Will DTV advances spawn new channels?
May 10th, 2007Samsung today announced a new digital TV chip that is said to offer substantially improved over-the-air reception. The technology behind its S5H1411 chip “boasts a 30 percent higher reception success rate than the company’s previous generation digital TV receiver chip released in 2005,” according to Samsung. That claim echoes the 30 percent improvement in receiver performance cited by another Korean manufacturer, LG Electronics, when it unveiled its sixth-generation DTV chip last December.
With the shutdown of analog TV broadcasts throughout the U.S. scheduled for Feb. 18, 2009, the prospect of increasingly robust digital reception may just save the day. As recently as 2005, Sinclair Broadcasting warned that deficiencies inherent in the digital broadcasting standard approved by the FCC would imperil the future of over-the-air TV. Many viewers who had long been satisfied with the reception available through a basic indoor antenna were disappointed to learn that a rooftop model was necessary to watch digital stations. A significant problem for DTV viewers in urban areas was “multipath” interference.
But multipath no longer is a worry, according to LG and Samsung, whose chipsets will also be available to other digital TV manufacturers. If Americans can get crystal-clear HDTV channels over the air for free, it might—just might—be a game-changer for broadcasters.
Because digital TV uses spectrum more efficiently than analog, each local station could offer five or six channels if it wanted to (at the expense of HD broadcasts, by the way); the additional channels are known as multicasts. Just imagine having 30-plus channels of free TV available in metropolitan areas—better yet, don’t imagine it; just go to Britain, where that scenario is already a reality. People like Andrew D. Cotlar have said that the U.S. should follow Britain’s Freeview model, bringing an expanded selection of cable-style channels to antenna households. Until recently I’ve been a skeptic, given the problems that threatened the viability of digital broadcasting in the U.S.
But if more Americans will be able to count on reliable digital broadcasts, local broadcasters may see a chance to win back some market share from cable and direct-broadcast satellite (DBS) television services.
Several hurdles remain, however. The increasing popularity of HD broadcasts in the U.S. leaves less spectrum available for adding new channels. Digital broadcast penetration in the U.S., while growing, is still nowhere near the level of Britain, where, thanks to the multiplicity of channels, more viewers watch digital TV broadcasts than analog. Antenna viewers in the U.S. will be forced to switch to digital within the next two years, of course. But 85 percent of domestic television households subscribe to cable or satellite systems, which are unlikely to add local multicast channels to their lineups unless the government makes them or, perhaps, broadcasters pay them. (Mandatory cable carriage would probably do more than anything else to promote multicasting, though I am still not really sold on that approach.)
Where does that leaves us? Well, I doubt that broadcasters will offer large numbers of cable-style channels until more viewers are actually capable of receiving them. But as digital TVs and converter boxes equipped with decent tuners find a place in more American households, more multicast channels may reach the airwaves. If broadcast networks would provide additional programming feeds to their affiliates, packed with shows that viewers might actually watch, that could start the ball rolling. (I wouldn’t expect the locals to produce much in the way of new programming, given the costs.) Some of the new channels might even be aimed at mobile TV viewers, given recent advances in ATSC’s potential for mobile reception.
Does large-scale multicasting have any chance of grabbing a meaningful slice of the audience at the expense of pay-TV providers? Perhaps not, at this late date. But if broadcasters can find some way to make multicasts profitable, well—it might just save their hides.