†John Bowes and Scott Elliott are associate professor and doctoral candidate, respectively, in the School of Communication. Portions of this paper are derived from Mr. Elliott's MA thesis on HDTV development and earlier joint work by the authors (Bowes and Elliott 1992).
Introduction:
During the late 1950s and early '60s, simple monochrome television became ubiquitous in American households and was followed by waves of color, UHF, "enhanced picture," and stereophonic sets. Each saturation of the market pushed development of newer audiovisual enhancements to the basic US television standard adopted during the late 1930s. Over the course of this history, there were major turning points. The close of W.W.II saw pre-war sets doomed by changed frequencies and wartime technical improvements (US FCC 1945; Barrow 1976, pp. 602-612). Color loomed in 1946 as an early battle lasting some 8 years between the innovative CBS field sequential color standard and the troublesome but eventual winner: the NTSC "compatible" standard promoted by David Sarnoff and industry giant, RCA ("Better Color. ." 1952; US Congress 1953; "FCC Report . ." 1953; "Color Television" 1953). Later additions of stereophonic sound, UHF tuning capabilities, digital signal processing and a host of convenience features kept consumers interested in purchasing new sets in return for an enhanced aural and visual experience. However, the present analog NTSC standard has been pushed arguably to the point where much different technologies and standards will be needed to usher in a really innovative leap in what the consumer sees and hears.
In anticipation of this, HDTV or high definition television has been a central issue in domestic and international standards setting and consumer evaluation for the past ten years (Rice 1990). The "winners" of this technological race will carry the prize of patents, licenses and prestige that may bring the riches of market dominance as consumers enter a new era of home entertainment. From the consumer perspective, the race has three principal components:
An Improved Image: The present television standard was predicated upon picture tubes of the late 1930s with maximum diagonal measures of little more than a foot. At such a small size, a scanning frequency of some 525 lines (and an optical resolution considerably less than this in common mass production sets) would provide and acceptably sharp image. Over the years, as screen sizes grew, the imperfections of this standard became readily apparent. With present-day diagonal measures often in the 26-30 inch range for traditional picture tubes and larger for projection sets, the scan lines comprising the image became all too apparent. Detail and typefaces blurred, and color seemingly lacked correct registration. Part of this problem is the issue of scan rate or the beam sweeps making-up the television image 30 times a second. Other issues center on questions of bandwidth or the amount of information carrying capacity of the system to form sound and images. The greater this capability, the better these qualities can become. As well, the shape or aspect ratio of broadcast images is obsolete. For years, theater films had to be cropped or the TV screen matted to squeeze the information from wide screen formats (usually a 16:9 ratio of width to height) onto the old 4:3 ratio standard of traditional film and television. Other problems of importance such as better color, reduced flickering of bright images and high quality monochrome reproduction remain as well. The working standard for HDTV, in rough terms, is to create on home screens a product similar in sharpness to theater 35 mm ciné film, having vastly improved color and an aspect ratio able to show wide screen films in full scale (Drury 1992).
Improved Sound: While early television offered the clarity of FM sound, it did so at half the bandwidth accorded FM radio. Color information further limited the sound subcarrier as did the encoding of different sound tracks for special services. In short, technologically, sound was accorded few resources in a cost-conscious industry coping with a crowded radio frequency spectrum. In early TV networking, sound was given such a low priority that it was transmitted with same quality as common long distance telephone connections. In more recent years, the almost flawless performance of audio compact disks and experience with impressive theater and home stereophonic technology have schooled the consumer in the realism of improved audio. Manufacturers, eager for a new edge to sell receivers, improved set quality in tandem with overhauling of sound transmission and control equipment by networks and broadcasters. Yet, the performance of digital sound and modern audio equipment still easily outstrips what present television transmission standards can provide. Digital audio quality available in laser disks and a coming generation of multimedia CDs serve to tempt consumers and engineers with the changed possibilities of a new standard (Hoffner 1992; Leader 1993). Consequently, audio standards have been planned with full digital quadraphonic sound capability, comparable to the best CD-audio disks.
Figure 1: Comparison of typical HDTV configuration with existing NTSC standard television receiver.
New Services and Content: HDTV is not simply envisioned as a higher fidelity version of the current domestic television system. Present broadcast television, supplemented by cable and satellite, provides a wide array of broadcast services which, nevertheless, rarely depart from a mundane mix of network and "superstation" rebroadcast, news, feature films or home shopping channels. The prototypes for all these common services were well in place by the early 1960s. The 1990s, however, have brought computer and telecommunications industries which see the capabilities of HDTV as a means for enhanced, interactive services, oriented to transaction and manipulation by the user. The proponents of multimedia development see HDTV as a digital platform finally able to integrate computer logic and wide band telecommunications with high fidelity reproduction (Gilder 1991; Cole 1992; Beacham 1992). In short, the television receiver would evolve into a high performance, multipurpose household terminal for a variety of information and transaction needs (Brandt, et. al. 1992). Just what to put up on this high technology platform has many developers and analysts racing to find indespensible contents of wide appeal that exploit the new capabilities offered.
From the industrial point of view, HDTV presents a complex of opportunities and problems that aren't so easily summarized (US Congress 1989). Certainly the opportunity of replenishing markets saturated with current technologies affords a profitable incentive to the consumer electronics, computer and telecommunications industries. Replacing existing broadcast transmission and network gear would mean a substantial boost to these industries as an entirely new generation of systems is constructed. For the broadcasters, however, this transition comes at a time of declining profits needed to sustain such change (Sherlock 1990).
The contents of new media also has opportunity beyond the simple playback of existing fare with higher quality reproduction. Electronic publishing, multimedia learning software, networked information services are a few of the possible new information products offerings possible. Computer industries accustomed to the competition of applications software that must be improved on a monthly basis would gain, possibly, a share of content software that has a stable history in traditional book publishing. Corporate and personal teleconferencing, document transmission and "virtual communities" of specialized but geographically separated interest groups suggest some of the new telecommunications services extended in capability beyond their present day precursors of voice conference calls, fax and computer bulletin boards.
Investment in HDTV seems the price of membership in the next generation of mass media products. But what is the target? Standards set limits and expectations for both the consumer and the industrial provider. They are the "rules of the game," so to speak, for all who participate. As such, how these "rules" are developed, who is advantaged by them and what possibility they leave for competition and innovation are all terribly important questions. The idea that HDTV is "hard-to-define TV" is not for lack of proposals and technology, but for their abundance and the powerful forces at work making choices for the future. The balance of this article discusses several key issues in resolving HDTV standards. The importance of this process extends well beyond the immediate technologies involved. It may well set the stage for how choices are made for a rapid succession of technologies taking us into the next century, far from the familiar media of today.
Basic Issues of Technology Standards:
Three major issues arise: compatibility, competition and interoperability. Compatibility refers to how well a new standard incorporates the needs of earlier generations of standards. The infamous color television battle of postwar years was settled on this issue: a difficult and technologically unstable standard was adopted in preference to a simple, stable one because it promised acceptable images to existing monochrome receivers (Seiter 1956; Chisholm 1987). In contrast, FM radio provides no compatibility for existing AM receivers: one simply has to buy a new set (US FCC 1940). To bridge this problem, many broadcasters provided the same signal to two different transmitters; to simulcast AM and FM signals, so that all radios would be reached (Sterling 1971). The costs of doing so, however, both for consumers and broadcasters was a fraction of that needed for color television. To ask consumers to scrap expensive, existing sets was not acceptable to an FCC bent on protecting consumers from too rapid obsolecense and an electronic industry hoping to profit from two waves of set sales, one monochrome and the second, color ("FCC Approval . ." 1953).
For HDTV, this issue has been debated extensively. One early, popular alternative would have broadcast two signals: one the traditional analog NTSC signal; the second a "fix-up" digital signal having information able to improve sound, double screen scan rates and resolution, and add "wings" to the old screen size, permitting a 16:9 aspect ratio (Dieterich, et. al. 1991). A different approach was evident in an incompatible system, the Japanese NHK Hi-Vision technology, which provides an HDTV signal using older, analog methods and intricate signal compression (the MUSE system) to save on transmission needs (NHK 1988; NHK [undated]). While this system lacks compatibility with existing American television standards, it uses older, more familiar technologies in putting up a high definition signal. In all, five HDTV systems (and one "enhanced definition" TV proposal) are being extensively evaluated by the FCC (ACATS 1990). In creating ground rules, these systems: (a) may be either digital or analog, although digital systems are clearly preferred; (b) will not be compatible with existing NTSC systems; and (c) will be simulcast with traditional NTSC signals using terrestrial (non-satellite) delivery. The several tested systems - one Japanese (Narrow MUSE), another a European/American consortium, and three of totally U.S. origin - are shown below in Table 1. From these a final choice will soon be made, affording the "winner" a rich prize in terms of leadership in the North American market for its technology.
Table 1: Key HDTV technologies chosen for technical testing as a US standard .
Though this alternative failed to meet baseline criteria, its testing was allowed for comparison purposes. Compiled from: American Television Alliance (1991); Zenith and AT&T (1991); General Instruments Corp. (1990); Coy, et al. (1993); Lechner (1992).
‡ In interlaced systems, complete frames are at half the noted rate; e.g. 59.95 fields/sec. is 29.97 complete frames/sec. In this technology odd, then even lines are scanned successively rather than all lines at once.
Competition follows from this question of marketplace standards. What will the costs of licensing be? How much flexibility will exist in the standards to allow one manufacturer to distinguish its equipment from others based on enhancements and improvements? Will technological progress be easily incorporated into standards chosen so that equipment rapidly improves in terms of cost, weight, durability, performance and variety of features? On one hand, the marketplace has to be protected from chaos, or from major schism as occured for a decade between the Betamax and the VHS consumer videotape standard (Lardner 1987). On the other, invention and change must be allowed so that economies and improvements of better technologies can rapidly enter the marketplace. It is hoped that the standard chosen offers enough stability to be a credible one to both developers and consumers. Standards must choose a perilus middle course - definite enough to encourage stability, flexible enough to allow change and improvement (Rosen, et. al. 1988; Braunstein and White 1985).
Interoperability speaks to the ability of standards to link-up. While isolated technologies may conform to differing standards, when connected, they must embrace common standards that allow information to circulate within the system they create. HDTV is but one of several key technologies envisioned for an overhauled consumer media system. Related developments in computer and telecommunications standards affect those of HDTV. For example, the ISDN or integrated system digital network standards have to allow sufficient bandwidth for aural and visual content to pass. The requirements of HDTV have an immediate consequence for ISDN technology. If HDTV can be considered a partial standard for consumer information terminals, questions of signalling, signal compression, routing and storage arise, to mention a few. Further, if home computer technology is to seamlessly merge with HDTV, the cross-compatibility standards have to be thought through ahead of time, lest expensive conversion circuits be required to consumate the marriage. Indeed, two of the contesting HDTV standards, one developed by ATVA-MIT and the other by Zenith-AT&T, have non-interlaced (or progressive scanning) common to computer displays. An early HDTV proposal developed by General Instruments alone was the first of the major design alternatives to code its images in computer language.
Procedures for Deciding Standards:
Traditionally, there have been three primary methods of making standards decisions: House or convenience standards, de facto standards, and de jure or consensus standards. Each has its strengths and dominance in particular industries making-up the HDTV mix. If one considers the potential industrial players in HDTV-Multimedia development, the result is clearly convergent, where formerly separate industries with distinct markets and traditions are obliged to cooperate and create efficient, seamless technologies. These are summarized in Table 2. Collectively, the participants represent a wide diversity from traditional slow-to-change publishing to the heady pace of the personal computer industry.
Table 2: Root industries of HDTV-enhanced multimedia, contrasted by typical market conditions and usual standard-setting methods (from Bowes and Elliott 1993).
.
In terms of standards practices, the variation is great. Computer makers thrive in the jungle of rapid innovation and cut-throat comptition with each trying to capture market share with its blend of house and de facto standards. Leadership is siezed by the strength of invention and the prominance of market position. The titanic battles between machines designed to IBM's PC standard and Apple Corporation's MacIntosh are legendary in the business and home user markets. Each camp is locked in a race to innovate and to capture vital software providers. Market share is watched with the same avidity as Coke monitors Pepsi sales.
Contrast this circumstance with that of traditional broadcast. As users of the public's radio frequencies, licensees are subject to government scrutiny. Questions of transmission method, transmitter power, engineering standards, receiver design, frequencies used are all stipulated. Changes come after considerable deliberation and often many years have passed. Such is the nature of de jure standards - cleared first by many interested parties, then enshrined in administrative law. A similar process is common to telecommunications, save that the decision becomes an even thornier matter of agreement among international bodies such as the Consulative Committee on International Telegraph and Telephones (CCITT). Such standards routinely take some 6 to 8 years to establish under the best of circumstances. To approach cooperation on HDTV requires orchestration of these differences in a way that affords input by the major contributors, but doesn't delay so much that the standards adopted are out-of-date the day they are voted in.
Problems with the Process:
With the close cooperation needed for workable multimedia standards, policy experts have given close attention to the process involved. Many of the issues alluded to here - speed of standards adoption, adequate "breathing room" for innovation, clear indicators technological paths to avoid market chaos - are in great part determined by the standards process itself. To this list, we must add less measurable items such as social costs and benefits; that is, will the standard be to expensive? What will happen to existing technologies? Will consumer investments in them be disregarded? Will the enhancements really improve the life quality and enjoyment of most? Further, can overwhelmed and underfunded government bureaucracies adequately manage the standards-setting job? It is clear, with terrestrial broadcast stipulated as a major criterion of the US' HDTV development, that de jure standards will be the rule. The mix of other standards common to component industries must also be considered carefully. The question has been how well can the government respond to this monumental decision - one that some experts speculate may set the path of media development for the next 50 years (Coy, et al. 1993, p. 94).
Outside of the standards for broadcast, contents or software pose unprecedented challenges. Because the boundary is erased between the traditional industry division of contents and carriage in new media forms, technologies (the hardware and carriage), control programs (the software regulating display, audition and contents retrieval) and the contents themselves (databases, games, encyclopedias, etc.) all interact with an intimacy not experienced in earlier systems. Government choices will set boundaries on the technologies, but contents and control in large measure will revert to the open marketplace for solutions. This is a complex domain with a troubled history. House and de facto standards are the rule. Products such as Microsoft Corporation's Windows vie with the technologies, contents and control software in Apple Corporation's MacIntosh. A proliferation of contents, mostly on CD-ROM, have evolved about these products, to take but one case. Threats, copyright infringement suits, and FTC inqueries have marked the short history of the computer software and contents industry. With this culture, the comparatively orderly and staid print and broadcast industries must find some directions. More importantly, the consumer, if confused and buffeted by too rapid shifts, may hold back from the really innovative content capabilities promised by HDTV, sticking instead with traditional fare served-up with better sound and picture.
The US Solution:
Over the past four years, the US has developed what some policy analysts believe is an excellent balance of forces to determine its "best" HDTV standard. Given the first place rank of the North American market for consumer electronics, our choices have powerful influences through the industrialized world. Many interested parties worldwide pay close attention to these deliberations to chart their own media futures.
The agency primarily responsible, the FCC, has a mixed history in managing standards decisions. Historians point to outright failures such as low power TV (LPTV) or to near failures such as a hoped-for proliferation of successful UHF-band channels. The color TV standards battles and FCC indecision of the postwar years delayed the entry of this important advance in broadcast quality by a decade. Yet, a laissez-faire posture by the agency gave equally dismal results, as seen in early 1980's efforts to promulgate an AM stereophonic radio standard (Meyer 1984; Schreiber 1983). The attempt was stillborn in Reagan Administration refusals to allow any government intervention in the marketplace of contending standards. Unfortunately for this technology, consumers, broadcasters and equipment manufacturers all kept their distance from the chaos, letting this opportunity to improve AM broadcasting die.
HDTV begins a new chapter in government action. Many of the FCC's traditional standards responsibilities were delegated to the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (ACATS), with the FCC itself deciding to serve as a neutral party to test vying standards on criteria set by the advisory group. Made-up primarily of industry-sponsored scientists and engineers, ACATS is composed of people with strong corporate and personal stakes in the development of HDTV (US FCC 1987; US FCC 1988). The clear intent is not only to have ACATS consider technical issues, but also that it would
". . recommend policies, standards and regulations that would facilitate the orderly and timely intorduction of advanced television services in the United States." (US National Archives 1987).
ACATS' baseline stipulations were that the system would be terrestrial and operate roughly within the existing radio frequency bands allocated to television service. Existing receivers would not receive a degraded HDTV signal. It was believed the compromises needed for compatible standards were too great; they would exclude the advantages of digital transmission. Those with "old" TVs would be serviced by simulcast signals broadcast in the traditional manner. Beyond these requirements, contenders were free to innovate. Test conditions pressed technologies not only for their quality, but to some degree their reliability. The winner is to be announced by Summer 1993 (Coy et al.1993, p. 96).
Larger Questions:
What then are some of the central assumptions of this novel approach to standards? First, decisions on standards are primarily matters involving technical issues. Secondly, (mainly) broadcasters are best suited to making such choices because of their specialized industrial and scientific backgrounds (Siddall 1990). Thirdly, the "invisible hand" of competing market forces ultimately works for the public good. And, finally, the FCC seeks support of the industry it regulates to give standards decisions credibility and persuasive force. This approach places great reliance on engineering expertise and evaluation of objective testing results. Because its outward appearance suggests a rational and efficient basis from which to address regulatory concerns, difficult social and political questions are crowded out of the policy debate: How much will HDTV eventually cost? Will "quality" programs gradually migrate to HDTV as "old" TV becomes the media of poor have-nots, shunned by advertisers and producers? Will information on demand become increasingly information for a price? And can good engineering decisions and "free" market forces assure the best new media for the largest social benefit? Perhaps so, but few such issues figure now in the mostly technical HDTV debate.
Standards issues seemingly are the province of engineers, software consultants, industrial promoters and policy advocates. For the consumer, these individuals and their technologies are remote. Their work takes place long before products come together on the factory floor or even trade publications take up the conclusions they've reached. And the issues at close range are complex and confusing for the layperson. But a fundamentally new US television standard is arguably more than technical enhancements to be enjoyed for a given cost. It also may determine the revitalization of American consumer electronics industries, the continued success of entirely new businesses such as electronic publishing and the transformation of once distinct industrial cultures into a new mix of multimedia. Most importantly, HDTV decisions will greatly affect the cost and quality of mainstream America's participation in our growing information society.
References
ACATS [FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service]. 1990. Test sequence and calendar. November 14. (Includes letter from ACATS' Chairman Richard E. Wiley to each of the ATV system proponents, dated November 13, 1990)
American Television Alliance. 1991. ATVA-progressive system. Cambridge, MA: Advanced Television Research Program, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Barrow, Roscoe L. et al. 1976. "Development of Television: FCC Allocations and Standards." In American broadcasting: A source book on the history of radio and television. ed. Lawrence W. Lichty and Malachi C. Topping. pp. 602-612. New York, NY: Hastings House.
Beacham, Frank. 1992. "Key trends to follow in video of the 1990s." TV Technology, October, p. 25.
"Better color TV." 1952. Business Week, (August 30) p. 34.
Bowes, John E. and Scott Elliott. 1992. "Tradition, confusion and multimedia: Balancing stability with change in setting standards." Paper presented to the Communication Technologies and Policy Group, Association for Education in Journalism, Montréal, PQ, Canada, August,.
________________________. 1993. "Tradition, confusion and multimedia: Developing new standards from old industrial roots." [submitted for publication].
Brandt, Richard, Peter Coy, Mark , and Kathy Rebello. 1992. "Your digital future." Business Week. September 7, pp. 56-64.
Braunstein, Yale M. and Lawrence J. White. 1985. "Setting technical compatibility standards: an economic analysis." The Antitrust Bulletin 227-355.
Chisholm, Bradley Francis. 1987. "The color television venture: A study of failed innovation in the broadcasting industry." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin--Madison.
Cole, Arthur. 1992. "Radical changes ahead for video." TV Technology. April, pp. 1, 14.
"Color television: 1941-1953." 1953. Broadcasting, December 21, p. 31.
Coy, Peter, Mark , and Lois Therrien. 1993. "Sweating out the HDTV contest." Business Week, February 22, pp. 92-94.
Dieterich, C. B., R. N. Hurst, Michael Isnardi, J. L. Koslov, and T. R. Smith. 1991. "Advanced compatible television." HD World Review. Fall, pp. 12-15.
Drury, Gordon M. 1992. "HDTV: How Many Lines." In The new TV: A comprehensive survey of high definition television. ed. Lou CasaBianca. pp. 41-53. Westport, CT: Meckler.
Elliott, Scott D. 1991. "Broadcast innovations and standard-setting by the FCC: Considerations of the relationship between technological compatibility and its effect on public access to information." Master's Thesis, School of Communications, University of Washington.
____________. 1990. "High definition TV: The television standard(s) of the future." In Television: Merging Multiple Technologies. ed. Carol King, pp. 8-32, White Plains, NY: Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.
"FCC approval clears way for compatible TV color." 1953. Broadcasting, December 21. p. 27.
"FCC report and order approving compatible color television." 1953. Broadcasting. December 21. p. 58A
General Instruments Corp., Videocipher Division. 1990. Digicipher HDTV system. San Diego, CA. 8 June.
Gilder, George. 1991. "Computers/communications: Smart TV." Forbes. October 14, pp. 188-198.
Hoffner, Randy March. 1992. "ATV confronts audio challenge." TV Technology. p. 45.
Lardner, James. 1987. Fast forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the onslaught of the VCR. New York, NY: Norton.
Leader, Michael K. 1992. "What do we do with the HD audio for HDTV once it's in the can." HD World Review 3, no. 3: 33-56.
Lechner, Bernard J. 1992. "HDTV is coming to desktop: a new world of high-performance monitors and image-processing software tools is opening up." Byte. July, pp. 188-200.
Meyer, Joan B. 1984. "The FCC and AM stereo: a deregulatory breach of duty." University of Pennsylvania Law Review. December, pp. 265-286.
NHK. (undated). The new age of television. Tokyo, Japan [HDTV Promotional Brochure].
____. 1988. Reply comments of NHK--the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, Mass Media Docket No. 87-268. January 19.
Rice, John F. (ed.) 1990. HDTV: The politics, policies, and economics of tomorrow's television. New York: Union Square Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1986. Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: The Free Press.
Rosen, Barry Nathan, Steven P. Schnaars and David Shani. 1988. "A comparison of approaches for setting standards for technological products." Journal of Product Innovation Management 5: 129-139.
Schreiber, Mark P. 1983. "Don't make waves: AM stereophonic broadcasting and the marketplace approach." Comm/Ent 5: 821-840.
Seiter, Herbert David. 1956. "Color television (1945-1953)." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Stanford University.
Sherlock, Michael J. 1990. "HDTV and the financial effects on broadcasters." In HDTV: The politics, policies, and economics of tomorrow's television. ed. John F. Rice, pp. 71-79, (New York, NY: Union Square Press).
Siddall, David R. 1990. Senior Attorney, FCC Mass Media Bureau, Washington, DC, 17 July [personal interview with author].
Sterling, Christopher H. 1971. "Second service: Some keys to the development of FM broadcasting." Journal of Broadcasting 15: 181-194.
US Congress, House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1953. Color television, 83rd Cong., 1st sess. March 24-27, 31.
___________, Congressional Budget Office. 1989. The scope of the high-definition television market and its implications for competitiveness. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office. July.
US FCC. 1945. Report of allocations from 25,000 kilocycles to 30,000,000 kilocycles, Docket No. 6651, May 25.
_______. 1940. Report on frequency modulation. Docket No. 5805, May 20, In Federal Communications Commission Reports. 39.
_______. 1987. Notice of inquiry, Mass Media Docket No. 87-268, July 16.
_______. 1988. Tentative decision and further notice of inquiry, Mass Media Docket No. 87-268, September 1.
Zenith and American Telephone and Telegraph Corps. 1991. Digital spectrum compatible [HDTV]: technical description. February 22.