December 24, 1996 SEPARATE STATEMENT of COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS Re: Digital Television Fourth Report and Order Adoption of Digital Television Standard Our decision today to adopt the modified ATSC digital television standard launches the United States into a new broadcast era. It promises the American consumer not just theater-quality pictures and sound, but also a plethora of innovative products and services. It hastens convergence -- transporting us into a competitive world of computer-friendly television sets and broadcast-friendly computers. Advanced television sets may access and display data as well as video, while computers may receive and process video as well as data, all delivered by broadcast stations. Our decision also provides a springboard for global leadership in high definition digital equipment and programming. No other world-wide standard offers such flexibility and computer compatibility, packaged in an efficient, six megahertz of spectrum. The Critical Need for a Standard Free, over-the-air broadcasting is a vital service. Most consumers obtain their news and information from broadcast sources. When station ownership is widely held, the diversity of voices serves as an insurance policy for democracy. The decision to convert from an analog to a digital broadcasting system will profoundly affect all consumers. Once the conversion is completed our present television sets no longer will work without a digital decoder. Some argue that the marketplace, rather than the government, should dictate the transmission technology. I strongly believe it is in the public interest to facilitate a smooth and rapid transition. In my view, a smooth transition is too important a goal to leave to chance. Our adoption of the digital transmission standard is critical to the successful and speedy conversion of over-the-air broadcasting from analog to digital. The economics of a free, commercial broadcasting system requires licensees to amass a large number of viewers to deliver to advertisers. If consumers hesitate to invest in digital receivers because of confusion or worry about the ability to receive all of the local stations or the obsolescence of the equipment, the conversion will become more lengthy, more costly and less certain. Unlike multichannel video subscription services, such as cable, DBS, and MMDS, broadcasters do not have a direct relationship with consumers. Because consumers typically subscribe to only one multichannel service, there is no need for coordination among suppliers. But it does matter to consumers that their television sets receive and display all of the local signals. While it may be desirable to allow the marketplace to develop incompatible equipment for subscription services, that logic does not apply to free broadcast service, where service is enhanced with each additional local signal that the television set receives. Attributes of the Modified ATSC Standard The standard we adopt today has been carefully crafted through an open process coordinated by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service. It provides for flexible use of the spectrum, enabling a broadcaster to vary the bandwidth dynamically to provide multiple programming streams during some dayparts and high definition television during other dayparts. Last May 8th, the Commission voted unanimously to propose adoption of the ATSC standard. In a separate statement, I noted that in light of the openness of the process and years of consideration, "the burden of showing why we should not adopt the standard or that the standard has significant flaws lies with the proponents of that view." Support for the recommended standard was widespread and enthusiastic, but several affected industries challenged our tentative conclusions. For example, representatives of the computer industry were concerned that inclusion of interlaced scanning among the eighteen specified formats would be incompatible with computers and costly to consumers. Cinematographers urged the Commission to require that films be transmitted in their original format. These industries acknowledged that they all would benefit from the introduction of digital television, and agreed to meet privately to resolve their differences. After extensive discussions, representatives of the computer, broadcast and consumer electronics industries proposed that the Commission adopt the ATSC DTV standard, minus Table 3, the video format constraints. Table 3 would remain a part of the voluntary ATSC standard under which manufacturers would design equipment. I have carefully reviewed the modified standard from the consumer and public interest perspective. My objectives are threefold: (1) that consumers buying new digital television sets have confidence that they will receive all local broadcast signals for the duration of the useful life of the equipment; (2) that broadcasters have the ability to take advantage of new technology; and (3) that advertiser-supported free over-the-air broadcasting not be disadvantaged as a strong and viable competitor to paid delivery services, such as cable, DBS and MMDS. I have concluded that today's decision to adopt the modified standard will satisfy all three objectives and is in the public interest. Adoption of our standard will provide the certainty in the marketplace necessary for consumers, manufacturers, and broadcasters to introduce and support these digital technological improvements. The flexibility and extensibility of the standard will ensure that the first digital consumer television sets will continue to work well into the future, even as new and better features are added in future years that may serve computers as well as television sets. The modified standard will also permit broadcasters to be guided by consumer demand in deciding whether programs should be transmitted using interlace or progressive scan; in 480, 720 or 1080 lines of resolution; and in a 16-by-9 or other aspect ratio. This flexibility is permitted by both our modified DTV standard and the ATSC Standard. Finally, our standard permits broadcasters to compete in quality with multi-channel subscription television services. Consumers should not have to settle for a second- rate free broadcast service. Opposing Viewpoints I carefully weighed the arguments of those opposing the modified standard. The Coalition of Film Makers, in particular, argued that the Commission should require that broadcasters transmit all films in their original aspect ratio (size). Consumers enjoy seeing films displayed in their original format. But this is a matter for the marketplace to decide; it should not be a government mandate. The standard we adopt today does not prescribe the aspect ratio. However, the system is capable of instructing television sets to display a wide variety of formats. It would be commendable if digital broadcasters voluntarily committed to transmitting films and other works in their original aspect ratios. I would applaud such a voluntary undertaking, and so would the public. I also carefully considered the opposing comments of several audio interests. I concluded that the benefit from a common audio delivery standard outweighed any possible advantage of totally undefined audio channels. Providing a common base audio standard ensures that equipment can be designed efficiently and with certainty that CD-quality audio will be received. I want to emphasize, however, that the standard permits other methods of audio delivery to be implemented. Given the comparatively little bandwidth required for multiple audio tracks, the audio associated with programming need never be obsolete in quality. I leave it to consumers to make the quality/cost tradeoff. Conclusion Ten years have passed since broadcasters petitioned to open this proceeding. We have two more orders to finish before they can demonstrate to the American public the benefits of digital broadcasting. I look forward to completing this process so that consumers can reap the benefit of this new technology.