tv doomed

terrestrial tv doomed

US Terrestrial Broadcasting, is a typical example of private enterprise enjoying the use of resources (in this case the radio spectrum), granted by government agencies, in the belief that the complex created by the profit motive would better serve the citizen than a monolithic bureaucracy. And indeed American Broadcasting, in every aspect, is the world's finest television service. Contrary to the caustic comments from the learned critics who condemn NTSC picture quality versus PAL, it is my judgment that NTSC is a better match for the human visual system. NTSC flicker is invisible, the viewer can set the hue to please himself, the picture is much brighter, and solid colors may be pure, without the risk of the PAL color crazies.

But, to resort to a trite saying, "time marches on". Research, mostly sponsored by foreign television bureaucracies and their commercial clones, has spawned superior systems for the delivery of a television image to the home viewer. To recount the foreign advantage one more embarrassing time, Japan unleashed a steamroller in 1970 in which an unlimited torrent of money (would you believe 20 billion?), manpower, and management produced a quality HDTV system together with all the instruments needed to create the new TV image, deliver and display it. Most of us have seen the Japanese Muse system at the trade shows and the superiority over NTSC presentations is undeniable. Europe, in its typical insular fashion, refused to accept foreign technology and mounted a huge continent-wide R&D initiative to create their own HDTV. While some of the Eureka rough edges remain to be smoothed, and production models are still to be finalized, it has emerged as a viable alternative.

The development philosophy behind both Muse and Eureka was to achieve the highest picture quality that could be delivered by the current breed of satellites and displayed on available technologies. In none of the literature on HDTV research that crossed my desk did I find any concern for the consumer that his current stock of incompatible receivers is destined for the graveyard before their time. The Master Plan seems to assume that HDTV satellite coverage of the population is better and cheaper than the existing terrestrial scheme and that the land stations will cease operating after every home has purchased its HDTV receiver. Cable -also a virtual government monopoly- seems to have been assigned a secondary role, which would be resorted to by the telephone monopoly as the need arose.

Our FCC, in the typical American spirit of free and open competition, has called for a compatible HDTV system from which the consumer can choose the quality, price and method of delivery. The inventors have until 1992 to display their wares. Unfortunately there is virtually no money to support the inventors and the deadline will pass without a winner. The FCC then, in a time bind, will have to resign itself to a de facto standard, which will undoubtedly be versions of the MUSE family capable of both compatible terrestrial delivery and incompatible satellite format.

At this stage I have retold a story quite familiar to the reader of Communications Technology but I hope to be faithful to the title of this paper "Is terrestrial broadcasting doomed to die?" Having spent a large part of my business career as a struggling UHF broadcaster, there is burned into my subconscious the dogma - your advertisers budget is your program budget! Do any of you remember the gory days of the birth of UHF Broadcasting? Station after station opened, most of them in major markets, only to fall bleeding from the balance sheets when the lack of television receivers equipped with UHF tuners resulted in an equal lack of viewers, followed by no advertising revenue. The remedy was an unprecedented act of compulsion by the FCC when it required all TV sets manufactured after May 1964 to possess UHF tuner capability equal to VHF. I served on the CAB committee chaired by Commissioner Bob Lee for five long years until the knowledge was acquired and the hard decision made to compel TV manufacturers to rescue the UHF TV entrepreneurs and thus double the number of broadcast stations.

In my opinion, enhanced compatible TV will not satisfy enough of the public to stem the tide of HDTV into the US home. Terrestrial TV, now losing market share to cable, will accelerate the downward trend to the point where the income stream from advertisers will resemble the ill fated UHF startup scenario. Unlike the generous support to foreign broadcasters there will be no US government funds to keep the home fires burning. Public broadcasters, and low power TV catering to special audiences independent of advertising revenue, will be the only survivors. This scenario is ok, right?, our good old capitalistic system at work again? Maybe. In my conversations with government and industry top brass on the future of TV I have raised the possibility that 40,000,000 families living below the official poverty level will find the majority of television programs priced out of their reach since they can only be found on cable or satellite. People, hold on to your wallets, here was the common reply - the government should subsidize a basic telephone and television service to the poor! At a reasonable figure of $300 yearly per family, our national debt will thus increase by another 12 billion dollars! Add to that deficit, a trade deficit many times larger, since the HDTV products will be manufactured abroad. The taxpayer is doomed to be the ultimate victim!