A Bill Advancing Digital TV Is Approved by Senate Panel
New York Times Article
A Bill Advancing Digital TV Is Approved by Senate Panel
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - A Senate panel approved legislation on Thursday to complete the slow transition from analog to digital television by 2009, a change of enormous importance to the television, cable and wireless telephone industries.
The legislation, cleared by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 19 to 3, has gained considerable momentum because it could raise billions of dollars for a depleted federal treasury from auctions for the spectrum licenses that would be surrendered by broadcasters.
Emergency workers have been heavily lobbying for the legislation so they can have better communication systems during disasters like Hurricane Katrina. And the lawmakers are being pressed by industry groups, most notably the wireless phone companies, to accelerate the transition to auction the spectrum licenses so that the carriers can expand and improve their phone and wireless Internet services.
Equipment makers also see the legislation as a possible bonanza because it would prompt consumers and subscription television services to buy upgrades. It also offers the hope of encouraging greater use of wireless online services.
But the bill faces considerable political obstacles, as the various industries squabble over its terms. A significant issue is how to pay for the technology necessary to prevent an estimated 70 million to 80 million television sets from being rendered obsolete once broadcasters no longer provide analog programs.
Those are the sets that do not rely on subscription services provided by cable and satellite companies. The matter is of enough political sensitivity that the lawmakers set April 7, 2009, as the legislation's effective date. (Not coincidentally, that is one day after the widely watched Final Four N.C.A.A. basketball tournament.)
The legislation approved by the committee was sponsored by its Republican chairman, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii. The three Democratic senators who voted against the measure were Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.
It would provide $3 billion for owners of those sets to buy converter boxes that would let them receive digital signals. A similar bill, expected to be considered soon in the House, is likely to try to trim that amount, Congressional aides said.
The measure now moves to the Senate Budget Committee, where it could be considered as early as next week, before being introduced on the floor.
The legislation is the latest measure in a decades-long push toward digital transmission, which would make more efficient use of the communications spectrum and enable broadcasters to offer better-quality pictures as well as the prospect of interactivity.
As part of the transition, the government gave the broadcasters use of frequencies for both digital and analog transmission, and policy makers want to accelerate the process to get back the analog portion to sell in the market.
The licenses to be returned to the government are among the most desirable around. They are considered the beachfront property of the spectrum because of their special characteristics - they cover large distances and the signals easily penetrate buildings.
Under existing law, the broadcasters were supposed to return that part of the spectrum at the later of two dates - Dec. 31, 2006, or when 85 percent of households receive digital signals. Experts said the 85 percent requirement threatened to delay the transition for many years, although broadcasters long lobbied against setting a more immediate deadline. More than half of homes now have no digital signal and no intention to get one, according to Stewart Wolpin, an analyst at Points North Group, a research and consulting firm.
The legislation adopted on Thursday was silent on one of the most contentious issues posed by the switch to digital programs - whether cable companies would be required to carry all the new digital programs transmitted by broadcasters. The new technology enables the broadcasters to transmit up to six programs simultaneously in the same space where they now transmit one.
They have insisted on legislation that imposes digital "must carry" provisions because, they say, it is essential to the economics of the industry. But the cable companies have balked, arguing that such a requirement would be too costly.
The broadcasters and the cable companies have produced competing studies, with cable providers complaining that the costs involved in must carry provisions could be billions of dollars, although some independent analysts have taken issue with the studies.
A recent report on the matter by analysts at Legg Mason said, "We view these statements as normal political hyperbole and would note that the worst-case scenarios are unlikely to play out as argued in the context of lobbying."
Another behind-the-scenes fight has been brewing over how the government should allocate the so-called "white space" on the spectrum, which viewers now see on those channels that do not carry programs, like Channel 3 in New York. Some technology and Internet service providers, along with consumer groups, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to approve a new generation of unlicensed wireless devices to make use of the white space.
Their efforts are opposed by the broadcasters, who say that those devices would interfere with broadcasting transmission.
The transition has also prompted lobbying by the equipment makers, including Cisco Systems and Intel, and by software companies like Microsoft, which has urged lawmakers to preserve a significant amount of the spectrum for free or unlicensed use. Several lobbyists said this week they had heard from lawmakers that in recent months Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, had pressed the issue with members of Congress.
A spokeswoman in the Washington office of Microsoft, Ginny Terzano, declined to provide details about Mr. Gates's conversations with lawmakers. She said the company was not seeking a provision for unlicensed spectrum use in the bill adopted on Thursday but generally favors such unlicensed spectrum.
"We look forward," she said, "to working with the Congress to explore future opportunities to make more unlicensed spectrum available to promote greater wireless broadband deployment, and the ability to deliver new and interesting products."
A Bill Advancing Digital TV Is Approved by Senate Panel
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - A Senate panel approved legislation on Thursday to complete the slow transition from analog to digital television by 2009, a change of enormous importance to the television, cable and wireless telephone industries.
The legislation, cleared by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 19 to 3, has gained considerable momentum because it could raise billions of dollars for a depleted federal treasury from auctions for the spectrum licenses that would be surrendered by broadcasters.
Emergency workers have been heavily lobbying for the legislation so they can have better communication systems during disasters like Hurricane Katrina. And the lawmakers are being pressed by industry groups, most notably the wireless phone companies, to accelerate the transition to auction the spectrum licenses so that the carriers can expand and improve their phone and wireless Internet services.
Equipment makers also see the legislation as a possible bonanza because it would prompt consumers and subscription television services to buy upgrades. It also offers the hope of encouraging greater use of wireless online services.
But the bill faces considerable political obstacles, as the various industries squabble over its terms. A significant issue is how to pay for the technology necessary to prevent an estimated 70 million to 80 million television sets from being rendered obsolete once broadcasters no longer provide analog programs.
Those are the sets that do not rely on subscription services provided by cable and satellite companies. The matter is of enough political sensitivity that the lawmakers set April 7, 2009, as the legislation's effective date. (Not coincidentally, that is one day after the widely watched Final Four N.C.A.A. basketball tournament.)
The legislation approved by the committee was sponsored by its Republican chairman, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii. The three Democratic senators who voted against the measure were Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.
It would provide $3 billion for owners of those sets to buy converter boxes that would let them receive digital signals. A similar bill, expected to be considered soon in the House, is likely to try to trim that amount, Congressional aides said.
The measure now moves to the Senate Budget Committee, where it could be considered as early as next week, before being introduced on the floor.
The legislation is the latest measure in a decades-long push toward digital transmission, which would make more efficient use of the communications spectrum and enable broadcasters to offer better-quality pictures as well as the prospect of interactivity.
As part of the transition, the government gave the broadcasters use of frequencies for both digital and analog transmission, and policy makers want to accelerate the process to get back the analog portion to sell in the market.
The licenses to be returned to the government are among the most desirable around. They are considered the beachfront property of the spectrum because of their special characteristics - they cover large distances and the signals easily penetrate buildings.
Under existing law, the broadcasters were supposed to return that part of the spectrum at the later of two dates - Dec. 31, 2006, or when 85 percent of households receive digital signals. Experts said the 85 percent requirement threatened to delay the transition for many years, although broadcasters long lobbied against setting a more immediate deadline. More than half of homes now have no digital signal and no intention to get one, according to Stewart Wolpin, an analyst at Points North Group, a research and consulting firm.
The legislation adopted on Thursday was silent on one of the most contentious issues posed by the switch to digital programs - whether cable companies would be required to carry all the new digital programs transmitted by broadcasters. The new technology enables the broadcasters to transmit up to six programs simultaneously in the same space where they now transmit one.
They have insisted on legislation that imposes digital "must carry" provisions because, they say, it is essential to the economics of the industry. But the cable companies have balked, arguing that such a requirement would be too costly.
The broadcasters and the cable companies have produced competing studies, with cable providers complaining that the costs involved in must carry provisions could be billions of dollars, although some independent analysts have taken issue with the studies.
A recent report on the matter by analysts at Legg Mason said, "We view these statements as normal political hyperbole and would note that the worst-case scenarios are unlikely to play out as argued in the context of lobbying."
Another behind-the-scenes fight has been brewing over how the government should allocate the so-called "white space" on the spectrum, which viewers now see on those channels that do not carry programs, like Channel 3 in New York. Some technology and Internet service providers, along with consumer groups, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to approve a new generation of unlicensed wireless devices to make use of the white space.
Their efforts are opposed by the broadcasters, who say that those devices would interfere with broadcasting transmission.
The transition has also prompted lobbying by the equipment makers, including Cisco Systems and Intel, and by software companies like Microsoft, which has urged lawmakers to preserve a significant amount of the spectrum for free or unlicensed use. Several lobbyists said this week they had heard from lawmakers that in recent months Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, had pressed the issue with members of Congress.
A spokeswoman in the Washington office of Microsoft, Ginny Terzano, declined to provide details about Mr. Gates's conversations with lawmakers. She said the company was not seeking a provision for unlicensed spectrum use in the bill adopted on Thursday but generally favors such unlicensed spectrum.
"We look forward," she said, "to working with the Congress to explore future opportunities to make more unlicensed spectrum available to promote greater wireless broadband deployment, and the ability to deliver new and interesting products."
posted by Bayard @ 11:43 PM
<< Home