As Seen From This Part Of The World
(An observation on American television -- to attendees of the IBC-2000)
By Larry Bloomfield
5965 words
The television industry in the United States is as complex as any Ian Fleming novel, Shakespeare play or television soap opera, rolled all into one, with as many, or more, characters, plots, side plots, hidden agendas and the like, as one could possible imagine… and then, may be even more.
Issues, such as modulation technology, set-top-box (STB) standards for the cable industry and convergence with the Internet, with its implications of delivering streaming video and Webcasting, lurk at every tradeshow, is on the lips of the knowledgeable and the confused, to the point of creating a tempest in a teapot. Although I noted only three, there are many other issues vying for the top ten list.
I pray I can convey the seriousness of these issues, and others, while giving some hint of their depth, without injecting too much personal bias. That, however, is quite difficult; most of these issues take on the fervor of religious debate akin to the Protestant revolution and Spanish inquisition wrapped up in a cloak of bits, bytes, scan-lines and Quality of Service (QoS) as perceived by the eye of the individual beholder.
Although each of the three issues in the opening paragraph is distinctively individual, they are also very much inter-related.
Before going on, I must make it clear that I am now, and always have been a very strong advocate for international standards. The international coverage of the passage from the year 1999 to the year 2000, originating from some 65 venues, in virtually every time zone on the planet, speaks well for the international cooperation, not to mention that the show was interesting and well done. Not one engineer associated with this project, that I spoke to, felt what ended up as an outstanding job could have been even better, were there international standards of video, audio, transmission etc., in place and adhered to.
There is no reason, as our planet shrinks, for anyone to have to reinvent the wheel every time a new technology is developed or discovered. This does not mean that improvements, progress and innovation should ever be stifled simply to maintain standards. Greed, avarice, national pride and hidden agenda must take a very serious backseat in favor of the well being of the world populace.
Form my vantage point here in the crows nest in Silicon Valley (California), aboard the good ships United States, probably the most pressing of the issues relating to the progress of digital television is the implementation of a common standard for that device that occupies probably the most sought-after and expensive piece of real estate in the American household (the top of the family television set) and that is: the set-top box or STB.
Lack of Standards
You may ask the question: "why the set-top box?" There was a time when flying over the roofs of a typical American city, it looked like a porcupine on aluminum steroids; with the population of antennas protruding from the various domiciles. Slowly but surely, over the years, cable television gained acceptance. The myriad of reasons are numerous and obvious. In the course of this evolution, to help gain acceptance, the cable companies propagandized the notion that antennas were ugly and had no place in society. Besides, they succeeded in convincing that they could provide more channels and other services, including such perks as HBO, Showtime and some difficult to receive TV stations.
Some new residential areas even went so far as to have Cable Company inspired covenants, which made new owners agree to, when purchasing their new residence, that said there could be no outdoor antennas. Where this is not the case, those few bastions of a bygone era are, for the most part, are in such disrepair, that they are functionally useless.
The cable companies prospered. As time went by, many forgot there was such a thing as free over the air television. New cable companies sprung up like wild grass in the springtime after the first seasonal rains, filling the newly perceived created need.
Contrary to any rhyme or reason, it goes without saying that each cable company decided upon their own standards. In the beginning, this was not a problem, because the cable companies owned the interface to the television set: the set-top box. This tended to make it impossible to connect competing companies set-top boxes to other cable system and expected them to work.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) however, has recently addressed these two issues: set-top boxes and antennas. A little over a year ago, private citizens were permitted to own their own set-top box, which would permit them to include additional features beyond those which the cable company offered. In addition to that, the issue of out door antennas was also addressed; resulting in anyone being permitted to erect an antenna, providing it isn't a safety hazard, thereby negating all local/regional ordinances and covenants.
For those wishing to remain on cable service, this necessitated the cable industry coming together to bring about standards of interoperability for set-top boxes. With the advent of digital television this same issue is glaring in the face of the cable industry.
This is exceedingly important to the American television viewing audience, because, depending on whose figures you consult, it is estimated that between 65 and 85 percent of all American home are connected to some form of cable or fiber-optic television service. This does not include the over 13 million direct to home satellite television subscribers in the 48 contiguous United States.
This brings up two other issues: "must carry" and what is perceived by the cable industry as redundant carriage of both analog and digital signals from the same source. “Must carry” is the issue of a local cable company carrying local television stations. It was necessary for the FCC to legislate this matter because many cable companies would only carry the more popular stations and leave out others in their area. The excuses offered by the cable company are too many and could fill a book. Hardly a week goes by that the FCC's electronic digest of actions taken announces that some “must carry” issue has been addressed and resolved.
Most cable systems consist of copper infrastructure for delivery of their multiplicity of cable channels. At last check only about 10 percent the cable systems in United States are completely fiber optic. Copper cable, by its very nature, is bandwidth limited. The cable companies argue that if they have to carry both the analog and digital signals from any one given station, it would put an undue burdened on their already bandwidth limited and filled systems.
Few if any cable systems in United States currently carry any of the digital television stations currently on the air. According to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), as of May 2, 2000, there are 127 digital television stations in 49 markets on the air in the US. Although that sounds good, this is, none-the-less, less than eight percent of all the US's full power television stations. For the sake of information, there are approximately 1600 full power analog television stations on the air (figures very monthly), serving 211 distinctly different television markets. These markets range in size from several million households, as is the case with New York City, to Glenview, Montana, which has under xxxxx households.
The number of stations is expected to increase over the next couple years, as most all full power television stations have filed for a construction permits (CP) so they can begin to make the transition from analog to digital. This is all supposed to happen in accordance with a timetable the FCC has devised that requires certain stations with major network affiliations in the larger markets to go digital ahead of the rest of the television industry.
All full power television stations are supposed to be on the air no later than the end of the year 2003. The analog portion of each television stations operation is supposed to terminate at the end of 2006. There are those who argue that this just won't happen, that it won't come to pass until sometime 5 to 10 years later. Nonetheless, that's the way the law is currently written.
The reason for this detailed explanation is that the Federal Communications Commission has also instructed the cable industry to come up with a common standard for feeding set-top boxes through out the nation. This standard must take into account whatever methods the cable industry agrees upon for the delivery of their signals and for the ability for the end user to be able to bypass the cable system and receive signals directly off the air.
During three specific conventions occurring during the first half of 2000, at various venues throughout the United States, FCC chairman Kennard has advised the cable industry to get their collective acts together and come up with the standard. In January 2000, at the Consumer Electronics Association convention, he enumerated four points, which had to be addressed and brought into fruition for the cable industry to meet the requirements set forth by the FCC as a cable standard.
Again, several months later, at the National Association of Broadcasters annual dash-to-the-desert, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Kennard again reminded the cable industry that if they didn't do something on their own to bring about a standard, the FCC was prepared to legislate and mandate their fate. As if these first two warnings weren't enough, chairman Kennard again cautioned the cable industry as to the consequences of not coming up with an industry standard, while speaking at the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) convention in New Orleans, Louisiana. There's no question that the cable industry got the word this time, as most all the movers and shakers were there in attendance during his speech.
It was only several weeks ago that a group of cable industry spokespeople said they had achieved victory: that they had completed two of the goals Kennard had put forth. FCC Commissioner Ness responded to this by saying: "how can you celebrate victory at halftime."
It is plain to see that for digital television to succeed here in United States it is necessary for the cable industry to come up with a common standard that works everywhere for everyone. It is equally apparent that the FCC must enact a “Must Carry” law that includes digital television transmission. So, until then, we’re all in a "wait and see" mode.
Modulation standards
Back in October of last year (1999) the Sinclair broadcast group, which owns or operates over 55 television stations, with various affiliations, in nearly as many markets, submitted a petition to the FCC, which carried with it signatures representing several hundred television stations, expressing their collective concerns for the robustness of the FCC adopted Eight levels of Vestigial Sideband (8VSB) digital television modulation standard. From all indications, the 8VSB technology looked good on paper but had serious problems in a real world environment. The issue of “multipath” is at the heart of most the concerns. Innumerable tests have been performed at various venues throughout the United States, and at most every kind of geographical environment and condition. Sinclair, and others, have proven these concerns to be valid and real.
Despite all this, the FCC summarily ruled, back in February of this year, dismissing the Sinclair petition. Ironically at the same time the FCC was dismissing the Sinclair petition, NBC, along with their parent company G. E., were in the process of reporting their findings to the FCC, which virtually mirrored the Sinclair tests.
I believe Sinclair came to the FCC table with too much political baggage. The FCC give themselves an escape clause when they stated they would look at the modulation issues and other items of interest at a soon-to-be convened biennial review of digital television. Since that time, any numbers of prominent individuals and organizations, including the ATSC, have recognized the shortcomings of 8VSB as a result of the multiplicity of tests that have been performed by various other groups across the country.
It is difficult, at best, for the cable industry to come up with a standard if the broadcast industry is facing a possible modulation redirection, despite the recent FCC ruling on the Sinclair petition. As we say on this side of the Atlantic: "it's a Catch-22": damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Sinclair never asked that 8VSB be dumped in favor of Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing or COFDM. All they asked of the FCC was to consider permitting COFDM to be utilized in addition to 8VSB. In speaking with the technical management at Sinclair broadcast group, not one executive is desirous of slowing down or impeding, in anyway, the country's transition or migration to full digital operation. They do however, expressing major concerns over a system that will not replicate their current NTSC coverage.
Here in United States, the success of any commercial television station is vested in its ability to deliver potential viewers to potential advertisers. Anything that would detract from this situation could prove to be fatal to the stations very existence. Unlike many other countries, to my knowledge, there are no commercial television stations that receive any form of government subsidies: each must stand on their own abilities to generate revenue. So with regard to this issue too, we’re all in a "wait and see" mode as well.
Getting it into American homes
The obvious question to this section's title is; getting what into American homes? We've talked about cable. We've talked about over the air, terrestrial broadcasting. We've eluded to direct to home (DTH-satellite) delivery, but we haven't talked about any of what is considered to be enhancements built into digital television when comparing it with current analog television.
The bitstream that leaves the encoder at a television facility and enters the modulator consists of packets, which are similar to boxcars in a freight train. Each boxcar has its bits and bytes inside of it. This includes not only the payload but also its identity: that is, who and what it is. From the outside all boxcars looked alike and are indistinguishable, behaving and reacting the same way. The only differences are the number of bits and bytes necessary to capture all the compressed information and fit it into those boxcars, irrespective of the kind of video; high definition, standard definition or multiple channels or any combination of high-definition or standard definition channels. The amount of bandwidth that can be utilized for each channel or video service depends solely on the quality of service (QoS) the broadcaster is willing to settle for, for each service they intend to include in the bitstream.
Obviously the information contained in a high-definition video signal is significantly more than the information contained in a standard definition video signal. We will speak in terms of four boxcars: the first one is part of the video, second, the audio, third the remainder of the video and finally data information. These four boxcars are continuously repeated in the television stations efforts to get their product, the TV show, to the receiver(s).
So far I've concentrated primarily on the broadcasters end of this scenario without mentioning the receiver. It has been attributed to David Sarnoff, the “General” who ran RCA, that the only reason there was an NBC was so that RCA could sell television sets. Right or wrong, there's no question RCA, who own both television-manufacturing plants and NBC, sold a lot of television sets.
In the early days of television, a respectable amount of research and development went into building good stable tuners, or front-ends, but as the cable industry came on the scene with very healthy signal levels feeding the RF inputs of sets, the need to further develop front-ends with improved sensitivity, selectivity and good signal-to-noise ratio didn't seem to play a large role in the set manufacturers priorities.
As a result, tuners for television receivers look pretty much the same as they have for about the past 20 years, until the arrival on the scene of a companying known as Microtune. Microtune had developed a single chip tuner slightly smaller than the average postage Stamp and not much thicker. The printed circuit board to which it is mounted on is hardly bigger. Having seen this device in operation, it out performs conventional tuners in virtually every respect and specification.
It must be said, in a lackluster effort to defend set manufacturers, there was little or no incentive to do anything differently in the area of a television set’s front-end, as little or no improved was required. With the coming of digital television however, things changed and so were the demands placed upon the tuner. Microtune develop the right product, at the right time with the right specifications.
But that wasn't enough. The issues of multipath required even further corrective action to eliminate the confusion it can clause to the bit stream going into the decoder. Two chip manufacture stepped up to bat: Motorola and NxtWave. Their chips were designed to cope with the multipath issue and give the decoder a clean bitstream to work with.
Several generations later, although improvements of sorts were achieved, the multipath issue is still the single most serious debilitating part of the received bitstream. It is understandable why broadcasters are concerned with the current genre of TV sets. It has repeatedly been demonstrated that the pictures and sound they are transmitting can't or won't make it past the set’s front-end.
It must be mentioned that the FCC has traditionally had a very heavy hand, as they should, as guardians of US airwaves in regulating broadcasters, but, with rare exception, have they not mandated any kind of receiver standards except as related to radio frequency radiation, and have been reluctant to even do that. It has always been their philosophy not to over-regulate and let the market place determine what is best for the consumer.
We know from past experience, this is not either the most expedient or prudent way of doing things. Two classic issues are, the type of AM stereo adopted and another is the home video recorder format (VHS vs. Beta). The American public doesn’t always choose the best, being influenced by advertising hype and manufacturer propaganda.
One such seemingly obvious and simple issue is compatible in appliance interconnectivity. In this new world of discreet display and multiple source devices, this could have as great an impact on the success of the DTV transition as any other issue you can think of. Although people are people, no matter what part of this globe they come from, there seems to be masses that demonstrate proclivities for not being able to set the clock on their home appliances such as VCRs, for example. These folks have been stigmatized over here with the moniker of “couch potato” or “Joe Beercan.” I’m sure there are comparable terms in each region, country and language.
The key word here is connector. Very good examples of this are the cable and connector people who struggle to understand the difference between Y-Pr-Pb and RGB, much less DB, DIN and the other types of multiple pin connectors. This presents a rhetorical question: If manufacturers are having issues, how can any expect the general public to do much better?
We spend too much time debating the pros and cons of each of the various choices the ATSC Table 3 offers. The truth of the matter is that it really doesn’t make that much difference as the receiver will, more than likely, convert what ever it receives to what ever format it is designed to display. So it makes difference if a set receives the most pristine 1080i or 720p high definition signal, if the set is designed to only display at 480i or 480p.
The bottom line is that between the cable industry's inability to come up with a standard and the mixed signal's about the modulation technology from both broadcasters and the possibility of the FCC having a change of heart during their biennial review of digital television, it is understandable why set manufacturers know they are not standing on very firm around when it comes to knowing what to build into a digital television receiver or set.
*********
(Possible braking point for a two-day piece. Close with something like: Tomorrow (or what ever), Larry will address the convergence with the digital industry and some of the infighting between broadcasters and cable companies.)
*********
The New Kids on the Block
With all the infighting and hidden agenda that seem to surface occasionally, one can not help but feel that it’s like an iceberg and we’re only seeing the tip. We are suffering the effects of political inbreeding and you know what inbreeding does in genetics; it’s probably no different in broadcasting. We need new blood! Many engineers, by their very nature however, tend to be like inductors: they oppose any change in current flow.
Digital television certainly is a viable source for this infusion of new blood, thinking and technology. The very nature of digital television lends itself to services other than blatant television entertainment. There are numerous ways to make money in these new areas.
Instead of the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and “bean-counters” (accountants) quibbling over and focusing on their on-going political power struggles, give the engineers direction and simply let them do their job, while getting to the business of finding out how to best use this new tool. Engineers have been doing it well for the decades that broadcasting been around. Herein applies another bit of backcountry US sagged advice: Lead, follow or get then “xxxx” out of the way.
It has long been the broadcast engineer’s primary charge to uphold the quality of all aspects of the broadcast material and signal, from acquisition to display. Anything that draws attention to the means by which this is done, is translated directly into: “someone is not doing his or her job properly!”
The copious number of “dotcoms” lurking to show their achievements, and lack of achievements, at the various trade shows such as NAB2000, the NCTA and others, is mute testimony to streaming video and Webcasting being here, and here to stay. This alone should be generating cadres of broadcastings’ finest, engineers, programmers and salespersons, to be posing some very pertinent questions.
Of the dozen or so television engineers spoken with about Webcasting and streaming video, not one could find a better term to describe the best quality they saw on the internet for Webcasting and streaming videos, other than: “It sucked!” Most of the responses couldn’t even be published! There is, however, one underlying sentiment, spoken only in whispers: “it seems to be improving… a little.”
Granted: the picture quality of some Webcasting and streaming video has improved significantly, but none have achieved the quality broadcasters are accustomed to, even on a bad day. Don’t think for one minute, though, that things are stagnant. Five years ago, if someone told a television station’s sales department that the term, “Dot Com” was going to make them big bucks, the reaction would have been akin to receiving the “strange look” of the year award. The same kind of money that is being spend on these kinds of spots today, here in the US is paled in comparison with the money that is also being spend on researching and devising ways of improving the quality of service (QoS) in all aspects on the Internet. It certainly appears to be only a matter of time.
This move toward the Web and Webcasting shouldn’t come as any great surprise. There are few television station, let alone networks, that don’t have a web page, or two, in varying degrees of technical sophistication. Many have found ways to support these extensions of their image through advertising and other revenue-generating schemes.
I have had the opportunity to see what is being called Internet II. I have seen some very fine quality, full blown, HDTV pictures that would rival any large screen studio monitor.
In addition to individual station efforts, there are the various cross affiliations such as Snap.com, Xoom, CNBC, Interactive Neighborhood and Videoseeker form the newly formed NBC Internet arm and from the CBS iGroup – CBS MarketWatch, CBS HealthWatch, CBS SportsLine, Hollywood.com and CBS Switchboard, just to name a few. The networks seem to be buying up web pages nearly as fast, and with the same vigor, as they are buying up broadcast properties across this country.
The attraction of the Internet to broadcasters has also generated a brain-pool drain effect. Such migrations by well-known and respected engineering types as Charlie Jablonski from NBC to Geocast and Sony’s Peter Ludé to iBlast, just to name a few, is only the tip of the iceberg.
Inter-connectivity, servers with terabytes of capacity, high speed data networks and large databases, such as may be found in the future at large television stations are the order of the day at Webcasting facilities now. As Webcasting evolves, we continue to learn how to best manage bandwidth because we will be using more and more in the future. Currently, a terrestrial television station is limited by bandwidth, however bandwidth restrictions for Internet users are nowhere near as restrictive, compelling us to project future requirements when building these facilities.”
One Internet executive pointed out: “In the early days of television, the pictures and program content were poor quality. The pictures from an iconoscope camera looked inferior when compared with those of the image orthicon cameras. By the same token, pictures from the original tube-type color cameras are not nearly as good as the newer chip type cameras. We can certainly expect to see the same kind of improvements with regard to picture quality on the Internet in the not too distant future. As long as you can deliver the viewers to potential advertisers, does it really matter whether the viewing audience watches your station on the air, via cable or over the Internet?
One other side of the DTV well, and yet to be tapped, is the data portion of the DTV video signal. Neophyte companies are springing up faster than you can keep count to “take the burden off the shoulders of those poor confused broadcasters.” Yah, Right! They offer services that will occupy nicely fit into the data portion of the station’s DTV signal. Each has a different spin to their approach. Geocast, Akamai and iBlast are just two, to name a few. They are well capitalized and should be around for some time to come. Broadcasters, who were spoken to about these parts of their operation, have mixed feelings. Some will outsource the entire operation, others will intermix with an outsource partner and yet there are a few brave souls who feel they can do it all themselves. This is certainly an asset that should not be given or even bartered away.
Added to all this, some of the entrants into this field of Internet distribution, pose to be a significant factor in diluting the number of eyes and ears that can be delivered, at any given time, to potential advertisers. Isn’t this the prime factor that determines how much a station or network can charge for their time?
Battle of the Titans
Probably the most annoying to some, perceived as impetuous by others, embarrassing to all of us in the United States and downright childish, was the recent spat between two giants; one from the broadcasting and the other from the cable industry. I am speaking of the blackout by Time Warner Cable Company of the American broadcasting Company (ABC) television network’s owned and operated stations carried by this cable service. The blackout left about 3.5 million homes in different markets across the United States without the ABC television network for more than 39 hours.
It's no secret that Time Warner cable and the giant Internet service provider, American online (AOL), are in the midst of a merger. It is also no secret that ABC is owned by the giant entertainment conglomerate known as Disney.
Disney proponents, led by the company's pugnacious Washington lobbyist, Preston Padden, who urged confrontation with Time Warner, have used the ABC blackout as evidence of why the merger would be dangerous. Padden, a panel member at a recent hearing, portrayed AOL-Time Warner as "Microsoft on speed," and called the blocking of ABC's signal "a remarkable display of monopoly power." Michael Eisner, Padden’s boss, sat approving, in the audience. No sensible person would argue that Disney is a defenseless victim. As media companies go, on our side in the Atlantic, Michael Eisner's “Mouse” can be a mighty nasty competitor when it has to be; and even when it doesn't.
Nonetheless, there are those who strongly feel that this blackout situation should serve as a wake-up call for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which share the US government's trust-busting duties, as well as the Federal Communications Commission, whose stewardship of the public airwaves, cable television and telecommunications is rapidly putting it in the position of bouncer at the door of the "new economy."
This skirmish between The Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner Cable does bring to mind the question of whether the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft might be a case of the principal spanking the wrong playground bully.
But what kind of muscle does it take to get the offending party's attention? True, the FCC held Time Warner legally liable for holding consumers hostage in a contract dispute, but it also announced it would fine the company up to $250,000. That's not a punishment; it's not even “chump change” to Time Warner.
This lack of restraint certainly brings up the question about AOL Time Warner playing fair with Internet content providers. This certainly does give light to the possible scenario that one day a subscriber would turn on his or her computer or other Internet appliance to find that large chunks of a web are unavailable because of some dispute or another? You can bet your neck that: A $250,000 fine isn’t going to scare a $150 billion giant into playing fair.
There is one upside to all this. The DTH camps are smiling with glee and hope it happens again, and again. Their numbers only increase when these kinds of things happen. With a total of about 13 million, it will be interesting to see if that escalates as the results of the impropriety.
In Conclusion
Before this is all over, if we continue on the same path, expect to see and hear a great deal of verbiage, both written and vocal, opining from every quarter and some occasional flaming over the US DTV conversion with no better outcome then possibly having to repeat it all over again.
Frankly, it’s tiresome seeing the same old issues and finger pointing coming around again. About the only thing most of us agree on is that the DTV transition is: (a) in trouble; (b) ill launched; and (c) ill defined. It suffers from 20/20 hindsight and a lack of a clear vision of where the digital 'revolution' is headed. We, here in the US, are not alone on this front either.
None of these matters will clear up overnight nor will they be cleared up by changing modulation systems, by the elimination of interlace or any of the other nit picking issues that pelage, not only us here in the US, but throughout the world. Technology is moving at such a rapid pace that it is nearly impossible to manage it. Under no circumstances would I ever want to see it slow down. The world is up to the task, but only if we approach it on a united front. There is a very appropriate saying that comes from US history: “United we stand! Divided we fall.” We will only be successful if the goals are redefined, leaving out a much bias, national pride and hidden agendas and putting in place a plan to reach it. This will take time, perhaps several years to properly complete, but no one else had proffered a more reasonable alternative.
On the flip side of this issue, a great deal of money has been expended to date and the move to DTV cannot stop and wait for the resolution from the standpoints of the marketplace, economic or political concerns. So what do we do? We move ahead expeditiously and diligently to resolve the problems. This does not have to be an all-or-nothing transition. That within itself is nearly an oxymoron.
A fine engineer and associate from Portland, Oregon outlined a few steps that he feels would help ease our situation here in the US. I tend to agree with him and present them as my closing remarks:
The following action steps lead the way to a reasonable conclusion of the concerns most often expressed:
1) Expand the FCC Biennial Review into a full review of DTV including its regulator intended applications and ALL technical parameters. This effort would address the concerns of those on all sides of the issue and provide the forum and time to do so. While this study/review effort is taking place, DO NOT delay the current DTV conversion timetable. Continue with the present 8VSB deployment for both broadcaster and consumer electronics. If a different transmission system is decided upon, provide for a ten-year overlap between the two systems. The overlap, when applied with step two below, would address the concerns of those who are now investing in 8VSB technology and the need to continue the transition while the review is in progress.
2) Pass an 'All-Service Tuner Rule' that would require any terrestrial 'television' reception device (TVs 9-inch or larger, PC Tuner Cards, VCRs, STBs, etc.) to be capable of receiving existing NTSC analog as well as 8VSB transmissions effective March 1, 2001. (Do NOT require any particular display format, etc. It would apply to tuners ONLY and only those used for reception of entertainment services (not pagers or information appliances).) Include language that would require expansion to any future adopted digital modulation system within 18-months of its acceptance by the FCC. This addresses both legacy analog as well as the existing digital system and future-proofs the law. Yes, it may mean future provisions for receiving three systems, but that is the price for keeping the transition moving.
3) Pass a 'Digital Cable Must Carry Rule' that would require cable carriage of a terrestrial digital station effective January 1, 2001 in its transmitted form (be that 8-VSB or any future standard) until five years after the deployment of the first 100,000 cable industry/consumer electronics standard system interfaces through normal commercial distributors. This would address the immediate need for cable reception of digital transmissions and add an imperative for the cable and consumer electronics interests to finish their task of developing compatible systems.
There is enough 'pain' in these three steps for all to endure without being onerous to one alone. It should be shared because everyone has something to gain once each step is completed. Each of the vested interests should not expect to have their own way to the exclusion of others. If we are to step back and re-visit the digital conversion matter. It needs to be done thoughtfully, but without slowing the efforts to date. The transition must continue, but it doesn't need to end at the point originally envisioned.
I'm sure there are those from all the various camps who can, and will, point out the flaws in this scheme, but rather than look for flaws, how about looking for improvements. Only then can we ALL, finally, get something done. Good luck!