Greed might accomplish what common sense couldn’t. An audacious attempt to circumvent the will of Congress will probably have as one of its offshoots a delay in the transition to digital and high definition television (HDTV) beyond the 2006 target date.

When broadcasters pleaded for the additional spectrum needed for the transition from analog television to digital, they promised it would be used to provide high definition television (HDTV) pictures with the clarity of a theater screen. Almost as soon as Congress granted the additional spectrum space, which could be sold to other businesses for billions, the broadcasting industry began to hedge its intentions.

The one and the many

Digital TV has an additional potential beyond HDTV. It also can be used to split signals. Where there is now one channel, there could be four. For example, Channel 4 could continue to carry CBS shows while simultaneously transmitting a news network, a home shopping operation and a pay-per-view movie channel.

Executives at ABC and one of the nation’s largest station groups made the mistake of dropping hints publicly that this is the direction their companies are leaning. While they were the only ones to speak out publicly, it became clear that this was the industry thinking. The equipment necessary to transmit high definition pictures is going to have a hefty price tag without creating any apparent new revenue. Commercials won’t cost more just because they are sharper. But quadrupling the number of channels a broadcaster controls has all sorts of profit potential, including pay-per-view.

Many in Congress were outraged at the seeming change of heart, as they should have been. The whole idea of giving away spectrum was to accelerate progress to the next generation of TV, not to further enrich broadcasters, who already have a sweet deal. They pay nothing for the spectrum space that nets them billions.

‘What we meant was…’

The executives who spoke out quickly backtracked and said they were misunderstood, that they were merely suggesting possibilities. However, they did not rule out using the extra spectrum for at least part of the day for purposes other than HDTV. Congress has vowed that if this happens, there will be a price. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said, “If broadcasters use their new spectrum for anything other than HDTV, there must be a quid pro quo.”

The uncertainty is sure to inhibit the sale of high definition sets, which are due to go on the market next year. People are not going to pay in excess of $5,000 per set if there isn’t plenty of programming to make it worthwhile. In a Catch-22 situation, broadcasters are saying that they can’t be expected to spend the millions to transmit HDTV if there aren’t sufficient sets to receive it.

The situation has become so muddled that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) recently told a congressional hearing, “I don’t think we’re going to get HDTV for the lifetime of the people in this room.”

To many consumers, this represents good news. It means the TVs in 99 percent of American homes will not become useless in less than a decade. Once digital TV becomes the standard, analog models will be unable to pick up the new signal, unless equipped with a converter box, which is expected to cost about $200. In other words, Americans will be forced to pay about as much for a converter as they did for their set just to get back to where they are now.

It has been estimated that the switch from analog to digital TV will cost Americans $150 billion. This doesn’t include VCRs and videotapes, which also will become obsolete under the new system.

However, resisting HDTV entirely is as shortsighted as those who saw no need for color TV. HDTV represents progress; it’s coming and it should. Only the accelerated rollout was foolhardy.