In the old days, "frequency modulated" television signals went out over giant antennas, transmitting sound and black-and-white images to other big antennas on top of people's houses, where they gathered almost worshipfully to watch "The Ed Sullivan Show" and other weekly live broadcasts. Barely fifty years later, a simple search for references to the phrase "television broadcast technologies" returns no easy answers. In order to understand how the words and pictures spread through our speakers and onto our screens, we now must take advanced courses in electronic engineering and information science. Just learning all the buttons on the remote control requires an all-day seminar with fat binders and lavishly illustrated PowerPoints. Most worrisome of all, as new television broadcast technologies drive new and improved screens and receivers into the big box stores, we have trouble making well-informed choices about our entertainment investments.
Difficult choices between service providers
In most major cities, consumers must choose between broadband and satellite "service providers." In other words, consumers must choose-or flip a coin-between television broadcast technologies that either deliver digital signals via fiber-optic cable or via transmissions from space. As we watched "Flash Gordon" our eight inch black and white screens, we easily could imagine alien invasions, but we never would have imagined wall-sized images and surround sound sent down from space; we hadn't even heard of "Sputnik." Given our barbaric beginnings, how can we possibly decide between cable and satellite?
Between the two television broadcast technologies, a classic stand-off develops. Satellite consistently has a price advantage, but cable has the advantage in features and reliability. Both television broadcast technologies allow us to "bundle" our services, so that we get telephone, television, and internet signals from a common source; and once the signals have entered our homes, we can transmit them wirelessly to every room. Many wise consumers, recognizing innovators in television broadcast technology focus more and more of their attention on delivering content via the worldwide web, eschew both telephone and television service, doing all their viewing and communicating on their computers. Whereas the decision to cut services by two-thirds makes a great deal of economic sense, it still begs the question about which of the two television broadcast technologies will prove best over the long haul.
What about internet-television "convergence"?
Given the stand-off between television broadcast technologies, how does a well-intentioned, generous provider decide between a new 3D-HDTV or a new computer with a monster monitor? Wanting nothing but the best for her family, and knowing that she will spend approximately $1000 for "the best" no matter which hardware she chooses, how does our generous provider make her decision? Danielle Cox, media analyst at Patterson-Forbes Partners, offers only cold comfort: "The plain fact is that it is just too soon to choose and buy," she says. "Until we know which platform and delivery system will work best for convergence of television and the internet, you should simply rest content with what you have." Cox adds, "A year from now, you will know."
