-view programming. In the Chicago area in 1946, Zenith began test transmissions of a system called “Phonevision,” at the time quite an ingenious system whereby the video and audio were scrambled and then transmitted using an experimental television station. A set-top box with a tuner and a telephone interface was installed at the consumers home and when they wanted to watch a premium program, they called in using their home phone and the phone line was used to send the descrambling key to the Phonevision box and the charge for the service would appear on the consumer’s phone bill. The belief was that people would pay $1.00 ($10.00 in 2017) to watch theatrical releases on their televisions at home.

Although a clever technology and idea for the day, there were some clear problems with the concept; not the least of which was the quality of the broadcast image compared to the film when viewed in a theater. There was also the issue of color, which was still a few years off in 1950. I expect if the project had really picked up steam there would also have been some concerns expressed as to how many people watched in one location at the same time before it was viewed as a “public showing.” But if you look at the consolidation that is happening in the media industry now, while the technology is more sophisticated, the basic idea is still pretty much the same. What has been added is the on-demand feature for the films.

So, what are we going to do with television?

Bill Hayes is the director of engineering for Iowa Public Television. He can be reached via TV Technology.

CALGIARI, ITALY–I expect most people have a general understanding of the law of diminishing returns. This is the point where level of benefit is less than the amount invested. In engineering we see it all the time where the next level of incremental technical improvement is imperceptible to the consumer and the cost of implementing it is significant.

In my career I have had to coach engineers to recognize and accept that while we may be able to get another tenth of a dB reduction in noise in a transmitter, it won’t have any appreciable impact on the service to the viewer or listener and therefore may not be worth doing. Engineers, myself included, hate that concept because it is those small, hard to achieve improvements that really exercise our brains and skills. Coming to grips with this can be quite a challenge and requires some careful consideration in both the short term and the long term.

At the 2017 International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting in Cagliari, Italy last week, Dr. Peter Siebert, executive director of the DVB Project in Geneva, Switzerland, presented an interesting keynote address where he asked a couple of very compelling questions. The first was whether or not 4K resolution is the broadcast equivalent of the Emperor’s New Clothes?

For those not familiar, this Hans Christian Andersen tale is about two tailors who promise to weave a suit for the Emperor that will be invisible to anyone who is unfit for their position, stupid or incompetent. The Emperor is vain enough to believe this claim and once he is outfitted in these new clothes, he parades before his subject all of whom are unwilling to say that they don’t see the new suit for fear of being judged unfit, stupid or incompetent. It is only when a child with no fear of being judged proclaims that the Emperor isn’t wearing anything, and others begin to pick up the cry. Interestingly, in the story, the Emperor suspects that the cry is true but continues the parade, probably out of pride or vanity.

THE DISTANCE TEST

So what does this have to do with 4K resolution? We all know that our eyes’ ability to perceive resolution on a display is a function of the proper viewing distance for the size of the screen and the horizontal lines. The rule of thumb for HD is three times picture height, which varies slightly depending on whether the screen is 720 or 1080 lines. For UHD-1, the viewing distance is one and a half times the screen height. In Dr. Siebert’s presentation he provided some research conducted at IRT where UHD content was down converted to three variations of high definition and then upconverted back to UHD and then shown on a 56-inch UHD display. The researchers ran two versions of the test comparing the native content on the native resolution display as well as the three HD versions upconverted to UHD. One version was at the proper viewing distance for a 56-inch display and the other version at 2.7 meters (almost 9 feet) from the display.

At the proper viewing distance, the 720p and 1080i content was perceived to have over a half point worse quality on the ITU 5-point quality comparison scale compared with the native UHD. Even the 1080p content was viewed as just under a half point worse. However, at the 2.7 meter distance, all three versions of the HD upconverted content showed less than a half point difference when compared to the native UHD content. When considering all of the data presented, Dr. Siebert said, “When comparing UHD-1 resolution with 1080p50 there is a performance improvement of about 0.5 point. This is a statistically relevant, but nevertheless minor improvement when going beyond HD resolutions.”

What does this mean for broadcast? Well, we must consider the laws of diminishing returns. We clearly know that in order to broadcast UHD, we will require more resources such as channel capacity with resolution being the largest consumer of extra overhead. We also know that with very few exceptions, consumers are sitting further away from their televisions than the proper viewing distance.

So the operative question becomes whether or not the perceived quality improvement, which the IRT scale indicates is statistically relevant, but small, is worth the resource overhead needed to broadcast the higher resolution?

HDR IN A 1080P WORLD

Before answering this question it may be important for you and your decisionmaking team to remember that UHD-1 is a bouquet of capabilities. Obviously more pixels is one of the components, but so are high dynamic range (HDR), wide color gamut (WCG) and high frame rate (HFR). With the exception of resolution, all of these other capabilities can be deployed in a 1080p system, which the UHD Forum includes in their UHD Phase A Content parameters. While I suspect HDR and WCG could be applied to 720p and 1080i HD formats, I am not aware of anyone showing work in this area. Given this fact, it is quite understandable why some broadcast organizations are considering the idea of moving to a 1080p resolution but incorporating HDR and WCG in their plans and allowing the upconversion to take place in the display. So it is important for those of us making the decision to consider all the factors and make a sound choice rather than the vain choice made by the Emperor.

The other interesting question that Dr. Siebert raised had to do with future advancements and the limits of the human visual system. Remember that UHD-1 has the four components of 4K resolution, HDR, WCG and HFR. During his presentation Dr. Siebert presented experimental results, which indicated that in each of the latter three elements the technology is approaching the limits of our visual systems. Now that is not to say they are at the limits, but again we have to consider the law of diminishing returns and for me, this is where it gets interesting.

If I think strictly in terms of conventional broadcasting, then future improvements would seem to be on the wrong end of the scale. The incremental improvements in color space, dynamic range, and frame rate delivered to a standard UHD display may indeed be so small as to be imperceptible and therefore may not be worth the investment in resources.

But what about the future? What will the displays of the future be? Holographic? Will we come up with technologies that allow us to enhance the human visual system or bypass it entirely and directly stimulate the visual cortex? If so, will we want the content that we are creating today to have value to the consumers of that content in the future? If so, how do we insure that there is sufficient information available?

Peter Siebert

Now the law of diminishing returns becomes a little more complex because part of the equation has to do with the projected or proposed long term value of the content. The rule of thumb I have always applied to content creation is if the content has long-term value, it should be created at the highest “quality” possible based on the resource availability. I include metadata in the quality metric because in the future it may be even more important to the value of the content then the essence.

Dr. Siebert noted in his presentation that time did not allow him to address the considerable capabilities and impact of next generation audio. My own research and experience is that audio is equally important to the consumer’s total quality of experience. Remember, in the future, the content we are creating today may be consumed on what is the equivalent of a holodeck and that metadata will be used to map the 2D essence in 3D space.

Bill Hayes is director of engineering for Iowa Public Television. He can be reached via TV Technology. 

Well, in what I can only say is stunning, the second stage of the spectrum auction concluded immediately following the end of the first round of bidding in the forward auction portion. You may have noted that the broadcasters' ask dropped from $88.4 billion to $54.6 billion. What was interesting is that after round one of the second stage forward auction, the wireless offers went from $23.1 billion to $21.5 billion. At the time of this writing the reverse portion of the third stage is just underway with a clearing target of 108 MHz.

I did some crude math for some non-technical colleagues at the end of the first stage of the auction utilizing the raw clearing target and came up with broadcasters asking for about $701.5 million/MHz and the wireless carriers offering about $183.4 million/MHz. I know there are better ways to actually calculate the value of the spectrum but I wanted something easily explainable, kind of like the way mining ore value is estimated per ton. Expanding on my math, I note that even though the wireless providers’ total offer was lower than their previous offer, the reduction in the amount of spectrum being offered actually increased the wireless offer to about $188.6 million per megahertz. But that is a fairly insignificant increase and still way below the broadcasters' ask of approximately $478.8 million/MHz.

BEACHFRONT PROPERTY

On the reverse auction side what I find interesting is how relatively unchanged the cost per MHz offer is despite the increased scarcity of the spectrum available based on the reduction in the clearing target. Less “beachfront property” (as the UHF band has been called), should force a higher price per unit available and while the price per unit did rise slightly, it doesn't appear to be commensurate with the change in the clearing target. The amount of beach front available was reduced by about 10 percent but the marketplace price offer only rose by a little less than 3 percent. It looks like the wireless industry is or has already established a price and that is possibly in the $200 million/MHzrange, maybe a little less or maybe a little more.

I thought about extrapolating the numbers out between the reverse and forward portions to see where they would cross but I doubt that the data would be meaningful. At this point in time there are only two data points to use for extrapolation and estimating the deviation between the stage 2 and stage 3 numbers for the reverse portion is problematic. It is interesting to note however that in the Public Notice DA 16-1095, the FCC used 114 MHz and 84 MHz for their phased clearing scenarios. Since the 114 MHz clearing target stage ended after just one round in the forward section, 84 MHz may be where the FCC thinks it will ultimately end up as the final target. There are certainly clearing targets below 84 MHz but they may not provide enough national coverage to make it worthwhile for the wireless industry.

If I am correct about the $200 million/MHz wireless price, that would put the proceeds from the auction at just about $17 billion which is still quite a stretch when you look at the current broadcasters offer. As I said above, this math is crude and was designed for having a conversation with some non-technical colleagues and was designed to provide just an indication that there is a significant gap between how each side is valuing the spectrum in question and that there is a lot more work to do to make the auction work.

IEEE BTS SYMPOSIUM

Enough about the auction, let’s talk about the repack. At the IEEE BTS Annual Broadcast Symposium in Hartford, Conn., Oct. 12-14, I attended a DTV Spectrum Repack presentation by Joe Davis from Chesapeake RF Consultants that was very intriguing. The Symposium took place between the end of the reverse portion and start of the forward portion of stage two, so while there were a lot of unanswerable questions, one point that intrigued me was why did the broadcasters' ask in the reverse auction drop by such a large amount. Did that many broadcasters actually drop their prices? Listening to Joe’s presentation as well as a few others, I am of the opinion that there may have been some small reduction from some of the participating stations but I suspect the lion's share of the reduction was from the FCC making a few key assumptions. The spectrum target reduction and the economic indicators from stage one and the reverse portion of stage two probably have allowed the FCC to estimate what an achievable clearing target will end up being.

Using that knowledge they could make some strategic assumptions. For example, the spectrum from many stations in the uncrowded areas (such as Iowa) will not be needed so they could have been removed from the pool and their asking amounts removed from the total. My opinion has been that it is highly unlikely that many stations in small to medium markets will get any significant revenue unless their spectrum is needed for a nearby large market. With this reduction in the clearing target, the spectrum from these stations may become available through repacking rather than payment.

Another factor that may be coming into play is the relocation from UHF to VHF that some stations may have offered. This could easily be viewed as “low hanging fruit” as it reduces the amount that a station needs to receive to make the move and the costs are borne by the station rather than the repack funds. This concept should give all stations in the VHF band some pause. I know many VHF stations are not giving a lot of thought to repack scenarios but if a significant number of stations move into the VHF bands, disregarding repack simply based on the idea that this is a UHF only issue may lead to some unpleasant surprises.

MOVING TO LOW VHF

One other point raised by my friend Dennis Wallace of Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace, had to do with the concept of stations moving to low VHF. Dennis noted that there hasn’t been much equipment production in low VHF for some time so a station looking for a transmitter in that band will find it extremely challenging. I visited the GatesAir website that shows only VHF Band 3 (174 to 240 MHz) products. Similarly, the Comark and Rohde and Schwarz websites also show only VHF Band 3 products. A move to low VHF may require the use of used equipment or getting something custom built. Both of these alternatives have sustainability concerns over time.

Long story short, if you are in the VHF band—whether you are participating in the auction or not—you need to have a repack plan. I also note that many VHF stations are among the oldest facilities, which may mean older towers, so even minor changes can have a huge impact. As a hypothetical example, IPTV’s station in Des Moines, Iowa, is on an Ideco Dresser tower that dates from the mid 1960’s and shares an antenna with another high-band VHF station. There is also a low VHF station on the tower as well as an FM. A repack to any one of the three TV stations would probably necessitate a new tower.

So, regardless of whether or not a station is participating in the auction process, every single station regardless of channel needs to have a repack plan. Regardless of where the new UHF core ends, whether a station is in the new core or not, repacking will happen. Using the estimate from the aforementioned PN, if the clearing target ends up being 84 MHz, then approximately 1,300 stations will need to move to new channels. There are probably about 400 or so television stations operating above channel 36 so about 900 of the stations that need to move will be in the core. It would seem to me then that planning for a repack is not an option but a necessity.

Bill Hayes is director of engineering for Iowa Public Television. He may be reached via TV Technology.

JOHNSTON, IOWA—I have been doing some research recently on unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) both for the Iowa Public Television production department and for use in engineering to do tower inspections. There is no doubt about it, drones can provide some amazing footage for a production. I happen to think they could also provide some value to IPTV in doing inspections of our towers.

Obviously it wouldn’t replace having a skilled and certified crew climbing the tower and making a true physical inspection but a stable drone with a high definition or even a UHD camera could provide a recording that could be used to look for obvious problems such as bent cross members and damaged antenna elements. It might even provide the tower crew with a look at what they will need to fix prior to climbing the tower.

Please note that I did specify that the drone needed to be a stable platform, especially if the recorded images are going to include surface details for evaluating the condition of an antenna or tower. This will entail a drone with enough mass to minimize being buffeted around by the wind and a skillful operator that can maneuver the UAV in close enough proximity to the tower to make the footage useful.

An image from Prairie Aerial's video of technician changing beacon bulbs on tower.

My inspiration for this idea was this video by Prairie Aerial from a year ago of a technician changing the beacon bulbs on a 1500 foot tower. If you watch the video you can see how stable and detailed the image is. My colleague Deborah McAdams interviewed Prairie Aerial’s principal and photographer Todd Thorin about this video earlier this year. The unit he used was modified to operate at the higher altitude and included a real time downlink from the camera that allows for live ground observation and adjustments.

I cannot over emphasize the importance of operator skills. At this year’s IBC, there was a new featured area called the Drone Zone that allowed attendees to observe and take a hand at flying a drone. I stopped by on a number of occasions to watch and was dismayed to see the number of crashes and damaged done to drones by operators not being familiar or comfortable with their operation. It is obviously not as easy as it looks.

But before you rush out and buy a drone and start using it to spice up productions or take a close look at your transmitting antenna, you need to consider what the Federal Aviation Administration has to say about UAVs and their operation. The first thing to consider is that while anyone can purchase and operate a drone for hobby or recreational purposes, as soon as you start using the drone for production, news gathering, or in the case I have described, tower inspections, it is no longer being operated in accordance with the rules for model aircraft operations. The FAA would classify these as commercial operations and their position on this is that all commercial operations are illegal unless specifically authorized. So while it may be tempting to take your drone out and get some great B-roll for a story or a program, don’t be surprised if you get a call from the FAA telling you to cease and desist. That is essentially what happened to Mr. Thorin when folks at the FAA got to see his video via YouTube.

Now all is not lost as the FAA is developing rules for commercial operations of drones. Until those rules are implemented they do have a procedure for gaining an exemption to the rules that apply to unmanned aircraft. You would need to file a petition for exemption under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Instructions for what information needs to be included in the petition and the process can be found on the FAA’s website.

While the procedure is not particularly onerous, be aware that a granted exemption has limitations. For example, the UAV must weigh less than 55 pounds. This probably isn’t much of a concern but it is something to be aware of. Also, daylight only operations tied to local sunrise and sunset, so if you are planning to capture images of the city lights at nights, that would not be advisable.

The UAV’s maximum altitude is 500 feet. This was one of the primary reasons that Mr. Thorin was told to cease operations because his drone was over 1500 feet in the air for some of the shots. I have yet to have a conversation with the FAA about this limitation and any potential for higher operational ceilings for my tower inspection scenarios.

One limitation is the requirement for visual line-of-sight operation. The FAA’s proposes that the UAV must remain with the VLOS of the operator or visual observer. That got me thinking that if we had people over a wide area that were all in direct contact with the operator, we could greatly increase the operational area. Unfortunately, they also specify that the UAV also has to remain close enough for the operator to be able to see the drone without any special devices.

The final limitation that I will mention is that the UAV may not operate over any persons not directly involved in the operation. So again, if you are planning on a dramatic overhead crowd shot at an event, you are probably going to be in violation of the exemption.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in addition to the FAA, about half the states have passed legislation or resolutions to study and/or restrict UAV operations. Most of these have to do more with privacy but they are also focused on property damage and liability.

As I said at the beginning, this is a research project that I have just started on. At this point in time the rules are fluid and it is unclear what the final parameters and restrictions will be. As I get answers to my questions, I will update my readers and maybe I will be able to post a recording of a tower inspection done by a drone in compliance with the FAA.

GHENT, BELGIUM - I spent the third week of June in Ghent, Belgium, attending and speaking at the IEEE BTS International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting, or BMSB as we refer to it. The vast majority of the material presented is research based papers from university engineering students from around the world. Much of the focus of their work are ways to enhance and improve broadcasting technologies. It’s actually kind of refreshing because it often seems that broadcasting technology is thought of as outdated or outmoded and on its last legs.

At the BMSB it was apparent that there are a wealth of creative young minds working on ideas and proposals that demonstrate that broadcast technology has a bright future if it is given the chance to evolve and adapt.

One of the most interesting technologies being presented was layered division multiplexing, or LDM. LDM technology is one of the proposals that has been submitted to the physical layer group within the ATSC TG3 for consideration in the ATSC 3.0 standard. LDM and ATSC 3.0 have attracted participation and research from around the world and there are no shortage of ideas, models and tests associated with the technology that demonstrate its effectiveness at providing terrestrial broadcast stations with an effective way to reach mobile devices, indoor receivers and traditional stationary viewers with a multiplicity of services up to and including UHD-1.

With my participation on the ATSC 3.0 standard, I have been hearing and reading about LDM since the first presentation I saw at a BTS Annual Broadcast Symposium a few years ago. Since then there have been numerous papers and presentations done, much of it available online. It is well worth the time to do a little research and read up on this technology because it will likely be a very important part of the future of broadcast television.

(From left to right) Wenjun Zhang, chief engineer, NERC-DTV; Luke Fay, ATSC TG3, PHY Layer chair, Sony; David Wood, consultant, innovation and technology, EBU; Kenichi Murayama, senior manager, planning & coordination, NHK; Bob Plummer, TV consultant; Rich Chernock, ATSC TG3 chair, Triveni Digital; Peter Siebert, executive director, DVB Project.
On November 11, 2011, I was in Shanghai for a summit on the future of broadcast television and the creation of the Future of Broadcast Television (FoBTV) group. The summit and the group that formed out of it united and agreed to work on a global broadcast television standard. Since the formation of FoBTV, the BMSB has consistently closed with a panel of leaders and luminaries from FoBTV and the industry to discuss the future and how things are progressing. I moderate the session. I like to ask tough questions about our progress and lack of progress, our technical challenges as well as our political challenges.

Each year, I see more and more that the technical challenges, while not inconsequential, pale in comparison to the political challenges. Each country involved seeks to manage its broadcasting resources to best meet the perceived needs of its population and the mission and political objectives of its government. This year was no exception. ATSC 3.0 has progressed and is on track to become a candidate standard in the near future. Since many of the participants working on ATSC 3.0 are also members of working groups and committees within FoBTV, they are moving in parallel.

However, the item that interested me the most this year was a technical decision with some peculiar ramifications. If you look under the hood of ATSC 3.0 you will find that some of the components are closely related to the DVB-T suite of technologies. As a matter of fact, some people within the technology committees thought that ATSC 3.0 was going to be DVB-T2 with an ATSC sticker over it. But when the decision was made to not constrain ATSC 3.0 to backward compatibility, the groups working on the standard were given a blank slate. Focusing on a broadcast standard that has a path for improvement and growth as part of a digital infrastructure that will include cellular smart devices and broadband connectivity as well as over-the-air reception, the decision was to move away from transport streams and instead embrace Internet protocol (IP) for carrying the data.

I remember being very happy when we reached this decision. Virtually every other part of the ecosystem that we are trying to move into is IP-based. Yet in my discussions with the panel it became obvious that in the DVB environment transport streams are the method of choice and there doesn’t seem to be any motivation to change. I guess I naively assumed that there would be a DVB-T3 that would move to IP-based delivery. I was a little disheartened to be told that there really isn’t much discussion going on in that area and that when IP was evaluated some time back, it didn’t provide enough benefit to be worth the change.

When the decision was made within ATSC to not be constrained to backward compatibility, one of the primary drivers was that the compromises that would have to be made to the capabilities of the new standard would be so great it wouldn’t be worth doing. Another primary driver was that if we stayed with what we have, the future outlook was bleak. So sitting still isn’t an option, nor is making an incremental change; so while the way forward is not as clear as we’d like, digging in and staying put isn’t a viable option either.

I am still hopeful that the group that is working on the next generation of broadcast technologies is creating a standard that has global potential, if not in this iteration then perhaps in the next. Anyone who thinks the transition of television broadcasting to digital stops when the analog service shuts down doesn’t understand the nature of digital technology.