HDTV NOT Happening
Dear Gary: Your readers (and you) seem awfully upset that HD is: 1. Not understood by the masses, and 2. The networks won’t invest in it. Therefore, according to the WSR suggestion, HDTV will never fly. I think that is worse than illogical; it promotes a false interest in having the networks produce their silly series shows (eventually) in HD. Yeah, they should have picked up the option for Monday Night Football—but so what!? All the kids on my block have quit watching networks anyway and rely on DVDs and cable inputs from all the standard digital channels now and HD in the future from all the movie channels (HBO and Showtime) and many of the SD channels (PBS, Discovery, etc.). Do we really need the declining networks to make HD a success? I don’t think so. CBS made an effort, and they will all have to play catch-up ball (Mondays, too). It’s happening (finally).
Gil Arroyo
HDTV Technical Contributing Editor Dale Cripps comments:
Actually, I don't disagree with this view at all. I have personally said at least 10,000 times in print and in person that broadcsating is the last business that should be assigned the pioneering for this movement. But I also said that this movement should have an opening cerimony and a totally committed program-providing network created that, in all ways, lives up to the term “next generation of television.” How can you say that is what you have with yesterday’s vintage programming (that was and will be for years created FOR the small screen)? Just transferring small TV's programs to HDTV does nothing to alter the composition or the effects or the scale and scope that could be portrayed on HDTV. I have called for a shared risk venture where all those who are likely to be stakeholders in the new era are stakeholders in this new programming venture, starting as a DBS network with a full complement of affiliates, and with the full and unfettered support of Hollywood as one of our partners. But that idea fell on deaf ears because back in 1991, ’92, ’93, ’94 and ’95, Dr. Joe Donahue and others of his ranking in consumer electronics could not depend on any source for the all-essential programming from other than broadcasting. Why? Because they (consumer electronics) could get the FCC to force a time table on broadcasters due to their use of public spectrum and the policies surrounding its use. That is exactly what has happened, and there would be no HDTV roll-out had there not been a starting bell rung by the Federal Government. The manufacturers could rely upon that force. DBS was under no such hammer, nor strong enough to pioneer it in 1996 when the ideas were solidified, nor do they today have sufficient transponder capacity without sacraficing expensive bandwidth for their local station mission. They don't see any short-term benefit in pioneering it (because there are none) or any penalty for joining the party later. Cable doesn't have the bandwidth nor the cohesiveness that would or could ensure a graceful roll-out. It would be very spotty and likely done only for a short time before individuals from the 10,000 separate cable companies in this nation begin to say, “To hell with this turkey. I have stockholders, you know.” No movement survives a contraction. That contraction will fold in until there is only one idea left—positive or negative. If it is positive, the expansion will come again with the right ideas. If what is left at the core is negative, the delete button is hit and the trash emptied. That being said, the opening bell has been rung. Sets were made and put to market. CBS led and others poorly followed. Some network HDTV did stimulate some market, and now we come to a time when we must rethink everything. Not all ideas that once looked perfect stay that way. Walt Ciciora just today reminded me of the Iridium (Motorola satellite phone fiasco) disaster. People can make massive blunders, this illustrated, and wake up to go on. Donahue said the other day that we have to see cable and DBS instead of over-the-air. By far, cable is where transmission is. You have sets in the market, even many more coming to market shortly. But now broadcasting is stuck and waking up using the modulation war as caffeine. They don't need to shoulder this load because, as you pointed out, it “ain't even their people.” If cable is the answer, how? Donahue didn't know, but he knew getting to the answer has to be the industry's number one priority. It will not be “must carry”. It's a bandwidth issue, among others. Dr. Ciciora is one of the most respected consultants in the cable world. Here is what he said to me today, as is reported in one of my news services. “I just talked to Dr. Walt Ciciora, decorated consultant to the cable industry. Days earlier, I had talked to Dr. Joe Donahue from his Florida retirement. Donahue, a major player in the Grand Alliance, and formerly CEO of RCA, said that cable must carry the ball for HDTV. Over-the-air broadcasting is now too far embroiled in the modulation war for it to work easily, if at all. It is cable who has the bulk of the transmission connections to the audience (70 percent) that is most likely to seek HDTV.” Donahue approached the problem with a solution, i.e., “must carry,” but said he truly did not know how to have that come about. So to him, there is no obvious answer to the cable “problem,” though he certainly raises that as the number one priority for the industry to address now. A new, or at least yet unspoken cable strategy is offered by Ciciora. “Since those consumers who would most likely seek HDTV services are connected to both cable and/or to DBS, new program sources should be created from the branded networks tailored to serve this specific audience. Drop the ‘must carry' requirements, since that is NOT going to fly. It's a bandwidth issue. Create new cable-specific networks (as was done with CNBC).” In terms of capitalization, it will take a long view and with CEOs under increasing pressure to show positive quarter-to-quarter results. The question quickly is raised—Who will have the courage or the business/political capacity to endure until it turns around? David Sarnoff had control of both hardware and signals under his presidency of RCA, and with that ability to control matters was able to usher in black and white and color, suggested Ciciora. “The idea of broadcast HDTV is an absurdity,” he added. What about the view that Donahue had authored, which said only broadcasting had the clout to convince consumers that HDTV was real? “I am not sure that was ever true,” responded Ciciora. He illustrated his point by saying that wrong decisions costing billions of dollars are made all the time, as with the ill-fated Iridium Project. But once realized, a new direction needs to be taken. This is one now. This question may be best answered by the new dot.com billionaires who are now seeking to invest in new television media. This opportunity is open, and the cable industry is receptive to serious business discussions on this matter. I hope this somewhat addresses your comments. As the author of the piece you have referenced, I, for a specific reason, was not following my heart, which Gary has been wonderful enough to let me do these last nine years—but I was letting the industry observe how a group of premium-buying readers see what a an awful mess has been created by their lack of cooperation. Had this industry looked in unison at HDTV as THE thing to do, like going to the moon, it would have galvanized the right idea to make the most beautiful and spectacular television signal source in the world. That was only a decision away, and no one made any effort to rally around that notion in favor of little strategic missions from within their individual ranks, which has proven divisive and wrong for serving the needs of this launch. I am not through pitching my shared risk venture because you don't throw out the golden nugget in the pan just because there is also some dirt.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com