 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
THE FRONT LINE: MAY 16, 2005 |
 |
||||
| TERRESTRIAL DTV: IT’S NOT QUITE DEAD YET! The recent back-and forth sniping between the CEA and NAB about the broadcast television industry – its shrinking audience, its alleged foot-dragging on the DTV transition, and the recent court decision to overturn the FCC’s broadcast flag receiver rules – got me to thinking: Just where does broadcast DTV fit into the digital future? Despite what some industry pundits say about television broadcasting being a waste of precious spectrum, I think there is a place for terrestrial DTV. But my reason is not one that’s being discussed much lately. And the ultimate success of terrestrial DTV will hinge on broadcasters adopting all the bells and whistles of digital television, not simply switching from AM to VSB modulation. Here’s my rationale for preserving broadcast TV (and radio, for that matter): It tilts the balance in favor of the consumer, not the content provider. Consider that in a cable TV system, you, the viewer, are stuck way out on the rim of a wheel with millions of other subscribers. Your cable MSO is sitting right at the hub of that wheel, controlling everything from the channel lineup to monthly subscription tiers. It’s called the ‘one serving many’ model. And there’s not much you can do about the prices and content – you can’t exactly jump off the wheel, can you? The same thing applies to DBS operators. Once again, you and millions of other subscribers are riding out on the rim of the wheel, with Dish or DirecTV sitting at the center of your content universe. Don’t like the prices or service? Well, at least you have two choices of content providers, but that’s not much better than one. Now, let’s take a closer look at the terrestrial broadcasting model. Here, the positions are reversed. You, the consumer, are sitting like the king of the hill smack dab at the center of the wheel, with all of these local digital TV stations transmitting from out on the rim, trying to grab your attention and hold it with their program offerings. ‘Many serving one’ – get it? You don’t like what’s on CBS at 9:00 PM? Switch to ABC, or Fox, or maybe PBS, NBC, WB, Pax, or a local independent station. It doesn’t matter so much which channel you watch, it matters that you have the choice. And, your programming is being delivered to you for free. In a world were we’re seeing consolidation of everything from airlines and overnight express services to oil companies and grocery stores (reducing market competition along the way), it’s nice to know that you still have the upper hand when it comes to the boob tube. (Apparently federal courts agree, since they shot down the FCC’s mandate for copy-protection devices in TV sets and set-top boxes a little over a week ago.) But having the upper hand doesn’t mean much when your choices are thin to begin with. The obvious appeal of cable and DBS is the dozens of channels being offered, not to mention ancillary services like video on demand and broadband Internet access. The truth is, broadcasters could easily implement multi-channel program delivery. Given the large number of stations owned by media conglomerates, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for them to start up 24/7 movie and sports channels and carry them as secondary digital program services. The problem is one of bandwidth. Right now, a broadcaster has a single 6 MHz channel to play with, unlike that cable company with 125 channels. And MPEG2 compression isn’t going to get it done, not if Fox or ABC wants to carry a couple of HD programs and a pile of SD channels. DirecTV is already planning its move to more efficient digital codecs, like MPEG4. The cable MSOs are also looking to make similar moves and free up more space for digital and HD channels. So, why not broadcasters? Granted, MPEG2 is the standard for our ATSC digital TV system. But things change, from AM to FM, from mono to stereo. A move to MPEG4 would double the effective bandwidth for SD and HD programming. Your ABC affiliate could carry both ABC and ESPN HD programs. Fox could offer ‘24’ and ‘Star Wars Episode II’ on adjacent HD channels. NBC could program the Olympics and NASCAR racing next door to each other in 1080i. Now, here’s instance where amending the station ownership rules could be a good idea. If one network operates two TV stations in a given market, it could offer four different HD SD channels (or several dozen SD channels) by using MPEG4 encoding. Multiply that by 4-5 networks, and you have yourself a competitive answer to cable and satellite systems. On paper, at least, terrestrial broadcasting still makes plenty of sense. But for now, the multi-channel potential of terrestrial DTV has yet to be fully realized. If broadcast networks and the NAB ever get their act together, you’ll be able to move your TV set and La-Z-Boy from way out there on the ‘rim’, back to the ‘hub’ - which is the way it ought to be… |
||||||
|