 | ||
|
WELCOME TO THE ESSAY ARCHIVES!
<< Part I
(June/July)
<< June
<< June
<< June
<< Part I
(June/July)
|
Home |
Essays | Poetry |
Free Concerts | Links | 2009 Extras | About the Site
Essay - September 2005 Will You Be Singing the TV Black Box Blues? The Transition to Digital Television in the U.S. *As with the previous essays, the following is an interactive essay. Although it can be read as is, links are embedded at various points in the article. By clicking the link you can read more about the particular topic being discussed, then return to the essay. (The links are included for information purposes only. No guarantees are made as to the accuracy of the materials presented on the sites, although every effort has been made to search out reliable and respected sources of information.) (Please note: some links have changed since 2005 or are no longer in existence. Where it is possible, they have be updated to reflect the changes. Changes which have been made are not included in the body of the text but are noted in the "Links List" at the bottom of the page.) Footnotes and a bibliography are also included at the end for anyone wishing to learn more about the subject. The materials represented here are only a small fraction of what is available on this issue. The glossary link has been provided as a reference for use as needed. Click here to reach the glossary.*
Is this science fiction? No. For nearly a decade the nation's TV broadcasters, carriers, manufacturers and retailers have been in the process of shifting away from traditional analog broadcasts and television receivers to digital television (DTV), including high-definition television (HDTV). Although full transition was originally scheduled for 2006, it is now likely that Congress will push the date back to 2009. At that point all analog broadcasts will cease. Owners of television sets not equipped to receive over-the-air (OTA) digital broadcasts will be forced to either purchase converter boxes to use with their old televisions, buy new televisions, or subscribe to a cable or satellite service enabling them to view the digital programming. The transition to digital television has been a lengthy - and sometimes contentious - process involving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress, broadcasters, industry, consumers, retailers, and virtually all involved in the production, transmission and distribution of television programming. It has been said of the change that it is perhaps "the largest gamble ever undertaken by any industry," (n1) and one which presents "marketing and technological challenges of daunting proportions." (n2) This month's essay will focus on the transition to DTV -- its history, current timetable, and implications for consumers both now and in the years ahead. Analog vs. Digital Since television's inception, the system used to transmit and display pictures and sound has been analog, using radio frequency waves to deliver and display the images on a screen. It was a system developed in the 1930s, and it produced a picture with a horizontal-to-vertical (width to height) aspect ratio of 4:3, the proportions of the image still used in today's conventional television systems. (n3) Each of the images of those systems is composed of a series of horizontal lines, the picture's definition. In 1941, the U.S. adopted the 525-line National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard (n4), and current analog pictures provide a resolution of about 480 horizontal lines. (n5). Digital television systems also use radio frequency waves to deliver and display images, but the image information is encoded. The "digital system represents the information content of [a] picture as a series of numbers specifying the color and brightness of each point in [an] image . . . Picture information can then be manipulated (modified, adjusted, corrected, etc.) by digital signal processing techniques and/or stored in memory, . . . similar to the way computers manipulate and store data." (n6) [To learn more about analog vs. digital, especially some of the benefits of digital systems, click here, or go to www.pbs.org/opb/crashcourse/digital_v_analog.] There are three different levels of digital picture quality:
Some may think that the impetus for the move to digital television came from the computer or telecommunications industries. It did not. The roots of the nation's switch to digital came as the result of a perceived threat from Japanese-developed HDTV in the 1980s. The Development of Digital TV in the U.S. Back in the early- to mid-1980s, the Internet as we know it today did not exist, and personal computers were only beginning to gain widespread use. By the start of the decade, however, televisions were in about 98% of U.S. households, with an average of about two sets per home. (n8) At the time when the Japanese first demonstrated their HDTV system in the U.S., the Japanese were "already manufacturing about one-third of the television sets sold in America." (n9) "All U.S.-owned firms, except Zenith, [had] abandoned the TV receiver manufacturing business . . . [and] little work [was being done here] on HDTV." (n10) In addition, in the period between 1980 and 1990, VCRs went from being found in about one percent of American households to nearly 70%. (n11) Although an American firm, Ampex, had invented the video cassette recorder, "by 1987 Japan and Korea had sold more than 100 million VCRs around the world, [a] story [which] was a dark legend in the consumer electronics industry." (n12) In other words, tensions were already running high regarding the ability of U.S. firms to compete with the Japanese in certain industries. With its pictures of previously unseen clarity, HDTV came to be touted "as the greatest technological advance since the invention of television itself. It was also seen by many at the time as a necessary step [for the U.S. to pursue] to keep pace with the Japanese, who were perceived as having a significant lead in the technology." (n13). Between the late 1980s and early 1990s, materials on HDTV became so pervasive that cases on the subject were even being taught at some of the nation's top business schools. One note accompanying 1990 course materials at the Harvard Business School indicated that, "Many observers predict that HDTV will be the largest consumer electronics segment of the late 1990s and early 21st [sic] century. What the U.S. government decides on a variety of trade and industrial policies will have a critical impact on whether Japanese, European or American producers gain advantage in the U.S. market for this product." (n14) HDTV had become not just an issue for consumers and the marketplace but a matter for government policy as well. During this same time the nation's broadcasters also became concerned about what effect HDTV might have on them. "In 1987, 58 broadcasting organizations petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to initiate proceedings to explore the issues arising from the possible introduction of advanced television technologies . . . At the time it was believed that high-definition television (HDTV) could not be broadcast in a standard television channel, which is 6 MHz (megahertz) wide," (n15) and the Japanese had announced their HDTV system was being re-designed for the U.S. market. This petition led to the FCC's subsequent creation of the ACATS, or Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service. When the ACATS announced it would accept proposals for a U.S. HDTV standard, it set into motion a competition of sorts. Nearly two dozen applications were submitted for consideration as the U.S. HDTV standard. Most were for partially or fully analog systems, as was the Japanese system. The prevailing sentiment in much of the broadcasting community at the time was that "We'll have digital TV the same day as we have an anti-gravity machine." (n16) To the surprise of all, and in a major breakthrough for the period, an engineer at General Instruments devised a fully digital system and submitted a proposal to ACATS for its consideration. Eventually, after all system prototypes were tested, there was no one clear winner selected. The four finalists, however, formed what was referred to as the "Grand Alliance," and together the developed what became the basis for DTV/HDTV in the U.S. today.
Photograph "Tahitian Reef" © 1983 Dorothy A. Birsic The FCC and Congress Once a standard had been established, broadcasters argued to the FCC and Congress that they would need time to both alter their equipment for digital transmissions and begin creating and airing programming in the format. Given the nation's tradition of free over-the-air (OTA) television programming, broadcasters argued that they would need an additional 6 MHz portion of the broadcast spectrum so as to be able to broadcast both digital and analog signals until the time that the transition to digital television was complete. At that point analog broadcasts would cease, and the additional 6 MHz of the spectrum would be returned to the government and the people of the U.S. The FCC developed digital television rules, and legislative provisions for the transition were written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (n17) A target date for full transition was set for 2006 with a requirement for evaluation of the advanced television services program within 10 years after the date the licenses were issued. The provision was amended slightly in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. A clause was added stating that analog broadcasts would cease in 2006 or whenever 85% of homes were able to receive digital programming, whichever was later. The entire plan was not without critics, including "Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) and former Senate majority leader Robert Dole; liberal and conservative citizens' groups; and rival industries." (n18) Ralph Nader-affiliated groups called the spectrum give-away "a $70 billion corporate welfare bonanza," (n19) and in a New York Times article on March 27, 1997, Bob Dole referred to the give-away as "a fleecing of the taxpayers." (n20) The reason? In prior years the government had auctioned off portions of the broadcast spectrum to other telecommunications entities raising billions of dollars for the government. Estimates of the value of the portion of the spectrum given to broadcasters were placed at $12 - 70 billion, (n21) an amount critics argued could be used toward paying down the national deficit. The Schedule Slips The nation's transition to digital television involves major changes in three areas: 1) broadcast stations (antennas, towers, equipment, etc.), 2) digital programming (different equipment is necessary to produce HDTV programming than analog programming, and digital content must be created), and 3) consumer purchases of DTV/HDTV-compatible receivers and/or compatible transmission service. (n22) By the year 2000 the complexity of the transition and associated problems were already apparent, so much so that one Congressman remarked, " . . . there is no longer a soul in the industry who thinks this transition will be over by 2006." (n23) The matter was revisited in Congress in 2002 prompting the following remarks from Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In his comments he highlights not only problems underlying the transition, but also perceived costs in other areas due to the delay. "The digital television transition is woefully behind schedule, and quite simply will not conclude by the original target date of 2006. It is also apparent that the slowness of the transition is holding back two important telecommunications revolutions. First, the lack of meaningful progress in DTV transition impedes the growth of various industries in the interactive television marketplace, including high-tech manufacturers, software engineers, and content providers. Second, the fact that broadcasters will not return to the government their current analog broadcasting frequencies any time soon means that a new generation of wireless technologies and services is also thwarted from reaching the marketplace. Both the interactive TV and wireless revolutions that are unnecessarily delayed by the glacial pace of the DTV transition could greatly contribute to economic growth, innovation and job creation. We must admit that at its core the DTV transition represents a government-driven policy, not a purely market-driven phenomenon, and it is therefore imperative that government create the conditions and environment for policy success, especially given the current economic slump. It is important for the FCC and the subcommittee to follow through on the DTV policy we set in motion several years ago in ways that serve the consumer interest. Government action to accelerate the DTV transition would send a strong signal to entrepreneurs and [the] investment community that Federal policymakers are committed to creating an environment where the technology sector can once again drive growth and prosperity in the American economy. Failure to do this is unfair to consumers and to taxpayers but is also unfair to the various high-tech industries with a stake in the future of television and a new generation of wireless services that could operate using frequencies that the broadcasters ultimately give back." (n24) That same year (2002) the FCC (www.fcc.gov) took a major step in addressing the availability of DTV-compatible (but not necessarily HDTV-compatible) television receivers for the general public. In its Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum and Opinion Order (n25), the FCC mandated a phased-in schedule under which all new television broadcast receivers must include the capability of receiving over-the-air (OTA) digital television (DTV) broadcast signals. This has been referred to as the "DTV tuner requirement." In the original order, by July 1, 2007, all new television receivers with screens 13 inches or larger must include DTV tuners. The same date was applied to 100% of other receiver devices (VCRs, DVD players, etc.) that receive OTA broadcast television signals. It is important to make the distinction here again between DTV and HDTV. The receivers mandated by the FCC order "are required only to provide usable picture and sound commensurate with their video and audio capabilities when receiving DTV signals." (n26) This means that anyone wishing to receive the highest quality OTA HDTV signals would still need to purchase HDTV-specific equipment in order to view free OTA broadcasts in HDTV format.
Congress is expected sometime this month to set the new and final date for the end of analog television transmissions. Last year the Media Bureau of the FCC proposed a date of January 1, 2009. (n28) Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens has confirmed that the date is likely to be in 2009, (n29) and industry publication Broadcasting and Cable has reported that the date is "expected to be June or July 2009." (n30) Photograph "Lausanne, Switzerland" © 1984 Dorothy A. Birsic DTV, HDTV and the Consumer What this all means for television viewers is likely to depend on how each individual household receives television signals. In general, the three primary means of viewing TV broadcasts in the U.S. are OTA, cable, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS). According to U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) statistics released earlier this year, "19 percent, or roughly 21 million American households, rely exclusively on OTA transmissions for their television viewing; 57 percent, or nearly 64 million American households, view television via a cable service; and about 19 percent, or about 20 million American households, have a subscription to a DBS service." (n31). Since digital programming policies vary from service to service, it is suggested that cable and DBS subscribers contact their providers directly for information concerning DTV and HDTV transmission and receiver compatibility. Consumer groups such as Consumers Union are of the opinion that "any conversion to digital television must ensure that the analog sets now in use will continue to function after the transition without imposing additional costs on the consumer." (n32) In order to ease the transition for households relying solely on OTA transmissions for television programming, it has been proposed that a government subsidy be established for consumer purchases of the set-top boxes which would be used to convert digital signals for viewing on existing analog televisions. Manufacturers estimate that if mass produced such converters would sell for about $50 - $100. (n33) In principle there appears to be little objection to subsidies for converters as a means of speeding the DTV transition, especially if funds for the subsidies were to come from proceeds of the eventual spectrum auction. At issue, however, is to whom subsidies would be provided and in what amount. Would they be available to all OTA households or means tested for low-income households only? Who would administer the program and at what cost? To read more about the set-top boxes and possible subsidy programs, visit the GAO website at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-258T. Environmental Issues In 2002 there were 254 million television sets in U.S homes. (n34) As was noted in Consumer Reports last month, "The digital transition means Americans will be discarding millions of TVs. Their components can be hazardous and must be disposed of carefully." (n35) The recycling of all electronic waste products, not just televisions, has become a major issue throughout the U.S. To begin addressing the problem in California, as of January 1 of this year, an Electronic Waste Recycling Fee is being added to the retail purchase price of certain electronic display products. The fee ranges from $6 to $10, and products on which it is levied include computer monitors and LCD and plasma TV screens. To learn more about the program, visit www.erecycle.org. (Information on the site is also available in Spanish.) Links and Further Information The following list of websites is offered for those interested in learning more about DTV and HDTV, especially those considering purchasing a new DTV-compatible system. The list is by no means exhaustive; it is presented as a starting point for further information on the transition to digital television.
Conclusion The shift from analog to digital television is a major hurdle for a medium which will undoubtedly be evolving for many years to come. Setting a firm date for the end of the transition may bring a sense of finality to a process begun nearly twenty years ago. In some ways, however, it is only the first chapter in the story of a digital future which is still being written. Few who have experienced the near life-like image clarity and theater-quality sound of HDTV broadcasts, especially on large, wide-screen monitors, would question the remarkable nature of the images presented. What seems remarkably absent from the transition process, however, is a full explanation to the American public as to how their interests are best served in the switch from analog to digital television. If a survey was taken tomorrow, it would be interesting to know not only how many people are actually aware of the transition (which was originally scheduled to end next year), but also how many fully understand the options available to them outside of purchasing complex, thousand-dollar HDTV systems. There are signs, from the FCC's DTV website to consumer "tip sheets" beginning to appear in retail outlets, that the need to educate the public on digital television is being recognized. The sooner the process begins the better, so that when the final date for analog broadcasts arrives TV viewers are not left "singing the TV black box blues."
n1 - Testimony of David D. Smith in "High Definition Television," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 105th Congress, 1st Session, September 17, 1997, Senate Hearing 105-826. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 1999, p. 40 (*) n2 - Testimony of Joseph J. Collins in "Transition to HDTV," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 105th Congress, 2nd Session, July 8, 1998, Senate Hearing 105 - 1005. Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1998, p. 27 (*) n3 - Robin, Michael and Poulin, Michel, Digital Television Fundamentals, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000, p. 1 (*) n5 - Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, "Digital Television: FCC Consumer Facts." Available on FCC website at www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html. Viewed 8/23/05. (*) n6 - U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Big Picture: HDTV and High Resolution Systems, OTA-BP-CIT-64, Washington D.C., U.S. GPO, June 1990, p. 52 (*) n7 - Federal Communications Commission/Consumer Electronics Association/Consumer Retailers Coalition, Buying a Digital Television Fact Sheet, available at www.dtv.gov, click shoppers guide, or at www.ceretailers.org (*) n8 - "Table 1120: Utilization of Selected Media: 1970 - 2002," U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, October 2004, p. 717 (*) n9 - Brinkley, Joel, Defining Vision: The Battle for the Future of Television, New York/San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997, p. 23 (*) n10 - U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, p. 7 (*) n11 - U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract, p. 717 (*) n13 - Testimony of Games Gattuso in "Transition to Digital Television," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 107th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Hearing 107-1103, March 1, 2001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, p. 64 (*) n14 - Course Syllabus - Managing International Trade and Competition, Harvard Business School, Cambridge: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Spring 1990, p. 8 (*) n15 - Boston, Jim, DTV Survival Guide, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000, p. 2 (*) n17 - See 110 Stat. 56 - 161, "The Telecommunications Act of 1996," Title Two - Broadcast Services, Section 336: Broadcast Spectrum Flexibility (47 USC 336) (*) n18 - Fleming, Heather, "DTV Critics March On," Broadcasting and Cable, Vol. 127, No. 14, April 7, 1997, p. 11 (*) n20 - "Transition to Digital Television," U.S. Senate Hearing, March 1, 2001, p. 52 (*) n23 - "High Definition Television and Related Matters," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 106th Congress, Second Session, July 25, 2000, Serial No. 106-143, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO 2000, p. 3 (*) n24 - "Staff Discussion Draft on the Transition to Digital Television," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, Second Session, September 25, 2002, Serial No. 107-141, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO 2002, p. 3 (*) n25 - See Federal Communications Commission, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum and Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 00-39, 19 FCC Rcd 15978 (2002) at 8-46 (*) n26 - Federal Communications Commission, Background, Report and Order of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 5-24, FCC 05-121, June 9, 2005. Also available through www.dtv.gov (*) n27 - Statement of David H. Arland in "Preparing Consumers for the End of the Digital Television Transition," hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, March 10, 2005, Serial No. 109-5, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, p. 21 (*) n28 - Testimony of Kenneth Ferree, "Completing the Digital Television Transition," hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, June 9, 2004. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1220&wit_id=3513. Viewed 9/7/2005 (*) n29 - Senator Ted Stevens, Remarks at the Federal Communications Bar Association's Annual Meeting, June 6, 2005. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/newsroom/printable.cfm?id=238489. Viewed 9/4/2005 (*) n30 - Eggerton, John, "DTV Bill Tops Busy DC Docket; FCC, Congress Have Full Plate for Fall Season," Broadcasting and Cable, Vol. 135, No. 35, August 29, 2005, p. 6 (*) n31 - Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, "The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition," hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session, February 17, 2005, Serial No. 109-9. Also available (pdf) at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-258T, p. 3 (*) n32 - "Viewpoint: You Shouldn't Have to Pay for Digital-TV Transition," Consumer Reports, Vol. 70, No. 8, August 2005, p. 61 (*) n33 - Testimony of Gene Kimmelman, "Digital Television Transition", hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, July 12, 2005. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1568&wit_id=2054. Also testimony of Dr. Jong Kim and K. James Yager, "The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition," hearings before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, February 17, 2005. Both available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/02172005hearing1435/hearing.htm. See also Footnote 31. (*) n34 - U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract, p. 717(*) n35 - "Viewpoint: You Shouldn't Have to Pay for Digital-TV Transition," p. 61 (*)
Photograph "Sydney Fountain" © 1985, Dorothy A. Birsic LINKS INCLUDED IN ESSAY
BIBLIOGRAPHY - The following is the bibliography for the September essay on the transition to digital television in the United States. Boston, Jim. DTV Survival Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000 Brice, Richard. Newnes Guide to Digital Television. Oxford and Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann/Reed Educational and Professional Publishing, Ltd., 2000 Brinkley, Joel. Defining Vision: The Battle for the Future of Television. New York/San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997 "Completing the Digital Television Transition," hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, June 9, 2004. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1220&wit_id=3513. Viewed 9/7/2005. Full witness list available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1220 Course Syllabus - Managing International Trade and Competition, Harvard Business School. Cambridge: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Spring 1990 "Digital Television Transition," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, July 12, 2005. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1568&wit_id=2054. (Kimmelman) Eggerton, John. "DTV Bill Tops Busy D.C. Docket; FCC, Congress Have Full Plate for Fall Season," Broadcasting and Cable, Vol. 135, No. 35, August 29, 2005, p. 61 Federal Communications Commission, Report and Order of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 5-24, FCC 05-121, June 9, 2005. Also available through www.dtv.gov Federal Communications Commission, Second Report and Order/Second Memorandum and Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 00-39, 19 FCC Record 15978 (2002) at 8-46 Federal Communications Commission, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, "Digital Television: FCC Consumer Facts." Available on FCC website at www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html. Viewed 8/23/05. Federal Communications Commission, Consumer Electronics Association and Consumer Electronics Retail Coalition, "Buying a Digital Television Fact Sheet." Available at www.dtv.gov, click shoppers' guide, or at www.ceretailers.org Fleming, Heather. "DTV Critics March On," Broadcasting and Cable, Vol. 127, No. 14, April 7, 1997, p. 11 Goldstein, Mark. Digital Broadcasting Television Transition - Estimated Cost of Supporting Set-Top Boxes to Help Advance the DTV Transition." GAO-05-258T. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office (GAO), February 17, 2005 Hart, Jeffrey A. Technology, Television and Competition: The Politics of Digital TV. Cambridge: University Press, 2004 Hartwig, Robert L. Basic TV Technology: Digital and Analog, 3rd Edition. Boston: Focal Press, 2000 "High Definition Televison," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 105th Congress, First Session, September 17, 1997, Senate Hearing 105-826. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1999 "High Definition Television and Related Matters," hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 106th Congress, Second Session, July 25, 2000, Serial No. 106-143. Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2000 "Preparing Consumers for the End of the Digital Television Transition," hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, First Session, March 10, 2005, Serial No. 109-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2005 Robin, Michael and Poulin, Michel. Digital Television Fundamentals, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000 "Staff Discussion Draft on the Transition to Digital Television," hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, Second Session, September 25, 2002, Serial No. 107-141, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2002 Stevens, Senator Ted. Remarks at the Federal Communications Bar Association's Annual Meeting, June 6, 2005. Available at http://commerce.senate.gov/newsroom/printable.cfm?id=238489. Viewed 9/4/2005. "The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition," hearings before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, First Session, February 17, 2005, Serial No. 109-9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2005. Also available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/02172005hearing1435/hearing.htm "The Telecommunications Act of 1996," Title Two, Broadcast Services. 110 Stat 56-161; 47 USC 336 "Transition to Digital Television," hearings before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 107th Congress, First Session, Senate Hearing 107-1103, March 1, 2001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO "Transition to HDTV," hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 105th Congress, 2nd Session, July 8, 1998, Senate Hearing 105-1005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1998 U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, October 2004 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. The Big Picture: HDTV and High Resolution Systems. OTA-BP-CIT-64. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, June 1990 "Viewpoint: You Shouldn't Have to Pay for Digital-TV Transition," Consumer Reports, Vol. 70, No. 8, Aug 2005, p. 61 Weiss, S. Merrill. Issues in Advanced Television Technology. Boston: Focal Press, 1996 To return to the top of the page, click here. To return to the essay archives, click here.
Home |
Essays | Poetry |
Free Concerts | Links | 2009 Extras |
About the Site |
|
|
Comments? Questions? Send an e-mail to: information@dorothyswebsite.org | ||
Picture the following scenario in the not too
distant future: You've had a busy week or two and haven't seen the news in
a while. Thinking you might watch the morning news while you have a cup of
coffee, you head to the kitchen and turn on the TV. Instead of getting a
picture, however, you get nothing but a blank screen. You call the repair
shop, and the first thing the person on the other end of the line asks is
"Is your television set digital or analog?" "Why?" you reply. The person
explains, "Well, the nation has just switched to all-digital television
broadcasts. Your old analog television will no longer work without a
converter box that lets you receive and view the digital
transmissions!"
