Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Television’s Digital Future

  • Chapter
The Economics, Technology and Content of Digital TV

Part of the book series: Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation ((ESTI,volume 15))

  • 144 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses the requirement for going digital and the promise of digital television. It highlights the funding pressures and programming challenges facing public television and explains how the digital conversion is exacerbating these difficulties. This paper focuses on how digital technology itself, more than any other challenge, presents a real threat to public television. It concludes that, in order for public television to tackle these and other issues, it must hearken back to some of the basic principles upon which it was founded

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Note

  1. Robert Saudek, “The Role of ETV and Its Relation to Programs,” Memorandum on some thoughts expressed at breakfast on June 15, 1966 with Messrs. Land, Weeks and White, N.D.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Throughout this article, the author will use the generic term “Public Television” to refer to the entire system of noncommercial stations and the organizations that service them. Any references to particular organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) or Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) will be specifically identified.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Joel Brinkley, “PBS Makes Digital Plans,” New York Times 20 October 1997. For example, some of Public Television’s digital “firsts” include: first broadcaster in North America to develop an all digital technical plant and satellite delivery system (PBS); first television station to provide a high definition test signal (WMVT, Milwaukee); and first station in the United States to produce high definition programming (KCTS, Seattle).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fifth Report and Order, In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC Red 12809(1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Some would question whether broadcasters are really compelled to convert to digital television given the fact that broadcasters had originally petitioned the FCC to develop high definition television as a means to protect spectrum. See, e.g., Joel Brinkley, Defining Vision: The Battle for the Future of Television (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1997): 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fifth Report and Order 61.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Approximately twenty-four stations voluntarily committed to begin digital broadcasting by November 1998. Fifth Report and Order 76, n. 164

    Google Scholar 

  8. The FCC gave several justifications for its decision to adopt an aggressive timetable.First, digital broadcast television stands a risk of failing unless it is rolled out quickly. Second, a rapid construction period will promote DTV’s competitive strength internationally, as well as domestically. Third, an aggressive construction schedule helps to offset possible disincentives that any individual broadcaster may have to begin digital transmission quickly. as well as the possible absence of market forces that might themselves ensure rapid construction. Fourth, a rapid build-out works to ensure that recovery of broadcast spectrum occurs as quickly as possible. Fifth Report and Order 80-83.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fifth Report and Order 93.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fifth Report and Order 99.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Notwithstanding the delay in finalizing the digital channel allotments, the FCC recently affirmed this rollout schedule. Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order, In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, 13 FCC Red 6860 (1998) 59.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fifth Report and Order 97. The need to recover valuable spectrum is driven not only by the FCC but also by Congress itself. After the release of the Fifth Report and Order, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, specifically stating that analog broadcast licenses may not be renewed beyond December 31, 2006. 47 U.S.C. § 336(c). However, in so codifying the spectrum recovery date, Congress created an exception that could conceivably extend the digital transition period well beyond 2006. Specifically, Congress stated that an extension of the target end-date may be granted to a station if the FCC finds, among other things. that 15 percent or more of the television households in the station’s market do not have a digital receiver or set-top box that can receive the station’s digital signal. 47 U.S.C. $ 309(j)(14)(B)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nevertheless. some public television stations in the major markets have already decided to begin digital broadcast earlier in order to remain competitive with their commercial counterparts.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fifth Report and Order 93.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See. e.g., James Ledbetter, Made Possible By… The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States (London: Verso 1997) 75–88; Laurence Jarvik, PBS: Behind the Screen (Rocklin: Prima 1997) 23-30: James Day. The Vanishing Vision: The Inside Story of Public Television (Berkeley: University of California Press 1995) 212-230.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Quoted in Christopher Stern, “PBS Tries to Keep Eggs in Nest: Pubcasters Courts Corps. To Cut Defections,” Variety June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Quoted in Dan Egbert.’ Tauzin Wants PBS Funded By Private Sector,” State News 18 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Quoted in Stern. “PBS Tries to Keep Eggs in Nest: Pubcasters Courts Corps. To Cut Defections.”

    Google Scholar 

  19. See. e.g., Paul Farhi. “Public TV’s Distress Call: Stations Seek $771 Million From Congress for Digital Update, The Washington Post 16 October 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See, e.g.. Brooks Boliek. “Clinton Pledge: $450 Million to PBS for Move to Digital, The Hollywood Reporter 3 February 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A Bill to Establish the Commission for the Future of Public Broadcasting and Authorize Appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and for Other Purposes, H.R. 4067. 105th Cong.. 2d Sess. (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Additionally. because of the likely shortage of funding, the system will need to confront the politically sensitive and potentially explosive issue of overlapping stations — areas where there are several public television stations operated by separate licensees.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Statement by Robert G. Ottenhoff, PBS Press Release 8 August 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A Bill to Establish the Commission for the Future of Public Broadcasting § 103(a)(5).

    Google Scholar 

  25. See. e.g., Eli Noam, “Public Interest Programming by American Commercial Television,” Public Television in America (forthcoming): 145.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nielsen Homevideo Index, Cable Activity Report (1Q94 & 1Q98).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nielsen Homevideo Index, Cable Activity Report (1Q94 & 1Q98).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nielsen Homevideo Index, Cable Activity Report (1Q94 & 1Q98).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nielsen Homevideo Index, Cable Activity Report (1Q94 & 1Q98).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ledbetter 14.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Associated Press. “Nickelodeon, Children’s TV to Launch Noggin,” U.S.A. Today 29 April 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robert G. Ottenhoff. “Programs Do Migrate; The Question is How We Respond,” Current 8 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See. e.g., Stern. “PBS Tries to Keep Eggs in Nest: Pubcasters Courts Corps. To Cut Defections.”

    Google Scholar 

  34. In order to stem the tide of these defections, PBS is proposing to establish PBS-branded distribution outlets. Such proposals are controversial, as many member stations justifiably fear that a PBS channel would bypass them, compete for viewers, and possibly make them less relevant to the local viewers. After much debate, the member stations voted in 1997 to approve the distribution of a PBS national feed through direct satellite service. Other PBS distribution channels. including a PBS cable channel, are being considered. See, e.g., Ottenhoff. “Programs Do Migrate: The Question is How We Respond.”

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ottenhoff. “Programs Do Migrate; The Question is How We Respond.”

    Google Scholar 

  36. In his opening address to the Advisory Committee, the Vice President correctly noted that the flexibility and extensibility of the new digital technology are so limitless that digital broadcasting is likened to the Wild West. “If we don’t map out some of that terrain for public purposes. if we don’t carve out meaningful public space on our newest public airwaves. we could lose that opportunity for good.” Transcript of the Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters 22 October 1997: 14-15

    Google Scholar 

  37. Because of space limitations. this paper cannot fully address another major challenge related to Public Television’s programming, made even more complex by the digital transition: cable “must-carry.” Currently, approximately 70% of American households subscribe to cable and view their local television stations over their cable channels. By law. a cable operator “must carry” a certain number of local broadcast stations on its system. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the must-cam rules, but its application to digital television is unresolved. As of this writing, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on how must-carry applies during and after the digital transition. Resolution of the must-carry issues will have serious implications on the viewing of Public Television’s programming in the digital world. Sotice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Carriage the Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast Stations. CS Docket No. 98-120 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fifth Report and Order 36.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See. eg.. Price Colman. “TCI Banks on Digital Boxes,” Broadcasting & Cable 30 March 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stephanie N. Mehta. “U.S. West Is Set to Offer TV Programming and Internet Access Over Phone Lines.” The Wall Street Journal 20 April 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Larry Downes and Chunka Mui, Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance (Boston: Harvard Business School Press 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Downes and Mui 8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. William F. Baker and George Dessart, Down the Tube: An Inside Account of the Failure of American Television (New York: BasicBooks 1998) 234–243.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Baker and Dessart 214.

    Google Scholar 

  45. David Streitfeld. “Booking the Future: Does Amazon.com Show That Publishing Clicks on the Internet?.” The Washington Post 10 July 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Carnegie Commission on Education Television, Public Television: A Program for Action (New York: Bantam Books 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Public Television: A Program for Action 3.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Public Television: A Program for Action 98-99.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Some critics, however, have come to question the political independence of CPB. See, e.g.. Ledbetter 9-14.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Public Television: A Program for Action 69.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Public Television: A Program for Action 69.

    Google Scholar 

  52. America’s Public Television Stations, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service, and Public Radio International. “The Road to Self Sufficiency: Public Broadcasting Meets Congressional Challenge.” 2 May 1995

    Google Scholar 

  53. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Public Broadcasting Service, and America’s Public Television Stations. “Recommendations to the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters: Strengthening Public Television for the Digital Age,” 8 June 1998:5

    Google Scholar 

  54. Media Access Project. “A Proposal for Public Interest Obligations of Digital TV Broadcasters.” 7 April 1998

    Google Scholar 

  55. Paige Albiniak. “$5 Billion Windfall for Public Broadcasting? Gore Commission Recommends Creation of Trust Fund.” Broadcasting & Cable 15 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Public Television: A Program for Action 68-73. It is interesting to note that one member of the Commission. Joseph H. McConnell, did not concur with this recommendation. Instead. Mr. McConnell proposed the imposition of a franchise tax on commercial television stations, which “are licensed to use the airways in the ‘public interest’ and therefore “should at least share in the cost of Public Television.” Public Television: A Program for Action 72. footnote.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. et al., “Recommendations to the Advisory Committee” 5.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. et al., “Recommendacions to the Advisory Committee” 5-6.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Media Access Project 10.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Seth Schiesel, “With Cable Deal. AT&T Makes Move to Regain Empire,” New York Times 25 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Public Television: A Program for Action 4.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Public Television: A Program for Action 14.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Public Television: A Program for Action 1.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Public Television: A Program for Action 92.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Public Television: A Program for Action 92.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Public Television: A Program for Action 14.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Public Television: A Program for Action 4-5.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Public Television: A Program for Action 14.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Public Television: A Program for Action 93.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Public Television: A Program for Action 92.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Public Television: A Program for Action 95.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Public Television. A Program for Action 92.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Public Television: A Program for Action 92.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Public Television: A Program for Action 94.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Public Television: A Program for Action 36.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Public Television: A Program for Action 34.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Public Television: A Program for Action 40.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Public Television: A Program for Action 36.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Transcript of the Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters 16 January 1998: 194–213.

    Google Scholar 

  80. The Belo Group. “Broadcasting in the Public Interest: A Proposal for Expanded Educational Programming in the Digital Age.” 31 March 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Media Access Project 3-4.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. et al., “Recommendations to the Advisory Committee” 6.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lawrence K. Grossman, The Electronic Republic (New York: Viking Penguin 1995) 211. Additionally. promoting greater diversity and localism in Public Television’s public interest programming would further bolster its legal position that the “must-carry” requirements should extend to not only the existing analog channel, but also the digital signal. In rejecting the cable operators’ legal challenge that the analog must-carry rules imposed an unconstitutional burden on their First Amendment rights, the United States Supreme Court held that must-carry furthers several “important” governmental interests, including: “(1) preserving the benefits of free, over-the-air local broadcast television; (2) promoting the w idespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources; and (3) promoting fair competition in the market for television programming.” Turner Broadcasting v. FCC. 117 S.Ct. 1174 (1997). Thus, to ensure that Public Television’s public interest programming will be viewed by 70% or more of the American households that subscribe to cable. strong must-carry rules and enforcement procedures must be in place both during and after the transition to digital television.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Public Television: A Program for Action 41.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Public Television: A Program for Action 41.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Public Television: A Program for Action 59-60.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Public Television: A Program for Action 61-65.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Public Television: A Program for Action 66-67.

    Google Scholar 

  89. David Liroff, “Let’s Get Digital.” PBS Annual Meeting, Miami, Florida, 15 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting, A Public Trust: The Landmark Report of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting (Neu York: Bantam Book 1979) 11.

    Google Scholar 

  91. “The Opportunity Analysis.” The Hartford Gunn Institute Inaugural Convocation (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Quoted in James Fellows and Michael Hobbs, “When Your Field Lacks a Capacity for Strategic Planning, You May End Up Wishing: If Only…,” Current Thinking 14 August 1995) 15.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Fellows and Hobbs 15.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Fellows and Hobbs 15.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Fellows and Hobbs 15.

    Google Scholar 

  96. The Hartford Gunn Institute, “An Agenda for Developing Public Broadcasting’s Second Generation: A Strategy for Leadership,” August 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  97. The Hartford Gunn Institute 10.

    Google Scholar 

  98. The Hartford Gunn Institute 12.

    Google Scholar 

  99. The Hartford Gunn Institute 14.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Baker and Dessart 256.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Fellows and Hobbs 15.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Fellows and Hobbs 15.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’ s Best-Run Companies (New York: Harper & Row 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Brinkley, “PBS Makes Digital Plans.”

    Google Scholar 

  105. Peters and Waterman 126.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Digital Broadcasting Strategic Planning Steering Committee, Going Digital From Zero to One: A Report to Public Broadcasters from the Digital Broadcasting Strategie Planning Steering Committee. November 1997: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Digital Broadcasting Strategic Planning Steering Committee 4.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Public Television: A Program for Action 97.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Downes and Mui 204.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Downes and Mui 205.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Peters & Waterman 201.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Public Television: A Program for Action 18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gary P. Poon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, Columbia

    Darcy Gerbarg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poon, G.P. (1999). Public Television’s Digital Future. In: Gerbarg, D. (eds) The Economics, Technology and Content of Digital TV. Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4971-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4971-0_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7256-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4971-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation