JESSELL AT LARGE

Advancing Tech = Advancing The Business

TV broadcasters are at war right now, not only with their long-time nemeses, cable and satellite, but also with wireless broadband, which is coming after broadcasters' spectrum and its viewers. To win this war, broadcasters have to innovate. They have to keep up with the competition. In fact, they should strive to get ahead of the competition. Creating a broadcast lab with an annual budget of at least $15 million to develop and test new broadcast technology would do just that.

Eight years ago, broadcasters almost got it together to establish their own broadcast lab to develop and test new broadcast technology. At the prompting the now-defunct Association of Maximum Service Television and far-sighted executives like Gary Chapman, then the CEO of LIN Television, the NAB voted to put up $2 million for a lab.

But NAB conditioned the grant on consumer electronics manufacturers doing the same, figuring that the manufacturers had as great a stake in seeing broadcasting innovate and prosper as they did. They figured wrong. When the manufacturers said they weren’t interested, the whole initiative quickly died.

It’s too bad NAB cheaped out. The industry needed a lab then and it needs one now.

TV broadcasters are at war right now, not only with their long-time nemeses, cable and satellite, but also with wireless broadband, which may be an even greater threat. Wireless broadband is coming after broadcasters’ spectrum and its viewers.

To win this war, broadcasters have to innovate. They have to keep up with the competition, making sure their services look and sound every bit as good and are every bit as convenient. In fact, they should strive to get ahead of the competition.

The broadcast lab would be an incubator of new ideas as well as place to sort through ideas from elsewhere and nurture them into practical technology, products and services — ripe for standardization.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

Without a lab, broadcasters’ future will dependant on whatever the broadcast tech vendors come up with in their own R&D centers. Sometimes that works. The mobile DTV standard that the industry is now betting heavily on is an amalgamation of work from Harris, LG, Rohde & Schwarz, Samsung and others.

But relying on serendipity is not a plan for an $18 billion industry. And who knows how much better the mobile DTV system could have been if a broadcast lab had been deeply involved in the effort from the start?

If nothing else, a lab can help insure against costly missteps. If broadcasters had a lab 20 years ago, perhaps it would have come up with a digital transmission scheme better than 8-VSB, a second-rate solution that continues to hobble the industry.

The Advanced Television Systems Committee, broadcasting’s standards-setting organization, has set its sights on a next-generation digital broadcast system that will have capacity and capability that far exceeds the current system.

“While the specifics of ATSC 3.0 are still to be developed, it’s obvious to me that our future standards should be even more flexible, scalable and adaptable for future innovation,” says ATSC President Mark Richer, in a column he wrote for TVNewsCheck this week.

Coming up with those “specifics” would be the job of the broadcast lab. It is not the job of the ATSC, by the way. As a standards-setting organization, it must keep some distance from the technology developers. It’s supposed to be the arbiter of what technology becomes the standard. It’s shouldn’t have a favorite.

ATSC’s Richer has been a vocal advocate for a lab. “[I]t is essential that we establish an R&D Center for terrestrial broadcasting,” he said in picking up his NAB Engineering Achievement Award for Television last year. “A combination of bricks and mortar and virtual facilities, a broadcast lab can be started with modest investment by this industry. This is not a new idea, but now is the time to make it a reality.”

Someone was apparently listening. At the ATSC annual meeting in May, NAB President Gordon Smith parted from his prepared text to say that the association was once again kicking around the idea of a lab.

Reached this morning, NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton had nothing to add to Smith’s comment other than to say that any NAB-sponsored lab would tackle radio as well as TV and would require the support of the association’s entire board.

It won’t be cheap. Richer estimates that even the “modest investment” he talks about would be $5 million a year, enough for the bricks and mortar, a staff of eight or nine and other resources.

According to my trusty EZVue calculator, $5 million amounts to .03% of the local TV broadcasting’s 2010 revenue of $18 million. That percentage shrinks into the thousandths, I think, if I toss radio’s annual revenue into the equation.

I’d say that $5 million is the very, very least the industry could do to keep itself on the technological cutting edge, and the very, very least won’t cut it. Let’s get serious and talk about annual budgets of $15 million or $20 million.

Think of it as a investment that will pay off in the long term with innovative services, and in the short run with the PR that comes from letting the world know that broadcasters intend to stay in the fight and that it isn’t only Silicon Valley that is inventing the future of media.

When I chatted with Richer about all this yesterday, he said something that might serve as the motto for the lab: “Advancing the technology means advancing the business.”


Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be reached at 973-701-1067 or mailto:[email protected]. You can read his other columns here.


Comments (2)

Leave a Reply

Wayne Lorentz says:

June 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Harry: Right you are!!
This is a great idea, but don’t overlook the possibility for broadcasters to use their spectrum — as envisioned by some advocates of the digital transition — for becoming a broadband provider delivering service along with the primary video channel. Broadcasters can broaden their business model with integrated multi-platform distribution and provide a broadband service to areas that are unlikely to be reached with broadband, even under the FCC’s Broadband Plan.
This concept was the subject of my white paper, abstracts of which appeared in TVNewsCheck’s Open Mike:
http://tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/10/05/45902/local-tv-can-solve-the-broadband-problem?ref=search
http://tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/10/05/45902/let-tv-stations-lease-their-own-spectrum?ref=search
I encourage readers to review the full paper at: http://www.wcsr.com/articles/spectrum-solution-for-tv-broadband

tom denman says:

June 20, 2011 at 9:39 am

In the infancy of TV there used to be such a lab, it was located at RCA. The problem with the idea today is: 15 million dollars against a multi-billion dollar consumer electronics market is just too small and won’t make a dent. Going back to the historical comparison for a moment; RCA made and sold not only the consumer products (TVs and radios), but the broadcast equipment from microphones, cameras to transmitters and antennas. Fast forward to 2011; the consumer electronics industry no longer has a link to the US television industry with everything coming from overseas. Motivation from an LG in Korea or Sony in Japan is to develop the latest ‘killer ap’ style device with a maximum two year lifespan before consumers are inclined to buy the latest killer ap device. Broadcasting is..broadcasting. Consumers don’t want pop up surveys, interactive ads, or anything that the broadcast industry thinks is the next big money maker. Consumers was rich and relevant content. All the technology in the world and we’re still just broadcasting. It’s what we broadcast that is going to make the difference.


More News