Introduction
Perhaps
few other emerging technologies have been shaped as much by a government
entity as has High Definition TV (HDTV). The FCC, under Chairman Reed E.
Hundt, has issued a series of rulings over the past decade that have had
a profound effect on what was and what wiil be HDTV. There have been
two major rulings since 1996 that have impacted the role the US will play
in the development of HDTV and how digital television will be established
in the US. The first was a ruling in December in 1996 by the FCC that mandated
that all broadcasters must broadcast in digital TV by the year 2006. This
decision had worldwide economic and political implications that we will
explore later. The second, was the passing of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 by Congress in April 1997. This established, among other things,
how broadcasters were to phase in the use of digital TV. This bill was
extremely controversial in this area and is still debated by different
groups to this day. The role of the government in this process has fluctuated
to extremes. For example, the FCC once endorsed the Japanese HDTV standard
and then went to an outright rejection of their technology. In addition,
former FCC Chairman Hundt passed a plan that gave away billions of dollars
of public airwaves even though he had once called it "the biggest single
gift of public property to an industry in this century." These
decisions will be critical to the future of HDTV, and due to the enormous
size of the U.S. consumer market versus the rest of the world, the FCC's
influence and impact on the development of HDTV can not be underestimated.
Implications of FCC's 1996 Ruling
On December 24, 1996 the FCC adopted the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) Digital Television Standard which mandated that US broadcasters (over 1500 of them) must broadcast in digital rather than analog format or face losing their license. The analog signals currently in use will continue to broadcast until the year 2006, phasing out depending on the size of the market. During this time, broadcasters will use another frequency to slowly integrate HDTV signals into various markets. The allocationof this additional frequency has been hotly debated in Congress over the past several years. (see:)
The ruling by the FCC has impacted virtually every country developing HDTV. For example, both Canada and Mexico agreed to basically follow the United States' lead with regard to HDTV. In addition, two years before this decision, Japan and Europe not reaching much market success within thier borders with analog versions of HDTV began to look closely at the United States' choice of digital HDTV standards.
There are five main reasons that the US is in a position for playing the lead role in the development of HDTV technology:
1. The first of these was the FCC's
decision of pursuing digital technology for the basis of HDTV signal processing.
In an anonymous article from the Economist entitled "HDTV, DOA" the author
states, "...high tech firms
devising America's system submitted
the world's first digital HDTV standard to the FCC. With Japan and Europe
hinting that they may mimic that very system themselves, America now seems
poised to set the worldwide standard for HDTV." He continues, "...But the
flaw that really doomed both Japan's and Europe's system was that they
were analog while television's future is clearly digital. Because digital
signals can be compressed, they will allow for a proliferation of channels;
because they are easily stored and manipulated, they make possible an explosion
of new kinds of interactive television."
2. Second, the US comprises a very large consumer electronics market. Since the FCC made the 1996 decision regarding HDTV in favor of digital technology, the other countries, especially Japan and Europe (who are home to companies that traditionally market many televisions and related products to the US), were boxed into following the United States' lead into digital technology development in order to continue to still be competitive in the US market.
3. Third, the computer industry, which has many of its leading companies headquartered within the US, invested much effort to develop HDTV technology so that it also met many of their needs in advanced computer visualizations. This provided an even broader base for supporting the US lead role in HDTV development.
4. Fourth, Hollywood produced much of the content that would be sent over the HDTV medium both in the US and in many other countries. Since the format of this content was done according to US's standards, this provides more support for other countries to follow the US's lead.
5. Finally, Japan's version of HDTV called "Muse" or "Hi-Vision"required viewers to immediately purchase a costly television designed specifically for this technology. The US transition period concept allows for a more gradual diffusion of the technology into the market. This is in line with statistical evidence that the average American consumer replaces his/her TV every seven years.
Implications of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
On April 3, 1997 the FCC bowed to pressure from large, powerful communications companies (called the Grand Alliance) to give each station one new HDTV channel at no cost. This decision by Congress has outraged many, including former presidential candidates Bob Dole and Ralph Nader, consumer advocates and others who believe that Congress is giving away up to $70 billion of public property. They feel the broadcasting industry does not need protection and that the airwaves should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. William Safire was quoted, "Its like giving Yellowstone National Park to the timber companies." It has also been called the greatest taxpayer rip-off this century. So why are people so upset and what is being done about it?
The lobbying by large broadcasters began when engineers learned that the spectrum for one old style Standard TV (SDTV) channel could be used to create either one new HDTV channel -- or as many as six digitized SDTV channels. Each of the more than 1,500 stations in the country- commercial or private- could become six stations, with a huge potential for profit. The National Association for Broadcasters (a special interest lobby group) began lobbying for "spectrum flexibility," the ability to use the new channel spectrum for any purpose, such as Internet communications, paging and wireless services, and financial or sports data. Members of Congress, who received over $9 million in donations from the broadcasters over the last decade, passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and gave the spectrum to the broadcast industry absolutely free.
Bowing to some public pressure, the Clinton administration asked for public service in return for the free 6MHZ of spectrum. In February 1997, Vice-President Al Gore announced the creation of an independent advisory committee to consider the public interest obligations of the broadcast industry. In March 1997, President Clinton recommended that broadcasters meet their public ssrvice obligations by offering free air-time to ualified political candidates saying, "help free our democracy from the grip of big money."
This committee issued its recommendations in December 1998. One such recommendation was to use one 6 MHZ band will be used to create a new local education station in each viewing area. Newton Minow of the advisory board stated, "If you are dealing with public property, as you are here with the spectrum, a certain part of it should be earmarked for the purpose of education." The idea for free time for candidates was watered down to a voluntary five minutes each night in the 30 days leading up to the election and left to the judgement of the local stations. Mr Minnow blasted this saying, "We now have a colossal irony. Politicians sell access to something we own: our Government. Broadcasters sell access to something we own: our public airwaves. Both do so, in our name. By creating this system of selling an dbuying access, we have a campaign system that makes good people do bad things and bad people do worse things, a system that we do not want, that corrupts and trivializes public discourse, and that we have the power and the duty to change."
Several Congressmen continue to propose auctioning off the airwaves to broadcasters, however, this appears to be more political gamesmanship than a real threat to broadcasters. The Congressmen realize that they need the broadcasters to air their political ads and to broadcast debates, news briefings, and other information that will help them get re-elected. In addition, new FCC Chairman Kennard has proposed that those stations not using the additional capacity of the digital spectrum for HDTV will be taxed at 5% of their gross revenue. This appears to be enough incentive to promote the advanced technology to be forced into the marketplace.
Only time will tell whether or not the decisions that have been made by the FCC and Congress over the past several years have signaled the beginning of a new era in television history or if they have brought a technology that consumers and broadcasters just don't want. The effects of these decisions are just now beginning to play thamselves out in the marketplace. They are the policy conclusions to the efforts of thousands of people worldwide and several billion dollars of government and private investment. One can only hope that these and continuing policies will nurture, not obstruct, the continued development of technology that enhances all of our lives.
HOME
