• by Mitch Oscar , Op-Ed Contributor, April 17, 2007

In the mid-'90s, when the FCC was publicly discussing the termination of analog broadcast transmissions -- sometime in the first decade of the 21st century -- and allocating digital spectrum to TV stations, I thought the promise of the digital terrestrial value proposition was terrific. Each broadcast station could convert its analog spectrum into four digital channels depending upon the depth of picture quality -- and licensing fees would still remain significantly disproportionate to the amount of money that the broadcasters generated from advertising sales. In theory, it would create great opportunities for the broadcasters to compete in the multchannel/burgeoning broadband universe -- kind of level the playing field more evenly -- and the consumer would certainly benefit from the richness and diversity of the offerings.

I wondered what the different programming and service configurations might be: a traditional broadcast network based on the analog model, a high-speed Internet service provider, a time-shifted/library subscription, gaming pay per play, a broadband video syndication platform, a multitasking mobile video/audio/data network. Lots of possibilities. Then there was the viewing experience to think of: the 480 interlace/progressive (digital) picture that was more crisp than 520 analog -- though in my mind, numerically impossible; the crystalline high-definition 720 P or I; and the brilliant high, high definition 1080 P or I.

Last week Broadcasting & Cable's John Eggerton conducted an interview (in Q&A format) with FCC chairman Kevin Martin about some of the unresolved stuff -- make that lots of unresolved stuff -- on his plate that has gotten the goat of the government -- i.e., Democrats.

Question: How do you plan to resolve the debate over new rules forcing cable operators to carry broadcasters' digital channels?

KM: "I continue to think that finding a way to help broadcasters take full advantage of their digital capabilities is important and the right policy. And I think that the commission trying to put in rules that would allow broadcasters to take advantage of that technology by putting out multiple streams of programming that would help enable them to serve their communities by giving their viewers access to multiple channels."

I thought his response sidestepped the question. But then again, he's a Republican. Yes, there is an issue with whether the cablers should be forced to carry all of the broadcaster's digital channels -- a question that certainly needs to be explored. But then it occurred to me that there was a greater issue to vivisect before addressing this carriage issue: the wonderful programming that the broadcasters plan to disseminate over their very inexpensively licensed digital terrestrial channels. You know "that would help enable them to serve their communities by giving their viewers access to multiple channels."

Based upon my scouring of the U.S. media landscape, the following are some of the services that the broadcasters -- stations, stations groups and networks -- have launched to serve their communities:

NBC's NBC Weather Plus channel

Tribune TV station group called The Tube Music Network

ABC-owned and -operated TV stations carrying the Local AccuWeather

WNBC 4.4 initiative, which is comprised of repurposed WNBC and NBC content

CBS.2 venture to provide repurposed and extra featured entertainment fare for CBS O&Os

Who's zooming whom?