Digital TV

William Langham (blangham@westnet.com)
Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:52:29 -0400 (EDT)

Watpals,
Thought folks might be interested in this post to the group Local
information Infrastructure...
Bill

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:39:29 -0500
From: Benton Foundation <benton@benton.org>
Reply-To: lii@pobox.com
To: lii@pobox.com
Subject: LII 11 THINGS THE NAB WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT DIGITAL TELEVISION

ELEVEN THINGS THE NAB WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT
DIGITAL TELEVISION

The National Association of Broadcasters has conducted a massive lobbying
and public relations campaign against auctions, which, for the first time,
require broadcasters to pay for valuable public airwaves. Broadcasters
have used their own stations to broadcast hundreds of thousands of dollars
of free air time urging viewers to call Congress to oppose auctions.

It is now time for other viewpoints to be presented in this debate. The
following are the things the NAB won't tell you about digital television.

I. This Debate Is NOT Just About Balancing the Budget.

Many policy makers and members of the public are advocating spectrum
auctions not just for deficit reduction, but because they are concerned
that valuable public airwaves will simply be given away to broadcasters
without compensation for the public. They and others are concerned that
broadcasters are demanding this huge windfall while resisting entreaties to
provide free air time for political candidates and three hours of
children's informational programming each week.

II. Free Over-the-Air Broadcasting is NOT Threatened By Spectrum Auctions.

Spectrum auctions can be structured to preserve free over-the-air
broadcasting. For example, an auction winner can be required to provide
"must carry" (like cable TV) to the local station that cannot afford to bid
for digital spectrum. The British Government has adopted just such a
system.

III. A Digital Spectrum Auction Would NOT Be a "Tax" on Broadcasters.

Despite claims in the NAB's "commercials" carried free of charge by its
members, the airwaves belong to the public. Rent for using public property
is no more of a tax than paying a fee to visit a national park. Cellular
telephone providers did not claim that they were being taxed when they paid
for the spectrum they use.

IV. Broadcasters Do Not Need Six Megahertz of Spectrum to Provide Digital TV

To provide one free over-the-air channel of so-called "Standard Definition"
digital TV (SDTV), broadcasters would need less than one-third of the
capacity of the 6 Megahertz of spectrum they are currently demanding. SDTV
produces a digital picture approximately equal in quality to today's TV,
and CD-quality sound. Only High Definition Television (HDTV) necessitates
use of nearly all of the spectrum's capacity.

V. The FCC Never Promised Broadcasters Free Spectrum to Provide
Multiple Services.

In 1992, the FCC tentatively agreed to give broadcasters spectrum to
provide full time HDTV, but it never agreed to permit broadcasters to
provide multi-channel non-HDTV. It was the broadcast industry that reneged
on its agreement to provide HDTV by asking for "spectrum flexibility"
instead.

VI. Few Broadcasters are Planning to Carry Any HDTV

For the past several years, broadcasters have asked Congress and the FCC
for "spectrum flexibility," a scheme that permits TV stations to provide at
least one SDTV "channel," while allowing them to use the remainder of their
spectrum for multiple pay services, like telephone, paging, and
pay-per-view. "Spectrum flexibility" is antithetical to the provision of
HDTV, which uses most of the spectrum.

Comments filed at the FCC last fall evidence broadcasters' lack of desire
to provide HDTV. Three of the networks offered to provide no more than
five hours per week. The NAB opposed any mandatory minimum HDTV
requirements.

VII. HDTV is Not A Critical Technology for the American Consumer

HDTV may be the highest quality television available, but Americans have
often abandoned the "best" technology for a technology that is merely good
but is a better value - witness the failure of Betamax and the popularity
of PCs over Apple. Indeed, to receive the benefits of HDTV, consumers will
have to spend thousands of dollars - the improvement in picture quality
over SDTV is only perceptible to the untrained eye on a television set 42
inches or larger. The Japanese HDTV experiment is instructive - since
1991, just 30,000 HDTV receivers have been sold at $6000 each.

VIII. Many Broadcasters Do Not Want to Convert to Digital

Broadcasters do not universally agree that they should transition to
digital television. Many smaller broadcasters are perfectly content with
their analog systems. And even some larger broadcasters have expressed
skepticism about the need for the digital spectrum. Broadcasting pioneer
Stanley Hubbard, creator of USSB (a digital DBS service), believes that
conversion to digital television could hurt broadcasters, especially those
in small markets.

IX. The Grant of New Spectrum is Not a Mere "Loan" to Broadcasters

Grant of the digital spectrum is not a loan, because broadcasters don't
want to give it back. They oppose setting a firm date for returning their
current analog spectrum. If it is a "loan," it is an interest free loan at
the public's expense.

X. Even if Broadcasters are Required to Give Back Their Analog
Spectrum in 10 Years or Less, Po
Without Free TV

Broadcasters have strong incentives to ensure that all Americans can afford
digital TV. Broadcasters must tell advertisers that they can reach 100% of
the viewing audience, lest advertisers buy time on cable television.
Broadcasters cannot afford to let advertisers abandon them.

XI. Broadcasters Have Not "Already Paid" for their Analog Spectrum

When current broadcast licensees paid entrepreneurs for their licenses, all
they bought was the remaining license term of a temporary license, once
three, and now eight years long, from a private party. But they did not
buy the "spectrum;" the public owns the airwaves. Payments made to private
parties do not compensate the public.

CONTACTS:
Gigi B. Sohn, Media Access Project: 202-232-4300 (gsohnnnn@counsel.com)
Jill Lesser, People for the American Way: 202-467-2308
(jlesser@pfaw.org)

For more details see Pretty Pictures or Pretty Profits on the World Wide Web at
URL http://www.benton.org/TV/debate.html