Indoor DTV Antennas Problematic?

In a letter to the editor of Digital Television that was recently published in that trade publicationís September issue, Mark E. Hyman, Director, Government Relations for Sinclair Broadcast Group, addresses a number of statements made by Gary Shapiro, President of the Consumer Electronics Manufactuers Associatoin (CEMA) in an interview which appeared in the June/July edition of Digital Television.ìIn his profile, Mr. Shapiro makes several unjustified statements an dinsinuations. First, he implies that Sinclairís concern with the development of DTV has focused exclusively on the performance of indoor antennas. He also claims that any problems associated with DTV receptioin over indoor antennas are rendered moot by the development of outdoor antenna technology. He finally states that Sinclairís analyses regarding the performance of indoor antennas on DTV receivers were already common knowledge in the broadcast industry, and that Sinclari has not played an important role in he recent development of the DTV framework.ìSimply put, Mr. Shapiro is wong on all these points.ìAs the largest operator of commercial TV stations in the nation, Sinclair has a huge stake in the development of DTV. Sinclair believes the U.S. public deserves the best DTV service possible, and is committed to providing viewers with a quality of service that exceeds that offered in todayís analog TV world. Sinclari has examined and continues to review all issues related to the development of digital service, and it remains Sinclairís goal to direct the industryís attention to any potential problem in the development of this new medium.ìLate in 1996, Sinclair and other UHF broadcasters recognized that DTV reception by sets with indoor antennas would likely be problematic, and Sinclair continues to believe that this issue is one of the greatest threats to successful DTV transition. Millions of Americans currently rely on indoor antenas to receive broadcast service, and, even for the moment assuming the technical capability of outdoor antennas, it is unrealistic to expect that a significant percentage of these viewers will desire the large outdoor antennas that Mr. Shapiro extols. Sinclair is concerned that, in the absence of appropriate changes in the design of DTV receivers, it will be poor and minority viewers in urban environments that get left behind in the digital revolution. The results for the Washington, DC tests presented at NAB í98 certainly confirm there is reason for concern on this point.ìSinclair is concerned that these large outdoor antennas are not the proper solution to the DTV reception problem. Certainly, the Washington, DC test results suggest that reception through outdoor antennas may not live up to the expectations of American consumers. In addition, Sinclair has learned that outdoor DTV antennas will likely require narrower beamwidths than antennas currently utilized. While such antennas might receive all local channels in a given market when all stations are collocated, viewers will be required to manipulate antenna direction when stations are scattered across that market. Viewers located between markets will be required to make similar directional adjustments. Clearly, ëchannel surfingí will be problematic in the 1950ís-like DTV world that Mr. Shapiro envisions.ìIn addition, Mr. Shapiro appers overly optimistic about the desire of consumers to use a cumbersome system of in-store, color-coded maps and diagrams to determine what kind of outdoor antenna to purchase and where to mount this equipment (assuming local ordinances permit rooftop antennas). (See CEMA Launches DTV Antenna Program) Millions of television viewers admit that they cannot program their VCRs or stop the persistent flashing of their VCR clocks, and Sinclair believes it unlikely that such consumers will want to confront this kind of complexity in their DTV purchasing decisions.ìTo the extent that over-the-air reception of DTV programming is not available, either through indoor or outdoor antennas, cable system distribution of DTV broadcasters programming becomes critical. Otherwise, disinclined viewers might be forced to subscribe to cable in order to access local DTV broadcast programming (assuming for the moment that must-carry applies in the digital environment). Sinclair is concerned that, in response to such concerns, CEMA might be hedging its bets and is moving towards development of a class of ëcable-onlyí DTV receivers. In fact, in response to a May [1998] inquiry from Sinclair, CEMAís George Hanover indicated that CEMA had not yet made a decision on this issue. Sinclair believes strongly that the mass production of ëcable-onlyí DTV sets is counter to the interest of the American consumer and urges CEMA to work against this result.ìFinally, Sinclair is proud of its efforts in the FCCís ongoing DTV proceeding. At the very least, Sinclair is always willing to initiate a dialogue on the important issues confronting the broadcast industry.î