John Allen: Leave the broadcasters to their own digital devices

Paul Norris criticised the progress made by free-to-air broadcasters towards introducing digital television, describing the status of development as a "pervasive air of paralysis".

The word "digital" is a much misused term in television. Digital TV is simply a delivery mechanism. An electronic signal is changed to a series of ones and zeroes, compressed and sent via cable, terrestrial transmitter or satellite to a home, where it is decoded and displayed.

The digital TV signal has its advantages and disadvantages. In good coverage, its picture quality is consistent, but in marginal areas the signal disappears where analogue might remain in degraded form.

It is true that digital television could bring a benefit in enhanced picture quality. While it consumes four times the transmission capacity of a standard digital channel, high-definition TV does deliver stunning picture quality. More important, though, and regardless of the transmission methodology, the adage "content is king" will prevail.

Compelling programmes viewed with less-than-desirable reception will always triumph over crystal-clear rubbish.

A similar argument is valid with the proliferation of channels that Mr Norris seems to view as a positive comparative yardstick for technology revolution. More is not necessarily better, and seldom so with TV.

Mr Norris sees interactive television as an attractive proposition. But there is an equally strong view that the ability to interact with advertisements and programmes, while appealing to the technology-hungry minority, remains a solution waiting for a problem for most viewers, who expect and want their TV to be a passive entertainment device. No one will mess with my TV while I'm watching CSI: New York.

Of necessity, broadcasters have taken a cautious approach to digital TV. It is an expensive undertaking in a country that has only 4 million people and an already fragmented television market.

Free-to-air television is a business and needs revenue over costs to survive. If this revenue is not available, the funding of any new technology introduction will be drawn inevitably from budgets set aside for programming, particularly local, because this carries the highest price.

The approach to digital TV, therefore, reflects commercial and social prudence rather than paralysis.

Mr Norris mourns the apparent absence in the market of personal video recorders. I have a readily available DVD recorder at home that will do most of what he requires.

It records much more than his 60 hours of programming and it will effectively allow me to pause a live programme. I'm not sure that I need it to learn my viewing habits.

In delivery platform, Mr Norris unequivocally supports satellite technology and has little regard for terrestrial-based digital TV.

His stance ignores the fact that no transmission platform is invincible. I, for one, have much more comfort with the fact that if my transmitter breaks down, and it is on planet Earth, rather than above it, my engineers can get to it to effect a repair.

A combination of terrestrial and satellite platforms delivers the most effective and robust digital solution.

Terrestrial digital TV has an additional benefit in that it more readily protects the existing regional transmission capabilities of broadcasters without demanding extensive and expensive satellite bandwidth.

The view that a satellite-based platform would provide close to 100 per cent coverage of New Zealand is a theoretical and perhaps simplistic one that overlooks a number of present and future applications for television.

The signal from a satellite is directional. The receiving dish, if moved to quite modest degrees, will lose its reception.

It will never work on your average boat or in any mobile environment. Reception in apartment buildings via an internally mounted device such as rabbit's ears is not possible.

In addition, developing formats such as DVB-H that allow direct TV transmission to hand-held devices such as phones will require terrestrial transmission.

These are but some of the justifications for maintaining some significant terrestrial transmission capability.

So putting aside its ownership of a television company, on the one hand, and a transmission company (BCL), on the other, what should be the role of the state in this complex issue of digital television?

The broadcasting market has become one on the most deregulated in the world. Given this, the Government, while supportive of the introduction of digital TV, has taken the right approach in leaving the development of the television business to those who understand the issues and drivers involved - the broadcasters.

The broadcasters are best equipped to determine how and when digital TV can happen. The Government has an imperative role in providing spectrum to see the television industry through the expensive analogue/digital simulcasting period. Without this concession, free-to-air digital TV is unlikely to get off the ground.

New Zealand will have free-to-air digital TV and careful progress is being made towards its introduction.

A considered approach allows us to learn from the many mistakes of other countries, and will allow the development of an accessible and quality service with no compromise to programme content.

If this is evolution, rather than revolution, so be it.

* John Allen is the director of operations and engineering at CanWest TVWorks.