Management of Technology I  

MoT 1 1997

Group Project Title: The FCC and High Definition TV

Team Members:

Bor-Long Bai, MS-IE, gt1407a@prism.gatech.edu
Mike Muzik, MS-MGT, gt4574e@prism.gatech.edu (primary contact)
Tawana Sherard, PhD-CHEM, gt7675b@prism.gatech.edu
Don Upton, PhD-ME, gt6455a@prism.gatech.edu

Introduction

Perhaps few other emerging technologies have been shaped as much by a government entity as has High Definition TV (HDTV). The FCC, under Chairman Reed E. Hundt, has issued a series of rulings over the past decade that have had a profound effect on what was, what is, and what will be HDTV. Each of these ‘notices of proposed rulemaking’, after months of heated debate between broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, Congress, computer industry representatives, and the FCC commissioners themselves, has set the standard for HDTV development in the United States. Due to the enormous size of the U.S. consumer market versus the rest of the world, the FCC’s influence and impact on the development of HDTV can not be underestimated.

Technological Background

A quick review of the history of television and the international HDTV development efforts is required in order to understand the current issues surrounding HDTV that form the basis for the FCC’s rulings.

Black and white (B&W) television, first introduced in the U.S. in 1939, became a highly successful consumer product after World War II. As the technology gradually improved and a wide level of programming became available, sales correspondingly increased until 1955, when a peak total of eight million B&W sets were sold.

Color television signaled the next generation in television technology. The first color sets appeared on the market in 1954. As was the case with B&W, color TV was not initially successful, gaining strength only after substantial investments in technology and manufacturing. As programming became available and prices fell, household penetration of color TVs increased rapidly. An initial peak in sales occurred in 1968 at just six million units.

Recently, there have been several developments in transmission and receiver technologies that have taken place which form the basis for digital HDTV. The TV of the future will have more horizontal scanning lines and will have a wider aspect ratio than conventional television. EDTV (Enhanced-Definition TV), a system which would scan 525 lines 60 times a second, is the cheapest development to implement. It would utilize the same broadcasting equipment as current NSTC television. However, it also has the lowest resolution among the ATV (Advanced TV) systems.

HDTV features improved resolution by doubling the current 525 horizontal lines, changing to a movie screen-like aspect ratio (16:9), and offering digital quality sound. It is this incredible, high quality picture that makes HDTV appear to be the next generation of television systems[1].

The Japanese HDTV Development Effort: At present, Japan is thought to be the world leader in the development of HDTV. Its effort dates back to the 1964 Tokyo Olympics [2]. NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) performed much of the initial "high risk" research and development on HDTV, then split up specific product areas to interested companies for further development, such as Toshiba, NEC and Matsushita. The Japanese have been active promoters of this analog HDTV technology. For example, the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications’ (MPT) HiVision Promotion Council broadcast the Seoul Olympics to 205 HDTV sets at 81 public sites across Japan in 1988.

The European HDTV Effort: Europe initiated HDTV research and development in 1986. Like the Japanese, the Europeans are attempting to develop a market for HDTV. Efforts included an HDTV broadcast of the 1990 World Cup Soccer Championship from Italy, which was broadcast to a number of HDTV sites at public location across Europe.

The U.S. HDTV Effort: By the late 1970s, when electronics technologies had matured sufficiently to allow development of consumer HDTV, the U.S. had largely bowed out of TV manufacturing. Only recently has the U.S. begun to catch up to the achievements of Europe and Japan. The U.S. government had sponsored initiatives designed to get HDTV off the ground. Commercial interest in developing HDTV also continues. The Zenith/AT&T team was generally regarded as the front-runner in the U.S. HDTV standards race. Digital transmission represented a major breakthrough (the Japanese system used analog technology), and promised to keep broadcasters’ costs down.

FCC Standards Decisions

Against this backdrop of historical events, in 1987 the FCC initiated a decade of market-driven HDTV development in the U.S. This HDTV development effort led to the adoption of technical standards for HDTV by the United States federal government on December 26, 1996 after approval of these standards two days earlier by the Federal Communication Commission [3].

In more technical terms, the HDTV standard approved by the FCC had the following parameters:

Unfortunately, the FCC failed to resolve the most difficult issues, such as aspect ratios, refresh rates, and interlacing vs. progressive scanning. Rather than picking a single standard or a modestly flexible two tier systems, the FCC decided to please everyone and allow 18 different broadcasting format combinations that will needlessly confuse the consumer and make digital television more expensive.

The standard mentioned above was based on an HDTV standard from the Advanced Television Systems Committee, ATSC. The following quote from the ATSC Internet web page illustrated this event. "On December 24, 1996, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the major elements of the ATSC Digital Television Standard (A/53) for the nation's next generation of broadcast television. Under the decision, the video and audio compression, the packetized data transport structure, and the modulation and transmission system specified in the ATSC standard are mandated by the Commission for use by terrestrial broadcasters, while the specific video formats to be used for digital broadcast television will be the subject of voluntary industry standards." [4] Note that the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) was formed to establish voluntary technical standards for advanced television systems, including digital high definition television (HDTV). The ATSC is supported by its members who are subject to certain qualification requirements.

This set of decisions had two big impacts with regard to the question of utilizing analog or digital technology for HDTV. First of all, the NTSC analog signals currently in use will continue to be broadcast until 2006. During this time, broadcaster’s will use another frequency spectrum to slowly integrate HDTV signals into various markets. This will be a transition period from NTSC analog television to HDTV digital television. Secondly, there must be means to allow current NTSC signal televisions to work during this transition. [5]

This set of decisions reached by the FCC on Christmas Eve of 1996 took about nine years to make [6]. The initial push for the FCC to develop a standard for HDTV began in 1987. In 1987, the large market terrestrial broadcasters, such as ABC and NBC, petitioned the FCC to develop a standard for HDTV in fear that their competitors, especially those in the cable and satellite industry, would develop similar technologies. The terrestrial broadcasters felt this would be the impetus for loss of some of their market. Without getting the FCC involved in developing HDTV standards, the cable and satellite companies would be unrestrained to pursue HDTV-like technologies [7].

The impact of the Christmas Eve FCC decisions regarding analog versus digital technologies for HDTV impacted virtually every country developing HDTV. For example, both Mexico and Canada agreed to basically follow the United States’ lead with regard to HDTV following the aforementioned FCC decision [8]. More impressively, two years before this decision, Japan and Europe not reaching much market success within their borders with analog versions of HDTV began to look closely at the United States’ choice of a digital HDTV standard. In an anonymous Economist article entitled "HDTV, DOA," the author states "As if to rub in Japan’s defeat in this vaunted technology (HDTV) race, two days later the ‘grand alliance’ of the high-tech firms devising America’s system submitted the world’s first digital HDTV standard to the Federal Communications Commission. With Japan and Europe hinting that they may mimic that very system themselves, America now seems poised to set the worldwide standard for HDTV."[9]

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect on the U.S. and World Markets

The were five main reasons that the United States seemed in a position for playing a lead role in the development of HDTV technology. The first of these was the FCC’s decision of pursuing digital technology for the basis of HDTV signal processing. In the aforementioned Economist article, the author states, "But the flaw that really doomed both Japan’s and Europe’s systems was that they were analogue while television’s future is clearly digital. Because digital signals can be compressed, they will allow for a proliferation of channels; because they are easily stored and manipulated, they make possible an explosion of new kinds of interactive television." [10]

Second, the United States comprised a very large consumer electronics market. Since the FCC made the Christmas Eve 1996 decision regarding HDTV in favor of digital technology, the other countries, especially Japan and Europe (who were home to companies that traditionally market many televisions and related products to the United States), were boxed into following the United States’ lead in HDTV technology development in order to continue to still be competitive in the United States market.

Third, the computer industry, which has many of its leading companies headquartered within the United States, invested much effort to develop HDTV technology so that it also met many of their needs and advanced computer visualization. This provided an even broader base for supporting the United States lead role in HDTV development.

Fourth, Hollywood produced much of the content that would be sent over the HDTV medium both in the United States and in many other countries. Since the format of this content was done according to United States’ standards, this provides more support for other countries to follow the United States’ lead.

And finally, Japan’s contemporary version of HDTV called "Muse" or "Hi-Vision" required viewers to immediately purchase a costly television designed specifically for this technology [11]. The United States transition period concept allows for a more gradual diffusion of the technology into to the market. This is in line with the quoted statistic from Dan Gallagher’s "HDTV is on Horizon" article that ". . . the average American consumer replaces his or her TV every seven years . . . ." [12]

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect Manufacturing & Broadcasters

The main effect of the FCC Christmas Eve ruling on corporate manufacturing strategy in foreign markets was to promote the compatibility of HDTV products with the United States’ transition from standard NTSC analog signals to digital HDTV signals. This required that new and existing televisions and related equipment be able to process both NTSC analog and HDTV digital signals. Most manufacturers, those domestic to the United States and foreign, seem to be approaching this compatibility issue by developing equipment to take advantage of the HDTV technology and converters for existing equipment so that usable signals can still be received.

With respect to the development of HDTV equipment, manufacturers are hoping that even though the initial designs will be quite expensive, that market acceptance of HDTV and the economies of scale developed will allow demand to increase with hopefully falling prices. With respect to converter boxes, manufacturers are trying to ensure that people who do not make the jump to HDTV will still be able to receive at least an NTSC quality signal. This effort is illustrated in the following quote from W. F. Gloede’s "Digital TV: Not if, When?": "Another bit of good news came the NAB’s (National Association of Broadcasters) way last week as the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association pledged that all digital sets will also receive analog broadcasts." [13]

The effect of the FCC Christmas Eve ruling on broadcast strategy in foreign markets was primarily involved with the decision of allocating bandwidth for broadcasting one HDTV channel versus broadcasting multiple channels of at least contemporary NTSC quality. The following quote from Andrea Siedsma’s "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television" illustrates this concept: "Under the digital format, broadcasters will be able to offer programming on more than one channel, known as multicasting." [14] Under the FCC rulings, the broadcasters were not required to commit to sending out only one HDTV channel over the new frequency spectrum. The FCC’s and the United States government’s reasoning in this decision is illustrated in the following quote from then FCC chairman Reed E. Hundt: "... the Federal Government shouldn’t be in the business of making sure television pictures are as crisp as possible. Rather, it (what the broadcasters agreed to give to the U.S. government for the spectrum) was a commitment to serve the public interest." [15]

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect on General Instruments

One of the major champions of HDTV technology first in the United States and now worldwide is General Instruments (GI). This is due in part to GI being a leader in the development of audio/video digital transmission and encryption technologies. In 1990, GI was the first United States company to propose that HDTV be in a digital format [16]. To illustrate GI’s dominance, take for example the following quote from Andrea Siedsma’s "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television" : "In the lead pack of the digital race is General Instruments (GI), a pioneer of High Definition TV (HDTV). In 1990, GI became the first company in the United States to propose HDTV be digital. Five years later, GI formed a partnership with Bell Laboratories to build encoders for digital TV, called the Grand Alliance system." [17] On a historical note, GI on July 28, 1997, separated into three public companies. These companies are NextLevel Systems, Inc., CommScope, Inc., and General Semiconductor, Inc. The company now working most closely with HDTV is NextLevel Systems, Inc. [18]

The effect of the FCC Christmas Eve ruling on corporate manufacturing strategy for General Instruments primarily resulted in the continued development of their DigicipherÔ digital transmission and encryption system. The DigicipherÔ system was the United States’ response to the Japanese development of the "Muse" or "HiVision" HDTV system[19]. The following quote from Peter Curwen’s "High-Definition Television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market" illustrates this: "The U.S. response (to Japan) came in the guise of the DigiCipherÔ system, first tested in November 1990 by General Instruments and subsequently developed in conjunction with MIT." [20] Since the DigiCipherÔ system utilized digital signal processing rather than analog, the HDTV signals could be significantly compressed thus saving bandwidth. In addition, the signals could be corrected for any distortion since they were inherently just information in binary computer code [21]

To further illustrate GI’s commitment to HDTV from a manufacturing perspective, consider the following quote from Andrea Siedsma’s 1997 article: "GI plans to generate digital encoder products by the end of next year, said Bob Rast, the company’s vice president of (technology) business development. The encoders will allow stations to transmit locally produced HDTV. ‘It’s an international business opportunity for us,’ Rast said. ‘We expect the U.S. standard to be adopted internationally.’" [22]

The effect of the FCC Christmas Eve ruling on marketing strategy for GI can be thought of as a trickle down of technology from large broadcasters to smaller broadcasters during the HDTV transition period. In "HDTV is on Horizon," Dan Gallagher illustrates this concept in the following quote: "Bob Rast, vice president of technology business development at General Instruments, thinks the only digital signals that will be on the air next year will be from the networks and the affiliates in markets such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Rast who worked extensively with General Instruments engineers building the first workable digital compression system for TV, thinks that San Diego might see some high-definition signals by 1999, although some may be able to pick up Los Angeles signals before then. ‘The FCC will lean on the networks, who will want to use the available space anyway,’ Rast said. ‘In the end, the small market independents will go along kicking and screaming.’" [23] General Instruments will most likely concentrate their heaviest marketing efforts in the area of networks planning near future HDTV upgrades.

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect on the Grand Alliance

The other leader in developing HDTV technology in the United States that was affected by the FCC’s rulings was a collaborative technical working group called the Grand Alliance. The Grand Alliance was composed of a consortia who were developing HDTV technology independently. The consortia making up the Grand Alliance were as follows: 1) General Instruments/MIT; 2) Zenith/AT&T; 3) NBC/Thomson/Philips. The Grand Alliance was formed in May 1993 "with a view to blending the best aspects of each proposed system (the ideas each consortium had previous to the Grand Alliance) and hence bringing forward the introduction of HDTV to 1996, . . . ." [24] The digital HDTV system capabilities were envisioned to do the following: ". . . the system would have the advantage of being suitable for broadcast by satellite, cable, and ordinary terrestrial transmission. Hence broadcasters would have access to the entire broadcasting marketplace - in contrast to both the Europeans and the Japanese who were concentrating only on satellite." [25] With the FCC HDTV standard decision of December 24, 1996, this group obtained the framework via the FCC guidelines to focus their efforts to act as a springboard for allowing the United States to catch up and then lead the development of digital HDTV technology.

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect on Consumer Electronics

The FCC Christmas Eve decision has had a large effect on consumer electronics manufacturers. According to William Sims, the president of the Zenith Sales Corp, these decision will "rebuild and revive Zenith’s reputation as a leader in technology". Zenith revamped its entire direct TV line, to bring "surfing" in the mainstream, as part of the new user defines menu controls. With the surf function, consumers can program a few channels they watch often for quick scanning. This feature also works with picture-in –picture, allowing surfing on the main screen, while the home channel remains in the PIP window. [26]

Sony also plans to move swiftly into digital dominance with the Federal

Communication Commissions recent approval of a standard that allows for high quality digital transmission of broadcast television signals. The vice president of Sony Electronics says "Sony will be a leader and we will be very much involved." Sony plans to opens its’ new engineering center in San Diego. The $19 million dollar facility will be the incubator for their new digital display technology. [27]

Cox Communication Inc. in San Diego has invested $300 million in upgrades, which their company began in 1990. They plan to launch Cox Digital TV to some of its customers later this year. Cox customers will have access to 200 channels. The channels will include 80 digital video channels, new networks, enhanced Pay-Per-View, and 30 music Choice Channels. [28]

FCC Standards Decisions: Effect on Consumers

As one can see, the decision from the FCC on the type of broadcast technology the United States will use has allowed these manufacturers and others to start taking the necessary steps to provide consumers with HDTV. With the HDTV standards decision made, the questions that arise are: how will this effect consumer? and what will it cost consumers? One TV station’s general manager stated "I do not think consumers realize what they’ll need to buy to watch HDTV". [29]

A survey conducted by A.T. Kerney in April 1997 found that 70% of consumers have heard of digital TV. The survey question asked, "Would you buy a digital TV set if the premium over an analog set were $1000 or less?" Out of the thousand people surveyed only 23% of the consumers said that they might buy a digital TV [30]. If this is a preview of how the whole consumer market will respond HDTV may be dead before it arrives. The estimated cost of HDTV is to retail at $2500 for 34-inch screen, and $3500 to $5000 for 50 to 60-inch screen. Consumers who do not wish to buy digital TVs can add converter boxes to their existing sets. The box's price will range from $200 to $400. However, as competition heats up and lines expand to include smaller screen models, the cost of HDTV should decrease. [31]

Even though the price is high for HDTV, manufactures believe consumers will pay for performance. The introduction of HDTV to the consumer is coming in 1998. It will be up to consumers to decide whether they want to pay $2000 to $5000 to get a picture with 1000 horizontal lines rather then the current picture with 525 horizontal lines.

FCC Broadcast Licensing Decision

On April 3rd, 1997, the FCC mandated that all 1,600 broadcasting stations nationwide must convert to digital signals by 2006. However, stations can keep both their old and new channel spaces beyond 2006 as long as 15% of households in their markets are still using analog television sets [32]. The top ten markets nationwide must convert to digital signals by next fall with the top 30 markets to follow the next year. At this time the FCC also allocated the broadcasting spectrum so that broadcasters can begin the process of replacing and setting up new transmission stations.

By the year 2006, it has been estimated that it will cost the 1,600 U.S. television broadcasters a total of $14.4 billion to change to digital signals [33]. Stations with large newscast operations will have to spend between $12 to $30 million to switch to digital signals [34] while the average individual station will have to spend $8 million to switch their cameras, broadcasting towers, and recording equipment to handle digital transmission [35].

As can be seen in the statistics presented above, this change to digital television will be costly to broadcasters, and they will not see the profit return until several years later. While the initial cost for this change is high, broadcasters are hopeful that they will be able to offset this cost in the long run. The offset comes from digital TV’s ability to compress signals, and offer more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. More channels will mean more programming and more advertising.

FCC Broadcast Licensing Decision: Other Effects

There were several other effects of this April 1997 decision that still have not been resolved. Probably the most important problem is that some broadcasters, most notably ABC and the Sinclair group, have publicly reneged on using this additional bandwidth for HDTV transmissions, instead they propose to use the additional bandwidth for several channels in a multicasting transmission [36]. Over the past several months a continuous stream of articles in both the major newspapers and print magazines have played out both sides of this drama. Unfortunately for these broadcasters, HBO and several other cable television companies have decided to begin broadcasting HDTV signals which will force the networks to match them or continue to lose market share [37][38][39].

Another effect of the FCC’s decision is that Congress continues to debate giving broadcasters the additional broadcast spectrum free of charge. Although several Congressmen continue to propose auctioning off the airwaves to broadcasters, this appears to be more political gamesmanship for voters than a real threat to broadcasters. The Congressmen realize that they need the broadcasters to air their political ads and to broadcast debates, news briefings, and other information that will help get them re-elected.

Summary

Only time will tell whether or not the decisions that have been made by the FCC over the past year have signaled the beginning of a new era in television history with a technological leap greater than that in the 1950s from black and white to color televisions or that they conclude the torturous journey to create a white elephant that neither consumers or broadcasters want.

The effects of these decisions on manufacturers, broadcasters, and consumers have yet to begin to play themselves out in the marketplace. With the transmission of digital data on July 23rd, 1997 by WRAL on channel 32 in Raleigh, North Carolina, the era of HDTV and digital television began. A week later, WHD-TV, channel 34, in Washington, DC, broadcast the first live HDTV television picture in the United States. Too bad the only television receiver capable of picking up the signal being transmitted was also at WHD-TV. [40]

These achievements, simple as they were, are the result of the efforts over several decades of thousands of people worldwide, the expenditure of several billion dollars in both governmental and industrial investments, and the continued debates and rulings by the FCC and its enigmatic chairman Reed E. Hundt. One can only hope that all of these efforts were worth the cost.

 References

  1. Rowe, Megan, "High-definition reality," Lodging Hospitality, Dec. 1994, pg. 88.

  2. Brinkley, Joel, "Defining Vision - The Battle for the Future of Television", December 1996, pg. 13.

  3. Farhi, Paul, "FCC adopts digital TV standards," Washington Post, Dec. 27, 1996, pg. G1.

  4. Advanced Televisions Systems Committee Internet Homepage, http://www.atsc.org.

  5. Advanced Televisions Systems Committee Internet Homepage, http://www.atsc.org.

  6. Farhi, Paul, "FCC adopts digital TV standards," Washington Post, Dec. 27, 1996, pg. G1.

  7. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  8. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television," San Diego Business  Journal, Vol. 18, April 28, 1997, pg. 4.

  9. Anonymous, "HDTV, DOA," Economist, Vol. 330, No. 7852, Feb. 26, 1994, pg. 65.

  10. Anonymous, "HDTV, DOA," Economist, Vol. 330, No. 7852, Feb. 26, 1994, pg. 65.

  11. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  12. Gallagher, Dan, "HDTV is on Horizon," San Diego Daily Transcript, Feb. 18, 1997, pg. 1.

  13. Gloede, W. F., "Digital TV: Not if, when?" Mediaweek, Vol. 7, No. 14, April 7, 1997, pp. 24-27.

  14. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television," San Diego Business Journal, Vol. 18, April 28, 1997, pg. 4.

  15. Hundt, Reed E., "Who Should Define HDTV?", New York Times, Sept. 13, 1997, Section 1, pg. 23.

  16. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television," San Diego Business Journal, Vol. 18, April 28, 1997, pg. 4.

  17. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television," San Diego Business Journal, Vol. 18, April 28, 1997, pg. 4.

  18. General Instruments Web Page, http://www.gi.com.

  19. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  20. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  21. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  22. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local Firms Get Ready for Digital Television," San Diego Business Journal, Vol. 18, April 28, 1997, pg. 4.

  23. Gallagher, Dan, "HDTV is on Horizon," San Diego Daily Transcript, Feb. 18, 1997, pg. 1.

  24. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  25. Curwen, Peter, "High-definition television: A Case Study of Industrial Policy Versus the Market," European Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 17-23, 1994.

  26. McGann, Michael E., "HDTV has arrived" Dealerscope Consumer Electronics Marketplace, June 1996, Vol. 38 No. 6, pg. 24.

  27. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local firms get ready for digital television," San Diego Business Journal, April 28, 1997, Vol. 18, pg. 4.

  28. Siedsma, Andrea, "Local firms get ready for digital television," San Diego Business Journal, April 28, 1997, Vol. 18, pg. 4.

  29. Fernandes, Lorna, and Goldfisher, Alastair, "HDTV picture a little blurry But new FCC rule calls for all stations to tune it in soon", Business Journal-San Jose, August 18 1997, Vol. 15, pg. 1.

  30. Kearney, A. T., "Taking consumer pulse of DTV", Broadcasting & Cable, May 19, 1997, pg. 58.

  31. Rowe, Megan, "High-definition reality," Lodging Hospitality, Dec. 1994, pg. 88.

  32. Ratnesar, Romesh, "A bandwidth bonanza", Time, Sept. 1, 1997, Vol. 150 No 9, pg. 60.

  33. Fernandes, Lorna, and Goldfisher, Alastair, "HDTV picture a little blurry But new FCC rule calls for all stations to tune it in soon", Business Journal-San Jose, Aug. 18, 1997, Vol. 15, pg. 1.

  34. Raphael, Steve, "HDTV cost too high for some stations", Detroit News, Jan. 1, 1997, pg. D1.

  35. Abrahms, Doug, "FCC moves starts broadcasters on way to digital telecasts", Washington Times, Jan. 4, 1997, pg. B9.

  36. Brinkley, Joel, "Warning to Broadcasters that Renege on Running HDTV", New York Times, Sept. 15, 1997, pg. D1.

  37. Brinkley, Joel, "Networks and Set Makers in Standoff Over HDTV", New York Times, Aug. 29, 1997, pg. D1.

  38. Brinkley, Joel, "A Gulf Develops Among Broadcasters on Programming Pledge", New York Times, Aug. 18, 1997, pg. D1.

  39. "Welfare for Broadcasters", New York Times, Sept. 8, 1997, Section 4, pg. 14.

  40. Brinkley, Joel, "Defining Vision - The Battle for the Future of Television", December 1996, pg. 386-387.

 

TOP | COURSE FRONT PAGE