As Seen From This Part Of The World

If there’s one “guarantee” that touches every facet of everyone’s life, irrespective of geography, political condition or science, that’s change. There’s little question that television, on both sides of the Atlantic, is in a complete state of flux. The transition to digital is making many marvelous improvements in the quality of service (QoS) as digital becomes available to the viewing audiences, while, at the same time, it has taken its toll. Notice that QoS is noted and not pictures sound or the many aspects of data transmission. Although every basic aspect of how digital television works is present in the systems on both sides of our watery barrier, the similarity seems to rapidly vanish with any deeper look.

Since there are fundamental differences in the way broadcasting is licensed and supported globally, it would take more space than is permitted here to address each, so this report will be limited to the way things are done here in America, with a light explanation from your humble servant’s prospective, about the various issues. Please keep in mind that commercial broadcasting in the US is a federally regulated competitive business supported by advertisers or sponsors.

The President of the United States appoints a five-member panel to head up the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), each serving a term of five years, except when filling an unexpired term. The US Senate confirms each appointee. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson and only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. This is the crew that administers the laws governing broadcast stations.

The laws the FCC administers are generated in one of the two houses of Congress and must be passed by both, then signed into law by the President. The chairpersons who run the committees where the laws are generated pretty much run the show on legislative issues. The position of chairperson is determined by whichever political party has the majority of seats in that particular house. Currently the Republicans (concretive) hold the majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats (liberal) in the Senate. With respect to the Senate, the year didn’t start out that way.

The recent political balance in the US Senate was so precariously critical that when just one US Senator decided to disassociate his political allegiances, it swung the balance of power in the senate from the conservative Republicans to the liberal Democratic Party and chairmanships of virtually all senatorial committees changed hands in one day, along with what can be expected from that house of Congress. This shift is very significant, as it will impact nearly every aspect of broadcasting here in the US. Let’s look at some of the issues and how they will stand up to this change.

Currently no one entity may own licenses to television stations when the total viewing audience of those combined stations reach more then 35 percent of the American viewing public. This ownership cap is currently under heated debate and certain special interest groups are working feverishly to get this cap either raised or removed altogether. Three of the four major television networks, Fox CBS and NBC dropped membership in the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) over NAB’s stand to maintain the status quo on ownership caps. There was a ray of hope for the cap to be raised under the old guard, but it is unlikely under the current leadership.

In a related issue, the FCC is proceeding to revamp cable TV ownership limits in the wake of an appeals court ruling against the current 30 percent cap. FCC Chairman Michael Powell (son of US Secretary of State Colin Powell) declined to put a time frame on an up-coming alternative formula, but indicated the FCC would act on it within the year. "I certainly never like any suggestion that it will be longer than the year I'm operating in," Powell is reported to have said. Powell noted that the appeals court ruling was made with a bias toward encouraging competition instead of diversity.

Currently owners of television stations cannot own newspapers that are collocated serving a common market. That has not always been the case. This issue of newspaper-broadcast “cross ownership” is also a very hot topic and has a very strong lobby in Washington. Cross ownership once might have had a chance, but it is nearly a dead issue now.

Another issue up for deregulation is the limits put on local phone companies who wish to branch out into and offer broadband communications services. Telco’s expanding into broadband service might have gotten off the ground, but this also is nearly a dead issue.

The issue of violence on television has always been a moral issue that raises its head every so often. Politicians have an inept aptitude for trying to legislate morality by telling broadcasters what they can or cannot air. Both political parties think violence on TV is bad, but each approaches the issue very differently. The conservatives would do away with it completely; the liberals would move it to a different time slot.

The political escapades in Washington will most assuredly have an impact on broadcasters in their transition to digital. As the May 2002 date for all 1,288 commercial TV stations to have their digital equipment up, running and on the air draws rapidly near, the situation looks bleak. As of May 15^th, less than 16 percent have accomplished the feat. Simple math says that an average of four stations per day have to make the move for all to reach the deadline on time. A key member of the US House of Representatives and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Billy Tauzin (R-LA), saw this problem raising months ago when he said it’s a “damn certainty” broadcasters will miss the deadline.

About 17% of public television licensees (31 out of 177) are equipped for DTV. Of course, given that there are 375 public-television stations, that percentage is somewhat lower. These non-commercial public television stations have until May 2003 to get with the program, so to speak.

The old guard would have held broadcasters to a tight transition schedule. That may well be eased under the new leadership. Sources say that this might include a push for a variety of digital content as one approach to acting more in the public interest. To add to this equation, there’s been a sixty percent change in the top echelon at the FCC, adding more spice to an already eclectic stew. Needless to say, whoever holds the gavel holds the near fate of these issues in his hands.

It’s probably a good time to look back to see the “why and how” of all this push to digital television. It is believed to have started when users of the land-mobile radio services, private and public two-way radio operators, were looking for additional spectrum. It appeared to them that television was not making full use of what was allocated to them and the push was on. The television responded by saying that they wanted to offer the public better quality pictures, such as High Definition and that would require the remainder of their spectrum to accomplish. Concurrent with this epiphany on HDTV was the development of digital technology that could handle not only the legacy standard definition but this new HDTV as well.

About this same time, American voters told their elected representatives that they were fed up with governmental over-spending. A “balanced budget act” was passed into law, but this then put these same lawmakers in a position where they had to find a “fat cow” or a goose that could lay them some golden eggs so they could pay for the government without substantially raising taxes.

Hours of backroom negotiations developed a plan that would help out both broadcasters, find the money to make congress happy and give the American public something they didn’t now that they needed; digital television. The way it worked out is that congress gave all television stations a second channel and a time frame in which each station had to have a digital plant up and on the air – May 2002 for commercial stations and May 2003 for non-commercial stations.

So that the public would have time to buy the necessary equipment to receive this new technology, dual operation would continue until May 2006, at which time each station had to give up one of its two channel allocations, remaining on the air strictly with their new digital equipment. The freed up channels could then be auctioned off to the highest bidder, thus filling the federal coffers with money to balance the budget.

The net result of all this: everyone spends money – broadcasters on new digital transmitter systems and the public on ways to receive the new signals. What Washington may not take into account is the number of very concretive, financially limited people who will suffer in all this transition business. US senators are elected for six-year terms and the members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms. Granted there are some of those members of congress who’ve been put back in Washington multiple times by their constituents, but those congressional careers could come to an abrupt halt if and when the electorate found that it was these folks who were messing with their TV. We’re no different over here than anywhere else on this planet. It seems that all societies suffer from a huge surplus of ignorance and an over-supply of unrealistic outlook. Paraphrasing a well know saying, there’s no scorn like voters scorn when he or she feels they’ve been messed with.

The original US UHF television band ran from Channel 14 (470 MHz) through 82 in 6 MHz intervals. Everything above channel 69 has long been given up for other types of service. Despite some stations being assigned to DTV channels above 52, it is intended that that spectrum also be given up for other than television services as well and when the transition is completed the highest channel number will be 52.

Despite the congressional avarice for the money expected from the auction of spectrum, the “forced” move from Channels 52-59 prior to the end of the DTV migration period is being vociferously opposed by both NAB, who thinks any broadcaster moves from that band must be voluntary and America's Public Television Stations (APTS), who support the idea that broadcasters can stay put through the end of the DTV-transition period, continues to be making quit a clamor. Should we see any muscle, you can bet it will get quite ugly for all concerned, but then as one observe says: “No surprises here.”

Some television interests are pushing the FCC to act on "long-standing applications" for stations in the 52-59-channel band. These apps were filed before a 1996 deadline. One cannot but wonder what’s up with Washington. If they are not going to grant the apps on those channels, at least say so, so these folks can get on with the business of asking for other frequencies or abandon the quest, which is not likely. Like government entities nearly anywhere on this planet, things move much slower than we’d like. From a positive point, it takes longer for them to make the same big mistakes.

The 8-VSB/COFDM debacle continues to be a point of debate despite the FCC ruling that 8-VSB will unequivocally be the US standard. With an attitude on both sides comparable to the religious inquisition in Europe several centuries ago, this is a subject that seemingly will never be put to rest. With both methodologies having had time to be tested in the “real” environment, the field, certain realities have evolved: COFDM works quite well and much better in close, smaller delivery areas, especially where conditions for moderate to sever mulitpath (reflections) and in a mobile environment; 8-VSB has proven to work better for large, or over longer areas of delivery. There’s no question that the financial interests of the respective patent holders have guided some of the impetus to all the modulation issues.

The US is divided up into 210 markets. Each market has anywhere from several dozen different television stations to only one. The larges is New York City where broadcasters reach a potential of 6,935,610 TV homes, which is 6.78 percent of the total US viewing audience; the smallest is Glendive, Montana, which has only 4,889 TV homes representing 0.005 percent of the 102,184,810 US Viewers. That figures out to about one TV home for every two people in the US. One could say we take our TV viewing seriously.

With the ever-advancing technology, it is very difficult for any of us to stay up with it. It is important to take advantage of every opportunity to learn. Attending such functions as the IBC and the American counter part, NAB are essential to this end. A number of manufacturers put on seminars on the technology their equipment supports. It is important to see that not only the upper echelon of technical management who make the decision attend, but the grassroots working types that employ the technology on a daily bases should also be included.

It is only common sense to send representatives to these kind of shindigs. With a significant number of manufacturers and service providers known to the broadcast industry present and strutting their latest this or that, it is foolhardy not to go see what they are up to and to learn, learn, learn. There is no conceivable way to get the depth of exposure and education from any number of magazines, brochures or visits by sales representatives. In many instances attendees had the opportunity to speak directly with the individuals who conceived, designed, put together and offer support for their particular “whatever.” It seems to be just plain stupid not to include this event in the annual budget for at least one or two of a station’s leading engineering managers. Even non-technical types can benefit from these shows.

For over 50 years, we’ve been the recipients of analog TV using such formats as NTSC, PAL, and SECAM. With digital technology coming into vogue the RF spectrum offers many more services than have been possible before and in the same space, while offering significantly improved QoS when it come to watching television. Engineers need to know how to guide their non-technical, content creators in how to utilize their newly developed tools of the trade.

There have been a number of studies and reports that have focused on the migration from analog to digital television and some of the quagmire the standards are suffering through during this evolution. Particularly important are the organizations involved as well as the technical specifications being endorsed by the participants, willing and/or unwilling.

Some of these reports profile as many as 25 countries and looks at how far along they are in their rollout of terrestrial services, as well as how receptive they are to terrestrial services. It’s a known fact that some countries have a very weak cable infrastructure and very little direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, suggesting they might be primed for a swift uptake of digital terrestrial television.

Other studies discuss many of the issues that have accelerated, or delayed, the rollout of DTV services around the world. Viewer numbers, equipment shipments and equipment revenues – both from the digital tuners as well as the TV displays - are forecasted across multiple platforms (i.e. satellite, cable and terrestrial) and many worldwide markets.

The one thing blatantly obvious, by its absence in most of these studies, is the political aspects and who is pulling what strings. Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing! These reports are worthless until they get to the bottom of the problem by naming names, stating cases completely, presenting all the facts and calling a spade a spade.

At the risk of being repetitious, the world is too small to have multiple standards for a world embracing technology such as television. Until political agendas are scuttled in favor of technical excellence, keeping in mind the constant change and improvement within the technology, we can never hope for success in our endeavors or efforts. Now that I have your attention, let’s proceed.

If there ever was a time for engineers to shine, it is now. Until recently, engineers and technicians have been relegated to the ranks of a necessary evil, but that’s all changing. The folks in the ivory towers and the bean counters would fall flat on their faces in this world of new and evolving technology if it weren’t for good, qualified engineers to rely on.

On the other side of the coin, it is the engineers and technicians responsibility to keep abreast of the latest in the technical exigencies that are shaping the television industry. If they don’t someone else will step in and do the job.

Everyone should wish to strive for technical excellence in all that they do or encounter and politics be damned! That’s not always easy as some of the positions one finds that they must take are not always the ones that are particularly comfortable.

It is important to also keep an eye on the emerging digital cinema industry. There are a very large number of motion pictures that utilize television-based technology in their production and implementation of their special effects. Watching the technological developments in this burgeoning industry has been, and will continue to be, a win-win situation for all concerned and if nothing else simply makes good common business sense.

The distribution of motion pictures, electronically, makes even more sense than the current methodology. The savings in distribution costs alone would give the bankrollers in the movie business a significantly greater return on their investment. Satellites already exist that would serve as the initial backbone of such a distribution system and as fiber optic cable becomes more readily available, that might supplant the satellite usage. Remember: this is digital and does not have to use real-time distribution. By sending these large digital files to servers in local theatres at very slow bit rates, who cares how long it takes to deliver a movie, (8, 10 or even more hours) as long as all of it arrives in time and is ready to go up on the screen in real time?

The biggest bugaboo with the digital cinema industry is the replacement of the legacy projection equipment. As the cost of display devices capable of putting pictures up on the big screen come down, it will become more affordable all the way around.

Unfortunately it is difficult to separate the political diatribe from the engineering issues. For example, there is an ongoing quagmire relating to digital cinema. It would appear that Hollywood has lost sight of the technical exigencies with respect to the evolution of its industry and have let itself get bogged down in political folderol. Copyright issues have so muddied the waters that who knows what it will take to breakup the logjam.

Encryption devices abound, but every time a new encryption scheme comes on the market, it’s like throwing the gauntlet down to the digital techno-geeks of the world and sometimes within six months or so, these basement savants come up with a way of cracking the whiz-bang scrambling technique. Their success, for very understandable reasons, don’t get much press. Encryption is somewhat akin to a pad lock; it doesn’t keep everyone out, but it does tend to keep the honest people honest. When Hollywood producers are satisfied that a reasonable level of on-going security is in place, the digital cinema and television industries might see an easing of this paranoia.

As an interesting side note, according to a report from Kodak that appeared in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers Journal, motion picture film is comparable to about 12 million pixels per frame. Most release prints, however, are more in the range of today’s high definition television (about 2 million pixels per frame). The electronic projectors being used today don’t even do that, but those who have been to a digital cinema showing usually walk away amazed at the clarity and lack of judder up there on the giant screen.

Perhaps it is a situation of supply and demand, at this stage of development in digital cinema. It appears that the motion picture industry wants to stay at this QoS for the time being. One organization, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), even suggest taking over the technology developed for digital high definition television and has instigated a move that would require broadcasters to degrade their pictures to discourage consumers from recording them and the possible illegal distribution. One would certainly think that this multi-billion dollar industry would look past the quality of today’s HDTV and give theatregoers a superior presentation. There isn’t a person alive in Hollywood, worth his salt, who doesn’t know that 35mm motion picture film is capable of resolution many times that of HDTV The only answer to this muscling in on broadcast technology received to date, is: “it’s a matter of economics and it’s available.”

We’ve talked about satellite and fiber distribution. There is nothing to keep the newer digital video disk (DVD) technology from being used either. One company is experimenting with multilayer DVDs that can hold up to 180 hours of standard definition television on them. They have achieved repeatable successes at intermediate levels of storage far beyond today’s consumer DVDs. Because it is digital, it can be displayed in nearly any format the industry can come up with including HDTV. The new DVD technology could well find a place in the broadcast television industry. Think of delivering an entire season of programs on a single dist.

According to several studies made comparing the proclivities of viewing audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, it would appear the tastes, when it comes to set sizes for home viewing, are very different. Sales reports tend to back these studies in that US viewers have a tendency toward larger displays than their European counterparts. This could account for the heavier emphasis on large screen and high definition in the US.

Not all networks are on the push for HDTV. CBS continues to lead the way in HDTV production, with 17 of its 18 prime time dramas and comedies currently produced in the format (approx. 12 to 14 hours). This season has also produced a number of high-profile sports events in HDTV with additional HDTV telecasts of college football games this fall. None of the other networks come even close to this figure, training with five to six hours a week. Daytime television is serious business with housewives and soap operas (Novellas). CBS started shooting its top-rated daytime soap, Young and the Restless, in HDTV this summer. It will be the first daytime series produced in HDTV. Several stations have converted over completely to in-studio HDTV programming.

One barometer of where the home TV set market is going are the reports furnished by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) who boast membership of more than 650 companies within the U.S. consumer technology industry, many of whom manufacture television sets. CEA says that manufacturers have shipped several hundred thousand digital and HDTV sets to stores. We should be asking; how many have consumers bought? All one needs to do is compare the recent numbers of analog NTSC TV set sales with those of the digital genera over any reasonable period of time and the numbers are very telling. CEA does say that consumer dollar investment in DTV is projected to reach nearly $5 billion (5.82 Euros) by the end of this year, projecting sales of DTV sets and displays to continue their rapid growth in the coming years, with unit sales of 1.1 million this year, 2.1 million in 2002, 4 million in 2003, 5.4 million in 2004, 8 million in 2005 and 10.5 million in 2006

It appears that American set buyers are unwilling to spend much more than about $2000 (approx. 2,323 Euros) for a TV set, no matter how big or nice it is. There is, however, a very distinct ray of hope. Some rather interesting devices were present at this spring’s Society for Information Display (SID) convention in San Jose, California. Many of these cutting edge display devices can and will help to bring the price down in the not too distant future. Entrants from all three major categories: transmissive, reflective and emissive were there for consideration. It is interesting to note that cathode ray tube or kinescope displays were conspicuous by their near absence. It is perceived that CRT technology has peaked out.

The transmissive display, for example, is a device that modulates a light source similar to the displays used on today’s laptop computers. The reflective display device uses a mirrored surface that reflects light out to the viewer similar to the digital micro-mirror device (DMD) and the emissive display is a flat panel display that uses electrical excitation of chemicals, such as the organic light emitting diode (OLED).

One display that caught a great deal of attention was shown by IBM. “Bertha,” as IBM called it, has an extremely high pixel density [204 pixels per inch (approx. 80 pixels per centimeter)] - and a pixel count of 3840x2400, which works out to a display of about 9,216,000 pixels. In other words, Bertha has about twice the linear pixel density (204 ppi) of typical displays in the marketplace today (approx. 100 ppi or 39 ppcm) or 4 times the area density. This equates to slightly more than four complete HDTV pictures, each with its 1920 X 1080 pixels, all on one screen, plus room for a Taskbar at the top or bottom, at the same time.

The 16 X 10 monitor measured only 22 inches (55.88 cm) diagonally. To make this even more remarkable, IBM provided attendees with a magnifying glass and it was still nearly impossible to see the individual pixels up close. The math says Bertha is 12 times sharper than anything else out there today and the eyes agree.

I’m in favor of technological advancement. Digital and HDTV are really great. When the consumer perceives a need, they’ll beat the doors down to get one of the new fangled devices, what ever it is. The marketing techniques of yesterday just don’t work today. Anyone with an eye and or ear to the nightly news can tell that society, like the old gray mare, just ain’t what it used to be.

It is interesting to note that one of the keynote speakers, Claude Leglise, Intel, during SID2001, said there is an extreme need for high resolution displays in the near future. We have the high quality material; now we need to be able to see it. We need monitors that are able to display all of what the capture, acquisition or generating devices, currently on the market, are capable of producing. We also must make the display device universal; capable of TV viewing and computer monitoring. And to do that, it has to be a high-resolution device.

It is important to keep apprised of illegal activities and the extent to which we sometimes must go to thwart these dastardly deeds. Pirating, without question is near to the top of the list. This one issue has stymied the release of quality entertainment across the board. Although closed loop transmission methods such as fiber and point-to-point microwave are effective, they are not immune. Of course the biggest areas of concern are those techniques of distribution that make signal available to wide areas of reception; satellite delivery for instance.

Theft of these kinds of signals continues to plague the direct-to-home (DTH) industry. In its continuing efforts to stop satellite television piracy, DirecTV announced it filed a federal lawsuit against 80 individuals whom it believes trafficked illegal signal theft equipment imported from Canada for sale in the U.S.

It is alleged that these 80 defendants acted as dealers, buying programming devices and selling the hacked access cards. The imported pirate technology enabled those who purchased the pirate devices to unscramble and view DirecTV programming without legal authorization. In addition to a sizable multimillion-dollar financial judgment against an international satellite piracy ring, DirecTV continues to disable illegally modified cards through electronic countermeasures.

"We take piracy seriously, it is a serious crime and we are becoming much more aggressive in pursuing these individuals who engage in this activity. We are going after them through the courts, both civilly and criminally. And of course, we have also stepped up our electronic countermeasure activity," a DirecTV spokesperson said.

No doubt the news of the failed “dot coms” is a high profile item in the financial news around the glob. We have had quite a few years of prosperity, but the handwriting is on the wall. As more groups buy up more broadcast property, consolidation becomes the name of the game. One network bought several stations through out the southern part of the US. The operations of all were centered in Miami, Florida. The General Manager of one of the “stripped” station is reported to have commented on how wonderful it was to cut back and save. When corporate finally gets around to deciding that his job can be done out of Miami too, odds are that he’ll be singing a much different tune.

An associate recently said: “The TV engineering profession seems to be a difficult one; it's sad to read. The bean counters can, and probably will, destroy a good part of our society if left unchecked. Greed has become the only thing that matters.”

“Already, there's a nursing shortage,” he said concluding, “because bean counters made working life so awful for them that they reluctantly left the profession.” Things are not that much different in the broadcast profession. Engineers are needed more today, with the transition to digital, than ever before, but, yet, we see staff reductions the order of the day in many venues.

It appears that the economy is headed for the Mariana’s Trench. It doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to figure out that if the money for a broadcast facility to make the transition to digital isn’t there, all the deadlines set by the FCC and or Congress are akin to a paper tiger.

It’s going to be a real challenge to come up with the bucks. As a Chief Engineer in Great Falls, MT once told me, “an $800,000 (approx. 929,044 Euros) transmitter cost the same in New York as it does here in Montana, but the guy in New York can afford it a darn site better than I can.”

If one would take the time to compare video on the Internet today with what it was only a year ago, it would be obvious that there have been significant improvements. The small, jerky postage size pictures are giving way to larger, smoother presentations. As the QoS in this arena improves it will begin to pose a serious competitor to DTH, cable and terrestrial television as we know it today. Many broadcasters have web sites and stream local programming on a regular basis. Were if not for copyright issues, most would probably stream their entire broadcast day.

When considering the viability of a technology targeted at consumers, it is useful to consider the alternatives in which the consumer can invest. According to some recent surveys, it would appear that consumers are finding an investment in a high speed Internet connection a bit more palatable than Digital TV. To be exact, about 119,000 U.S homes are adding high speed Internet access per week, the majority via cable modems. Access to cable modems range about $32 (about 37 Euros) per month to get this service (plus $10/mo (approx. 11.60 Euros) rental for the cable modem; or outright purchase for $299 (approx. 347 Euros). To get this rate, they must be a cable subscriber.

The big questions: “What is it about broadband that is causing MORE people every week to make this kind of financial commitment, than have committed to DTV in more than 2 years? Come up with the answer and you’ll need a wheelbarrow to deposit your income.

And finally, telephone companies here in the US are largely privately owned government-sanctioned monopolies. Despite many improvements in transmission capabilities between the central offices, it is only recently that the Telcos are getting the capability of extending any kind of broadband into neighborhoods. The key stumbling block has been what is referred to as “the last mile.” Unshielded twisted copper cable pairs are anything but friendly to digital signals. Only recently have several manufacturers, in concert with a local telephone company, demonstrated they could send 26 megabits/sec over these copper wires for a distance of up to 4,000 ft. (1219.2 meters). With all that legacy copper out there, this might put the local phone company in the position of being direct competitors with the cable operators.

Many see a device called a “gateway” become the central point for all communications services in a residence or office. This gateway device will replace the cacophony of pesky set top boxes which have been competing feverously for the most valuable bit of real estate in the home: the top of the TV set. Who ever controls the gateways in their area, controls literally everything form phone service, data transmission, television and much more.

From this vantage point, it appears that the broadcast industry is on a voyage similar to those of Columbus and Magellan. The difference being, Columbus and Magellan didn’t have bean counters and guys in ivory towers, which don’t have a clue, telling them what to do with every turn of events. Columbus and Magellan were the engineers of their day, playing their rolls to the fullest, unencumbered. When will our industry let the engineers do their jobs – unencumbered?

We’ve used the term “high definition television” quite a bit lately, but surprisingly, it isn’t a new term. It can be traced back at least as far as 1932. Thanks to the Library of Congress, it can be traced back even further to 1930 (J. H. Owen Harries, "Some Developments in Television based on Quantitative Analysis," manuscript received by the Television Society, 1930 July 31). The paper suggests that one might be able to trace the term back to 1929. Standard-definition at the time was 30 lines.

Another term that goes back to the mid-1920s is the abbreviation "TV," which may have been first seen in the call sign -- G2TV -- assigned to John Logie Baird for his experimental 30-line transmissions.

With all the development of miniaturized television receivers, perhaps bigger isn’t better and someone might even get the idea of interactive wrist-sized devices with servers built in for delaying their favorite TV programs. Interactive offerings seem to be catching on. It is becoming more and more frequent that one icon or another appears inviting the viewer to take some additional action for more information on the show’s subject matter or directing them to more information about the sponsors product or services. None the less, this whole issue of miniaturization raises several questions, mostly rhetorical: “Will these new devices be 8VSB or COFDM?” and will this bring a whole new meaning to the term: “winding up a broadcast?”