Transcript Document 7570829

Comparative Telecommunications Law
Brooklyn/Loyola Summer Program
<unibo.it>
Prof. Karl Manheim
5: HDTV
Terminology
Advanced Television (ATV)

Any technology that improves audio & video quality
over existing (NTSC) standards [1940]
 Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV)
 High Definition TV (HDTV)
Digital Television (DTV)

Signal transmission (bits/bytes) vs. analog
High Definition Television (HDTV)

In US, HDTV is Digital (per ATSC)
 Japan & France adopted analog HDTV (1991-1997)
UniBo/Summer 2005
2
Standard Definition Television
NTSC (analog) began in 1938
12” round tube; 4:3 aspect; ~ 300 lines resolution
 Today: 525 scan lines (480 visible) x 500 pixels

 Unused 45 lines - Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI)
 Interlaced (alternate line refresh; 60 times/second)
Compare computer monitors
VGA: 640x480
 SVGA: 800x600
 XGA: 1024x768

UniBo/Summer 2005
3
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
If so, what standards should be adopted
How much spectrum should be allocated
Who should get the ATV channels
What should happen to NTSC TV
UniBo/Summer 2005
4
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
UniBo/Summer 2005
5
How would ATV benefit public?
Public Interest, Convenience & Necessity

better quality
 video (image, sharpness, shape, flicker, static)
 audio (6 channel dolby stereo)




ancillary services (e.g., interactive TV)
higher cost
more diversity
better programming
UniBo/Summer 2005
6
Why digital?
Analog
Digital
Storage is inefficient
Very efficient storage
Compression causes
degradation
Compressed easily - can avoid
degradation
Generation loss each time
copied
Each copy is the same as the
original
Picture sound quality varies
with signal
Signal is 'all or nothing' (cliff
effect)
Subject to noise and
interference
Free from ghosting and noise
Format transmitted is the only
format that can be displayed
Digital information can be
reformatted to fit application
UniBo/Summer 2005
7
Why digital?
Signal Clarity
Compression
UniBo/Summer 2005
8
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
UniBo/Summer 2005
9
Market or Regulated Public good?
FCC technology forcing or free market?


Would broadcast & consumer industries have
adopted ATV on their own?
ATV is incompatible with current technologies
 compare adoption of Color, UHF
 compare CDs, DVDs, VCRs
UniBo/Summer 2005
10
Technology Forcing: Digital Tuners
Digital Tuner Order (2002)

All 13”+ TV sets include digital tuners
 Phase in, beginning with larger screens

Reason:
 After 5 years of DTV, insufficient reception capability


Market forces haven’t worked
Statutory Authority?
 All-Channel Receiver Act, 47 USC § 303(s)

Enacted for UHF
UniBo/Summer 2005
11
CEA v. FCC
(DC CA 2003)
Judicial Review of Agency Orders

Chevron test (Chevron v. NRDC, 1984)
 1. De novo interpretation of “plain meaning”
 2. Unless agency’s interpretation of its authority is
foreclosed by step 1, defer to agency (if reasonable)
ACRA:

“adequately receiving all frequencies allocated”
 Leg. history: new frequencies only (UHF)
 Leg. history used only for ambiguity, not Chevron 1
APA

Reasonableness standard of review
UniBo/Summer 2005
12
Digital Tuners - really necessary?
85% of households use cable/DBS boxes,


CEA: digital tuners are unnecessary & useless
CoA: not unreasonable for FCC to impose
useless costs on consumers
 Eventually, will speed migration to DTV
 In 2003, few HD channels on cable/satellite
Legal formalism vs. legal realism

Subsidy for local OTA broadcasters
 See also: “Must Carry” rules; broadcast flag
 Note: FCC’s unreasonable cost estimates ($50-75)
UniBo/Summer 2005
13
Developing ATV Standards
Establishment by industry vs. regulation
ATSC (compare NTSC) ATSC web site
 Merger of competing systems

 All members of “Grand Alliance” are US co’s


Industrial policy -- giving US co’s competitive advantage?
Selection of uniform standard promotes development
Adoption of industry standards by FCC
Abandoned in 1996. But see Sinclair
 Only digital required (not HDTV)

 discretion in format
UniBo/Summer 2005
14
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
If so, what standards should be adopted
UniBo/Summer 2005
15
ATV Digital “Standards”
Video Display
Aspect ratio / Resolution (next slide)
 Compression (MPEG-2, 4) (lossless v. lossy)

Audio

5.1 Channel Dolby Digital
 FL, FR, C, SL, SR, LFE (low frequency effect)(woofer)
Transmission

8-VSB (8-level vestigial sideband) (US standard)
 19.28 Mbps of data in a single 6 Mhz (multiplexed)

COFDM (European standard)
 Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
UniBo/Summer 2005
16
Aspect & Resolution Comparison
NTSC
ATSC
National TV Standards Com
Advisory Com on Adv. TV Service
Aspect
Resolution
16X9
60cycles
UniBo/Summer 2005
4X3
525
High:
1080i 1920 pixels (h)
Medium: 720p 1280 pixels (h)
St’dard: 480p 704 pixels (h)
17
The 18 formats of Digital TV
UniBo/Summer 2005
18
ATV Digital “Standards”
Video Display
Aspect ratio / Resolution (next slide)
 Compression (MPEG-2) (lossless v. lossy)

Audio

5.1 Channel Dolby Digital
 FL, FR, C, SL, SR, LFE (low frequency effect)(woofer)
Transmission

8-VSB (8-level vestigial sideband) (US standard)
 19.28 Mbps of data in a single 6 Mhz (multiplexed)

COFDM (European standard)
 Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
UniBo/Summer 2005
19
5.1 Channel Audio
UniBo/Summer 2005
20
ATV Digital “Standards”
Video Display
Aspect ratio / Resolution (next slide)
 Compression (MPEG-2) (lossless v. lossy)

Audio

5.1 Channel Dolby Digital
 FL, FR, C, SL, SR, LFE (low frequency effect)(woofer)
Transmission

8-VSB (8-level vestigial sideband) (US standard)
 19.28 Mbps of data in a single 6 Mhz (multiplexed)

COFDM (European standard)
 Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
UniBo/Summer 2005
21
Flexible Standards
FCC Abandons HDTV in favor of flexible DTV
Speed transition to DTV
 Concern for source compatibility
 Concern for cost of TV sets

Most digital broadcasters

Use x-1 for HD; x-2,3 for SD or ancillary services
 teletext, paging, stock ticker
 Internet (fixed wireless)
 closed circuit TV
 TCA § 336(e) requires fees from DTV b’casters that offer
ancillary and supplementary services
UniBo/Summer 2005
22
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
If so, what standards should be adopted
How much spectrum should be allocated
UniBo/Summer 2005
23
Spectrum
Band Width – 6 MHz – same as NTSC
Co-channel Separation
 ATV-ATV: 150 miles
 ATV-NTSC: 100 miles
 compare to NTSC


UniBo/Summer 2005
VHF=170-220 miles
UHF=155-205 miles
24
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
If so, what standards should be adopted
How much spectrum should be allocated
Who should get the ATV channels
UniBo/Summer 2005
25
License Eligibility
Initially Limited to Existing Broadcasters

“Public Interest” rationales offered by FCC
 Protect investment of existing broadcasters
 Given risks & expense, most practical and expedient
way to pro-mote HDTV (existing broadcasters have
experience)
 Change in TV ownership would disrupt viewing

Is this incumbent preference legal?
 TCA § 201 [47 USC § 336]
UniBo/Summer 2005
26
Eligibility of Non NTSC Licensees
Use It or Lose It



NTSC station must apply for ATV construction
permit within 3 years
Must complete construction 2 yrs after
Otherwise, licenses revert to FCC
Other applicants eligible once initial
assignment is complete
UniBo/Summer 2005
27
Basic FCC Decisions re ATV
Is ATV in the public interest
If so, should the FCC play any role
If so, what standards should be adopted
How much spectrum should be allocated
Who should get the ATV channels
What should happen to NTSC TV?
UniBo/Summer 2005
28
Transition Period - Phase In
Implementation




5-1-99 for 4 networks in 10 largest markets
11-1-99 for 4 networks in 30 largest markets
5-1-02 for all other commercial stations
5-1-03 for all non-commercial stations
UniBo/Summer 2005
29
Phase In - Simulcasting
Balance 
Original programming on DTV channels
 Which would provide incentive to buy digital TV sets

Simulcasting of NTSC / ATSC channels
 Protect consumer investments in analog TV sets
 Least disruption to viewing habbits
FCC Order: ATSC simulcast of NTSC
 50% in 6th yr (2003)
 75% in 7th yr (2004)
 100% in 8th yr (2005)
 Then removed as incentive to purchase new sets
UniBo/Summer 2005
30
Phase Out
Termination of NTSC (& licenses) after
conversion is complete


Nominally, Dec., 31, 2006
Penetration rate exception (<85% per market)
 Actual DTV reception, or merely capability?

Surrender of NTSC licenses
 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(A)-(C) (1998)
Auction of analog licenses

Balanced Budget Act of 1997
UniBo/Summer 2005
31
Canal Satélite v. DTS
(ECJ 2002)
Directive 83/139/EC

Member states must submit draft technical stds
to EC on any discretionary implementation
Directive 95/47/EC

Member states shall promote ATV development
 Interoperability & transparency (enable competition)

Implemented in Spain by Royal Decree 136/1997
 Requires approval of conditional-access devices (e.g.,
satellite boxes) for technical compatibility
 Canal Satélite did not obtain approval
UniBo/Summer 2005
32
Canal Satélite v. DTS
(ECJ 2002)
Declaratory Relief action in Trib. Supremo

Referred by that court to ECJ
Referral is discretionary with national court
Mandatory with ECJ unless not a case or controversy?
Questions presented:
1. Does national law requiring device approval
generally conflict with EC law?
 2. Same, if devices made in other EU countries?
 3. Does national law on the devices have to be
submitted to Comm’n before implementation?

UniBo/Summer 2005
33
Canal Satélite v. DTS
(ECJ 2002)
Questions 1 & 2 (device approval):
Not contained within text of Directive 95/47
 May be added, unless violates EU Treaty

Fundamental freedoms


trade & competition in goods and services
Standard of review
Law must serve a “public interest” objective and
comply with “principle of proportionality”

I.e., “appropriate to ensure achievement of the aim pursued
and not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve it”
Question 3:

Approval requirement must be submitted to Com
UniBo/Summer 2005
34
Canal Satélite v. DTS
(ECJ 2002)
On remand:

Pre-authorization criteria
Must be transparent
Can’t add unnecessary burdens (duplicate other req’s)
Only where after-sale regulation ineffective
Can’t be too burdensome (cf. Dormant Commerce Cl)
UniBo/Summer 2005
35
Coverage
Friday (6/3), Auctions: Comm/Ent 432-442; C/E 443-448
Monday (6/6), HDTV overview: 132-149
Tuesday (6/7), Advanced Technologies: 150-169
Weds (6/8), Satellite: 216-230
Thurs (6/9), Tel Numbering: C/E 423-432, C/E 448-451
Mon (6/13), Wireless: 288-305, 306-319; C/E 442-443
Tues (6/14), Broadband: 320-342
Weds (6/15), Internet: 352-361, 373-375; C/E 361-372,
C/E 379-386
Thurs (6/16), ICANN: C/E 372-379, C/E 452-457; 362-372
Fri (6/17), Catchup & Review
UniBo/Summer 2005
36