**Testimony of Dale N. Hatfield**

**Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**For Oversight Hearing on**

**High-Definition Digital Television and Related Matters**

**before the**

**Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications,**

**Trade and Consumer Protection**

**United States House of Representatives**

### July 25, 2000 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss digital television
(DTV). Before I begin, I do want to clarify that any opinions I express
today are my own, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the
Commission.

I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman and other members of the
Subcommittee, for holding this hearing on this important topic. This
hearing is indeed very timely and consistent with the Commission's own
ongoing review of the progress of the DTV conversion process.

In the proceedings establishing the DTV transition, the Commission
stated that it would conduct a review every two years to "ensure that
the introduction of digital television" serves the public interest. The
Commission has commenced its first periodic review of DTV with the
adoption of a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in March of this year.
This *Notice* addresses a number of issues that we believe require
resolution to ensure that progress with the DTV conversion continues and
potential sources of delay are eliminated.

# [DTV Build-Out Status]{.underline} 

I would like to begin with a brief overview of where we are in the
rollout of DTV. As you know, the Commission has established an
aggressive schedule for television stations to construct their DTV
facilities. All network-affiliated DTV stations (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC and
Fox stations) in the top ten television markets were to be constructed
by May 1, 1999 and all network-affiliated DTV stations in the top 30 TV
markets were to be constructed by November 1, 1999. All remaining
commercial DTV stations are to be constructed by May 1, 2002, and all
non-commercial DTV stations are to be constructed by May 1, 2003.

Given the breadth and complexity of the efforts needed for the building
of a DTV station, these requirements are clearly ambitious. Yet, the
broadcast industry has done an admirable job of embarking upon this
challenge.

The FCC has granted permits to 515 stations for the construction of DTV
facilities. There are now 139 stations in the United States transmitting
digital programming (108 licensed and 31 operating under Special
Temporary Authority or experimental authority). In the top ten TV
markets, 36 of the 40 network-affiliated stations are on the air (33
with full facilities). In markets 11-30, 59 of the 79 network-affiliated
stations are on-the-air.[^1]

In fact, much of the delay in construction to date has been the result
of matters generally beyond broadcasters' control -- such as obtaining
local zoning approval, completing international coordination
requirements, facing delays in obtaining equipment, finding adequate
transmitter sites and encountering difficulties in scheduling
construction personnel. Delays have also resulted from broadcaster
petitions to change their DTV channel.

Nevertheless, despite these obstacles, broadcasters have done a good job
of *starting* the DTV transition process. However, I am concerned that
this good initial progress is now being threatened at a critical time
when more needs to be done and the pace of the transition needs to
accelerate.

**[Why the Digital Transition Needs to Take Place Quickly]{.underline}**

Let me begin with why I believe it is in the best interests of
broadcasters to make this transition happen as quickly as possible. I am
convinced that broadcasters must make the transition from analog to
digital transmission quickly for three basic reasons.

*First*, all other segments of the telecommunications industry \--
commercial wireless service providers, such as cellular and PCS; wired
services, such as DSL and cable television systems; direct broadcast
satellites; mutichannel multipoint distribution systems; and, others \--
have made, or are in the process of making, the conversion to digital.
[I know of no significant exceptions]{.underline}.

Given that cable, satellite and other video competitors have already
made the transition to digital, broadcast television cannot afford to be
left behind. I believe that broadcasters, out of self-preservation and
in order to serve the viewing public for which they have received
licenses, must quickly make this transition in order to remain
competitive.

These other services are either direct competitors with over-the-air
broadcasting or indirect competitors in the sense that they represent
alternative means of delivering entertainment and other content to end
users. Over-the-air broadcasting must make the conversion from analog to
digital transmission in order to remain competitive in the long run.
And, as we all recognize, in Internet time the long run is not
necessarily all that long. In short, it is my belief that the broadcast
industry must make the conversion to digital for both \"offensive\" and
\"defensive\" reasons.

*Second*, from a technological perspective, the overall advantages of
converting from analog to digital transmission are now overwhelming. The
advantages of using digital techniques for representing, storing,
processing and transmitting signals are clear. These include:

-   the greater robustness of digital signals;

-   the ability to detect and correct transmission errors when they do
    occur;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the ease with which digital signals can be encrypted;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the facility with which the signals can be manipulated or processed
    using modern computer techniques and, especially, the associated
    ability to take advantage of the greater computing power and falling
    costs associated with Moore\'s Law; and,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the ease with which different types of signals or services can be
    multiplexed or provided on a common transmission facility.

Third, the broadcast industry must make the conversion from analog to
digital because the public interest demands that spectrum be used more
efficiently. I would like to expound briefly on this point.

I head the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) at the Commission.
OET has a number of responsibilities, one of the most fundamental being
to handle spectrum allocation matters within the Commission. From that
perspective, I see first-hand the problem of increasing demand for a
scarce national resource, the radio spectrum. This increasing demand,
which is particularly intense in the range from roughly 300 MHz to 3,000
MHz, is propelled by a number of developments. As members of this
Subcommittee know, these developments include not only the rapid growth
in traditional, voice, commercial mobile radio services, but also
intense interest in providing advanced data communications services,
including Internet access, to a host of portable end user devices.

A successful transition of television broadcasting from analog to
digital will free up spectrum for other uses as determined by the
marketplace. We need that to happen sooner rather than later. As an
engineer, I know that you can do much more with a 6 MHz channel than
today's analog standard definition television. We must act accordingly.
We must find ways to speed the build-out of DTV or at least keep it on
track. The benefits to the American consumer of new and improved digital
broadcast services and the consequent freeing up of spectrum for other
services are just too great.

I would like to further emphasize my strongly held belief that, in
making the transition to DTV, we must not do anything that would
jeopardize the continuation of free, over-the-air television for the
American public. Fortunately, technological developments - including
better digital compression and modulation techniques - have given us the
luxury of having our cake and eating it too. With digital technology, we
can continue to have traditional broadcast services as well as exciting
new broadcaster-provided services - including High Definition
Television, multiple streams of Standard Definition Television, or some
combination of these along with other new services such as datacasting.
And we can do all of this while freeing up spectrum for other valuable
uses, including increased local loop competition.

**[DTV Transmission Standard]{.underline}**

It is my understanding that broadcasters are now undertaking a review of
the DTV transmission standard. This review includes looking at COFDM
(Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) technology as a possible
alternative to the 8-VSB (Vestigial Side Band) standard for its reputed
benefits for new service applications, including mobile and data
transmission operations.

In the DTV rulemaking process, the Commission agreed with the
overwhelming consensus of the broadcast industry that the new DTV
channels should provide for replication of existing analog television
service so that broadcasters have the ability to reach the audiences
that they now serve with a free, over-the-air video service and that
viewers continue to have access to the stations that they can now
receive. Another objective of the DTV transition process has been to
minimize interference to both the existing analog and new digital
television services. The Commission's Advisory Committee on Advanced
Television Service, a group selected to represent the interests of
broadcasters and others in this matter, chose the 8-VSB system as the
modulation method that would best allow achievement of these goals. This
choice was made after a long and thorough process of laboratory and
field testing and subsequent evaluation that found 8-VSB superior to
other modulation technologies, including COFDM.

I believe that a mid-course change to introduce a new modulation
technology at this late date could lead to lengthy and unacceptable
delays in the DTV transition process and could undermine the service
replication and interference goals on which the DTV transition is based.
Notwithstanding the arguments and claims of the COFDM proponents that
allowing optional use of COFDM could be accomplished quickly, any
changes to the DTV transmission standard that would necessitate
revisions to the DTV Table of Allotments could result in years of delay
in the DTV transition process. Such a delay would, at best, be
unfortunate for broadcasters and the viewing public, and could lead to
uncertainty that might jeopardize the ultimate success of the
transition.

As you know, in February the Commission denied the Sinclair Broadcasting
Group's request that that we modify our rules to allow broadcasters to
transmit DTV signals using COFDM modulation in addition to the current
Advanced Television System Committee (ATSC) 8-VSB modulation standard.
Sinclair had raised questions regarding the adequacy of 8-VSB reception
with simple indoor antennas in a station\'s core business area under
complex multipath conditions. The Commission noted that it believed that
what Sinclair had highlighted was a shortcoming of early DTV receiver
implementation, rather than any basic flaw in the ATSC standard or an
indication that replication of existing analog service is unachievable
with the 8-VSB standard. The Commission also noted that receiver
manufacturers and their chip-suppliers were aware of the problem and
were aggressively taking steps to resolve the multipath handling
problems that Sinclair had raised.

In taking the action, the Commission encouraged parties to provide
additional information on the topic in the context of the agency\'s
formal periodic review of the progress of the analog-to-digital
conversion. We will use that mechanism to monitor the progress being
made by receiver manufacturers and others to improve indoor DTV
reception under the existing standard. Using the resources of our own
Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland, we are undertaking our own field tests
to further assure ourselves of such progress. We are also encouraged
that the ATSC DTV Task Force has recently committed to look at the
issues related to transmission and reception of DTV and to make any
appropriate recommendations. Hopefully, taken together, these government
and industry actions will resolve any lingering concerns regarding the
choice of the modulation technique and will allow the conversion to move
forward with confidence.

I am also concerned that one of the primary motivations behind this
review of the DTV standard by some members of the broadcast industry
appears to be a purported advantage of COFDM to provide portable and
mobile services \-- rather than any ability of COFDM to provide improved
or enhanced television broadcast service. I believe that this raises
fundamental issues regarding the intent of Congress and the Commission's
rules providing broadcasters with a free second channel for DTV
operations.

Consistent with the direction of Congress, the Commission gave each
broadcaster temporary use of an extra six megahertz of spectrum for the
DTV transition and it is intended that stations use this resource
principally for television broadcasting. Section 336(b)(2) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 336(b)(2), directed the Commission to
permit flexible use of the digital licenses but to "limit the
broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary services ... so as to avoid
derogation of any advanced television services, including high
definition television broadcasts...." It is the mandate of Congress and
the desire of the American people that the principal service of
broadcast television remain the provision of free video programming to
television viewers, and broadcasters need to plan for the digital
transition in accordance with this purpose. To the extent that some
broadcasters may desire to enter the market for the provision of mobile
services, they can do so by acquiring licenses in the newly reallocated
spectrum at 700 MHz or some other spectrum that is allocated for mobile
services.

Any efforts by broadcasters to reallocate their spectrum to new mobile
data services at the expense of free, over-the-air television raises
serious questions as to whether broadcasters would be operating in a
manner consistent with the purpose for which Congress made available to
them a second digital license for free. As you know, Congress amended
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act in 1997 to require that new
licenses be awarded by competitive bidding. One of the few exceptions to
this auction requirement was the initial licensing of DTV stations to be
used by broadcasters to replicate their existing analog television
service. If a principal purpose of this spectrum now becomes mobile data
services, it is unclear whether this exception to competitive bidding
should continue to be applied to such operations.

I do not oppose efforts to reconfirm that 8-VSB operates as designed to
replicate NTSC. Nor do I oppose efforts to improve the 8-VSB standard to
permit reception even where NTSC service is not available today.
However, these efforts should be focused on performance attributes that
are relevant to digital television broadcasting and are consistent with
the goals established by the Congress and the Commission for DTV. In
particular, any efforts by the broadcast industry should ensure that no
changes would be required to the DTV Table of Allotments. In addition,
they should adhere to our service replication and minimum interference
goals to ensure that the American public will not be deprived of free,
over-the-air television service.

**[DTV Provides Broadcasters with New Opportunities]{.underline}**

I believe that DTV provides broadcasters with a tremendous opportunity
to enhance and revitalize their core business of television
broadcasting, as well as to offer the public new and exciting
"datacasting" services on an ancillary basis.

While I applaud broadcasters' initial efforts to build DTV facilities,
with few exceptions, broadcasters, in my opinion, have not provided the
compelling programming content needed to stimulate consumer demand for
DTV. Most digital programming available to date has been merely
up-converted, existing analog programming. Consumers have not yet been
provided with the tremendous capabilities of DTV.

Nonetheless, I remain very bullish on the long-term future of HDTV.
Since the first demonstrations I saw many years ago, I have been
convinced that HDTV fundamentally changes the nature of the viewing
experience and that it will ultimately be very successful in the
marketplace.

And DTV can do even more.

The multiple programming capability of DTV can allow broadcasters to
offer their viewers more programming choices. With DTV, broadcasters can
provide their viewers with "customized" camera angles so they can watch
a sporting event from a particular point of view or follow a favorite
player. The ancillary data capabilities of DTV can also be used to
provide program-related information to further enhance the viewing
experience.

I am also very optimistic about the future of datacasting and DTV. I
base this on the advantages of the traditional broadcast architecture
coupled with the advantages produced by the conversion from analog to
digital transmission. Broadcasts' strength, from an architectural
standpoint, lies in the ability of television stations, both
individually and collectively, to distribute popular content that large
numbers of people want to receive simultaneously (for example, the Super
Bowl) or have available simultaneously for viewing at will (for example,
stock quotes). High power broadcast stations providing coverage over
thousands of square miles represent an extremely efficient way of
delivering such content. Said another way, it is a very efficient
architecture for one-to-many communications.

##### There are simply too many potential benefits to be had from the introduction of DTV not to move forward as quickly as possible. 

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

Given the extraordinary benefits that can be realized with DTV,
government and the involved industries need to recommit to ensure a
successful and rapid DTV transition. In my opinion, the bigger that
opportunity, the faster the transition should occur.

Perhaps *The Field of Dreams* adage of "build it and they will come" is
also appropriate for DTV with a slight modification \--"build it *and
show the wonderful capabilities of DTV* and they will come."

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[^1]: A complete summary of the specific DTV stations that are
    on-the-air is attached as an Appendix to this statement.