The FCC Digital Television Standards Decision
Abstract
The FCC’s DTV standards decision of December 1996 is criticized on the grounds that it is likely to hinder rather than to help the development of a viable broadcasting service. The standard-setting process began in 1987, resulting in a proposal to the FCC in 1995. The so-called Grand Alliance proposal was not perfect, as it had too many scanning formats, it used interlace, and had no provision for inexpensive receivers or easy upgrading, but it was a complete system Because of a dispute between the computer and TV industries, a private advisory committee was formed at FCC urging. It met secretly without public participation, in of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The committee agreed to eliminate the tablé of scanning formats, and the FCC adopted this radical proposal within a month. Rather than correcting the drawbacks of the GA proposal, the FCC made it worse by introducing uncertainty as to which formats would be for broadcasting and which formats receivers would accept. In so doing, the FCC ignored the views of other government agencies, public-interest groups, and disinterested individuals, but apparently accepted the often erroneous and self-serving statements of the commercial entities involved
Key words
Digital television DTV HDTV FCC television standards television broadcastingPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Note
- 1.ACATS assumed, from the outset, that the entire system must come from one vendor, in spite of that fact that no such system existed. The idea that the Commission might do the picking and choosing of system components in order to assemble a system that best served the public interest was never considered.Google Scholar
- 2.The Advanced Television Systems Committee, although properly initiated by major professional organizations, played a significant role in attempting to make the NHK system the US production standard. It was instrumental in persuading the State Department to support the NHK system in international forums, much to the dismay of our European allies. At one point, its lawyers attempted to “enjoin” me from publicizing the truth about its activities.Google Scholar
- 3.The Grand Alliance assumed that all broadcasters would adhere to their table of formats and all receivers would be able to cope with all the formats. I never thought that this would be the case. Only the FCC has the authority to ensure this, and it is doubtful that they would want to.Google Scholar
- 4.In my submission of 30 September 1996, I proposed some modifications to the GA standard that would have gone far toward satisfying both sides and at the same time would have protected the public interest.Google Scholar
- 5.It is not clear that this is really in their interests. When I first starting dealing with TV industry executives in 1983, they were all of the opinion that the best thing, from their point of view, was the fewest possible programs with the largest possible viewership for each.Google Scholar
- 6.It is not easy to count the number of standards. There is provision for 1080ß1920, 720x1280. 480x640, and 480x704, interlaced and progressive, at 24, 30, and 60 frames/sec, with aspects ratios of 4:3 and 16:9. Not all combinations are allowed, but frame rates.01% lower (e.g., 59.94) are also included.Google Scholar
- 7.This was fully simulated by my students at MIT. This migration method was described in a paper submitted with my filing of 5 December 1996.Google Scholar
- 8.In spite of including so many formats, an excellent format for a base layer, 360x640x60 P, was omitted.Google Scholar
- 9.Actually, much of the NTSC archive that might be used for digital broadcasting originated on film and was converted to NTSC by the 3-2 pulldown method. Such video can easily be reconverted to 24-fps progressive and coded very efficiently. Imedia Corporation, of San Francisco, has demonstrated the transmission of 24 such signals in a single 6-MHz channel.Google Scholar
- 10.This is an exact quotation from remarks of a leading figure in ACATS, made at an Annenberg Forum that I attended. It was in response to a statement by John Sie that digital transmission might be a good idea for HDTV.Google Scholar
- 11.There is no doubt that an enhancement technique could be found that would permit an enhanced receiver to display progressive HDTV imagery whether the base layer were 480 I or 480 P. While I do not think that the 480 I standard is necessary, the Commission might feel that including this would be a sufficient concession to TV interests so that they would go along with the scheme.Google Scholar