This was a basic research project I did for my Intro. to Mass Communications class. After
watching an educational video by Bill Gates, in which a schoolboy inadvertently gets hold
of some stolen property and makes a multi-media shool presentation about it (I didn't get it,
either) our professor, a certain Mr. Roger Fidler, joked that this upcoming
research project should be made into a multi-media extravaganza. So I did. The moral of this
story: never make jokes around me when I've picked up a new skill, such as HTML coding.
The cites are at the end of the project, with links to the appropriate pages. There was a great
exchange I wanted to use (American: "HDTV? We'll never get that! It's years away!" Briton:
"Oh, really? We're getting it next year."), but I couldn't find the dagblasted source again! The citations
are done in a simple endnote format, as opposed to that anal-retentive APA style so poplular
with college profesors today (Thanks, by the way, Mr. F.). I've also corrected some minor
grammatical errors, and also corrected the URLs, since in my hardcopy citations, I accidentally
mistyped a couple of them. Enjoy.
THE STATUS OF HDTV
1. How is the digital standard different from the existing TV standard? What are
the assumed benefits of digital TV?
Firstly, the format of HDTV also labels it as "wide-screen." Current TVs have screens with a
width-to-height ratio of 4:3 units of measurement. HDTV screens expand the width to a more
movie-screen-like ratio of 16:9 (1). HDTV will also broadcast images at 60 frames per second,
as opposed to the current 24 (4). Current (or analog) TVs convert images and sound directly to a
useable signal, during which, information can be lost; HDTV converts images and sound into bits
of digital information, allowing for greater detail (1). Also, the current standard analog
TV sets will be unable to receive HDTV signals (3); a set-top decoder will be required for HDTV
viewing on current TV receivers, and will not improve the image or sound received (5). A meeting to review adopting a single standard of HDTV out of the four most feasible prospects
might "facilitate interoperability among braodcasting, cable, computer, and telecommunications
technologies," and has "world-wide potential" (8).
2. What is the driving effort to impose a new TV standard? Who are the key
players? Who stands to benefit most?
The idea behind the push for HDTV conversion is competeition. Reed Hundt, the FCC chairman,
says that station owners who carry HDTV could offer "more effective and immediate competition
to cable than anything else" (7). The key players are the government (most notably the FCC),
television networks and stations across the country, manufacturers of television sets and
broadcast equipment, and the American viewing public (1-8). While the government and the manufacturers
of television equipment are eager for the conversion, the broadcasters are not; the viewing
public remains divided over issues of expense and eagerness to acquire new technology (7).
Considering the cost of conversion, the lack of willingness to convert on the part of the
stations, and the government-mandated conversion by 2006, the sector which would profit most
from this situation are the manufacturers of television sets and broadcast equipment (2). This
notion is supported by the fact that a "Grand Alliance" of HDTV sponsors who are deciding on the
ultimate standard for U.S. HDTV is comprised of AT&T, The David Sarnoff Research Center, General
Instrument, MIT, North American Philips, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Zenith Electronics (8).
3. How much is the conversion expected to cost in the United States? Who
will be expected to pay these costs?
While I found no estimated figures for total conversion, it is estimated that TV stations with
news-production facilities would have to spend $12 million to $30 million each to convert
to the HDTV standard; the cost of conversion for smaller stations which don't produce their own
news will be "smaller" (3). Even so, Mike Berman, station manager of WXON-TV, says that conversion
cost will be "a burden" even though his station doesn't produce news (3). In the Cadillac, MI
viewing area, the four competing stations pull in $20 million put together; they can't justify a
$25 million dollar each expense, and may have to be sold, an option which is increasingly
likely (3). Consumers will also be hit heavily, and may be expected to pay $1,000 more for an HDTV
receiver than for a comparable analog TV set (3). David Smith, president of the Sinclair Broadcast
Group, said that conversion would mean the company's revenues would remain the same, but their
debts would climb by $300 million (6). Sinclair is currently experimenting with the idea of
offering some HDTV service, and some analog service, not opting for total conversion (7).
4. What is the timetable for implementation? Is it realistic?
Already, the Zenith Corporation has put together broadcast and receiving equipment for a demonstration
of HDTV for this year's National Association of Broadcasters Convention; Zenith says it plans to
ship "first-generation HDTV receivers to major market retailers beginning in 1998" (2,3). Other
sources indicate that shipping may be slated for Christmas of 1998 (1,4). The new timetable for
conversion, after much debate, calls for all stations to assimilate the new equipment in 10 years'
time (3). The FCC requires that "the top ten markets need to start... broadcasts by April 1999,"
while the top thirty must be up and running by October 1999 (4). "Conventional (current) systems
will be phased out by 2006" (4). As it stands, more than 1,500 stations across the U.S. must
overcome the obstacles of high equipment-conversion cost and modification of broadcast towers (6).
Given the disagreement between the government and the broadcasters, this schedule does not seem
realistic (6).
5. How do the U.S. Government and the televsion industry differ in their agendas
for digital TV? What are the principle points of contention?
The FCC wants to have HDTV reaching "more than half of the U.S. households on at least three
stations by the turn of the century" (5). The FCC is also thinking of expanding HDTV into cable
and satellite programming. Though both systems are either already converted or getting ready for
conversion, they've shown no real support for the new HDTV system, and they may just "use the bandwidth
for more channels;" the FCC has not yet required cable and satellite companies to carry the HDTV
standard (5). The FCC will auction off VHF frequencies now used for analog TV by 2006, unless
the allocations don't go as planned, in which case the UHF frequencies will be assigned to HDTV (5).
Government rules don't require HDTV broadcast yet, and currently, "stations could instead squeeze
up to six standard broadcasts into a single digital signal (6)," allowing for a better use of funds.
The government's main criticism of the TV industry's reluctance to convert is that the FCC, responding
to complaints that conversion would cost a lot without having to worry about purchasing a
wavelength, gave out wavelengths for free (7). Now that the TV executives are proposing alternatives
to conversion, the FCC is becoming upset (7). Some TV industry executives have suggested that
they would rather "use their digital licenses to provide several channels of analog broadcasts to
compete with cable TV" (6). The government, in turn, suggested that hefty fees could be attached to
such a practice; they feel that since the broadcasters are being given "6 megahertz of spectrum,"
they should either use it for the purpose intended (HDTV), or else "there should be some type of
quid-pro-quo" (6). Also, if stations do not convert to the standard by 2006, they may lose their
licenses (6). The most severe criticism of government intervention comes from Alan Frank, VP and
general manager of WDIV-TV. He opines that "This is a classic sense of government getting involved
in something and screwing it up" (3). The government, in turn, accuses broadcasters of "waffling on
commitments to offer HDTV" (6). Both sides are exploring their options (6). One side that has been
ignored up to this point is that of the viewer. Most TV executives are of the opinion that if
the prices for HDTV sets and services are too high, the public will not want it anyway (7). If
that is the case, the broadcasters don't want to waste money on unnecessary conversion (7). Gary
Shapiro, president of CEMA, refuted the claims that viewers would be dissuaded by high costs;
he pointed out consumer surveys, and said that there is "an overwhelming interest in the technology
and a willingess to pay a premium over current TV prices to get HDTV" (7).
SOURCES
1. In-class lecture
2.
"Zenith Suports Rapid Launch of HDTV with Technology for Live Digital Broadcasts at NAB '97,"
April 7, 1997
3.
"HDTV Cost Too High for Some Stations,"
Steve Raphael, The Detroit News Online, Thursday, January 9, 1997
4.
"Current Status,"
HDTV Advocate Online
5.
"FCC Approves HDTV Channels,"
Mark Fleieschman, E/Town Online News, April 4, 1997
6.
"Broadcasters Pledge to Offer HDTV,"
Roger Fillion, copyright Reuters, Ltd. 1997. Yahoo News Online, Thursday, September 18, 1997
7.
"B'casters to Congress: We Plan to Deliver Some HDTV Service,"
Eric Glick. Cable World Online, Spetember 22, 1997
8.
"HDTV 'Grand Alliance' Proposal Will Be Considered by FCC Advisory Committee,"
HDTV Grand Alliance Press r. Norm Hurst. May 28, 1997
RED indicates a page you have not yet visited.
GREEN indicates a page you have already visited.
YELLOW indicates a page that will be coming soon.
CYAN indicates the page you are currently on.
lazy students have probably plagiarized this paper by now.
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page