I used to consider the technology of television to be amazing -- even magical.

But then I became an HDTV "early adopter" back in 1998, and a decidedly different perspective began to take root. Sure, there were lots of early operational teething pains and the relative lack of programming in the first few years of the transition to HDTV truly tested my patience. But at that point, it was perfectly understandable, because widespread consumer acceptance of digital television and HDTV was anything but a sure thing.

But that was then -- and this is 2007.

Now I wonder if broadcasters have any understanding at all of the opportunity they are fumbling away with their poor handling of the transition to digital television and HDTV.

I was reminded of this in reading a recent comment from the chairman of the National Association of Broadcasters. To be clear, the NAB chairman was addressing an entirely different topic, explaining why broadcasters oppose alternative use of "white space" spectrum, which are small slices of spectrum found between adjacent television stations designed to prevent signal overlap.

From a September 11 story from the Beta News web site:

"Interference is not acceptable to our viewers. While our friends at Intel, Google and Microsoft may find system errors, computer glitches and dropped calls tolerable, broadcasters do not," NAB chairman Alan Frank said. "Consumers know that computers unexpectedly shut down. TVs don't. TVs work and people expect them to work."

I suppose if I worked in television and I spent sleepless nights worrying what the Internet might do to my business, it might make me feel better to deliver the occasional "Blue Screen of Death"-type wisecracks at the expense of the digital elite. But I'm not interested in dissecting Mr. Frank's arguments against suggested alternative uses of white space spectrum. Instead, I want to point out how he either understates -- or simply doesn't understand -- how television viewer expectations are changing in the digital and HDTV era.

Specifically:

• We expect that if there's an HD program available from the network that our local station will deliver that program in HD -- in its entirety. Failure to "flip the switch" between the analog feed and the digital HD feed, is not acceptable to this viewer or to anyone I know who has invested in HDTV and the equipment necessary to receive local digital channels.

And that also means the entire HD program should be available in HD. Failure to "flip" back to the digital/HD feed after a commercial break, whether it's human or computer error, is a "dropped call."

• We expect that if an HD program is originated with Dolby Digital multi-channel audio track that our local station should be able to deliver that DD signal intact to our homes. That means if there is audio encoded to the front center channel that audio will come from our center channel speaker. It also means that front-channel audio should come from the front channels and rear-channel audio from behind us -- and NEVER the other way around.

If it looks like a glitch, and if it sounds like a glitch, it's a glitch.

• We expect that HD programs will be presented with HD picture quality -- diverting bits from an HD program stream in order to provide one or more subchannels via your multicasting capabilities is not acceptable.

Of course, we understand your desire to make use of multicasting technology to expand your revenue potential and because we appreciate free, over-the-air programming, we support anything that makes your business more vibrant. But when you degrade your primary product to deliver a secondary product of narrower appeal, you are alienating the largest and potentially most loyal segment of your audience.

Multicasting is a system, but when a system isn't used properly, it will inevitably produce system errors.

• We expect all local television stations to be HD-compliant. At this point, we don't really expect local stations to be delivering original, locally produced HD programming, though it seems clear that local news in HD is highly valued by many viewers around the country. But if a station is affiliated with a national network and that network provides HD programming, the local station must, at minimum, be able to pass that HD signal intact onto local viewers. Delivering a digital channel of analog programming -- even though that's all that's required to meet FCC requirements -- is not enough.

Mr. Frank, meet your industry's "Blue Screen of Death."

Let me be clear that many local broadcasters deliver the goods on each of the four points above. But even a cursory reading of the local HDTV forums at the AV Sciences web site illustrates there are still far too many markets around the country where multiple stations are not meeting all of these basic viewer expectations.

The time has long passed where the failure of local TV stations to fully engage in the digital and HDTV transition could be explained away by saying no one is watching. The Consumer Electronics Association recently reported that HDTV penetration is now at 30% of US households and accelerating.

Broadcasters need to face facts: You've already seriously antagonized the early adopters of HD technologies. However, you still have a chance to raise your game and deliver on viewer expectations.

But first you need to recognize that the nature of those expectations have changed. And then you need to recognize and act on the fact that your opportunities to make that all-important "first impression" are growing more limited with each passing day.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Additional Expectation:, "We expect that when a broadcas September 18, 2007     

"We expect that when a broadcaster delays a network HD program that they will record it and play it back in full HD."

I had written up a similar list a while ago in a local HDTV Forum (RchesterHDTV, and was just reminded of that "problem".

DaveHancock | 66.67.127.128

Show/Hide comment form