July 28, 1995




SEPARATE STATEMENT
               OF
               COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS
     

Re:  Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing
       Television Broadcast Service (MM Docket No. 87-268)


     Today we begin a crucial phase of our proceeding on advanced television (ATV). 
Our attention centers on the ramifications of permitting broadcasters to employ digital
advanced television technology.  I believe it essential that broadcasters have the ability to
compete in the increasingly crowded digital multimedia marketplace.  

     The video world has changed dramatically since the black-and-white NTSC standard
was adopted in 1941 and modified for color in 1953.  The broadcasters saw these changes
coming when they petitioned to initiate this proceeding in 1987.  They were right that the
world was changing.  The surprise is in how substantial those changes are.

     Today, cable delivers a multitude of channels, both broadcast and exclusively cable
programming, to two-thirds of US households.  Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) has
trailblazed with its superior quality digital picture.  Wireless cable is planning to convert to
digital transmission.  Local multipoint distribution service (LMDS) and video dialtone (VDT)
promise to become additional providers of innovative programming services. (There are even
experiments using the Internet as a program delivery medium.)  Each of these systems has
the potential also to offer high definition television with its significantly enhanced picture and
compact disk-quality sound.

     Competitors to broadcasting can move into the digital multichannel world -- and offer
HDTV -- without FCC action.  For broadcasters to remain competitive, however, the FCC
must act to provide them with the tools to compete.  The necessary tools include temporary
additional spectrum to enable digital conversion while continuing to serve the analog
community; a market-responsive conversion schedule; a digital transmission standard that can
dynamically deliver both HDTV and multiple streams of standard definition programming (or
some form of future programming that may or may not resemble interactive media); and
reasonable flexibility in product offerings to generate additional revenue to pay for the cost
of digital and HDTV conversion.  Today, and in upcoming proceedings, we propose such
tools.

     For the American public, this new technology holds the promise of substantially more
and, I hope, better quality programming.  Broadcasting is the only video delivery system that
is offered free of charge, universally available and, therefore, accessible to all, young or old,
rich or poor.  Advanced television assures the future viability of free over-the-air television.  

     The American public also will continue to benefit from the public interest obligations
required of broadcasters by law.  These mandates include airing educational and
informational children's programming, making time available for political debate, and
preventing the broadcast of indecent or obscene programming.  In return, broadcasters are
not charged for use of the public's airwaves.  With multiple channels and vastly improved
quality through digitization, broadcasters will have ample resources to better fulfill these
public obligations.  The Commission and the public should demand no less.

     In addition to new service offerings, the American public will gain a significant
amount of valuable spectrum for other uses.  That spectrum will be reclaimed from the
broadcasters in the next decade without cost to the taxpayer.  Our proposal requires existing
broadcasters to return their original channels once conversion to digital transmission is
substantially completed.  The obligation to return their original spectrum after a reasonable
transition period is the underpinning of this proceeding, justifying the decision to allow
incumbent broadcasters temporary access to an additional channel for the transition.  If the
obligation to return that channel is not carved in stone, the public interest in providing the
tools for conversion to digital is seriously undermined.

     For broadcasters, the cost of the transition to ATV is considerable.  During the
temporary transition period, they will have to run two separate stations, one digital and one
analog.  They will have to replace much of their studio equipment and obtain a new
transmitter and antenna.  

     The cost to the American consumer is also considerable.  For the first time, advances
in television transmission will not be backward compatible.  Our old TV sets won't receive
the new signals.  Consumers eventually will need to buy new television sets or decoder boxes
or rent such equipment.  If this is to succeed, consumers must be able to see the benefits of
conversion; it will not be free.  For both the broadcaster and the consumer, we seek a
transition procedure couched in market realities, yet sensitive to the needs of the consumer.

     There is no template for dealing with flexible spectrum use in a digital world.  Nor is
there a template for determining how best to assure that the public reaps the benefit of this
new digital marketplace.  I am certain, however, that whatever regime we ultimately
establish for transitioning broadcasters from analog to digital must assure that the original
spectrum is returned and that broadcasters' public interest obligations are reaffirmed.

     In short, broadcasters must continue to play a leading role in the video marketplace as
we move from analog to digital technology.  The considerable value of free over-the-air
broadcasting must be preserved -- and enhanced.  Today's action sets the stage.