|
|
|
|
 |
Media
Center > Press Releases
For Immediate Release May 09,
2001
Contact: David Beckwith/Marc O. Smith,
202/775-3629 |
|
REMARKS OF ROBERT SACHS, NCTA PRESIDENT &
CEO
TO SOCIETY OF CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ENGINEERS
Robert Sachs
President &
CEO
National Cable & Telecommunications
Association
"A Winning Combination"
Remarks to
the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers
Cable-Tec
Expo 2001
Orlando, FL
May 9,
2001
Thank you Brad, and good morning
everyone.
Like so many other non-technical people in
cable, I’m a huge admirer of what engineers have done for this
industry. So I’m very sincere when I say that it’s a pleasure
and a privilege to be here.
When color TV made its
debut in 1954, the then Chairman of General Electric was so
upset with the quality that he said anybody who bought a TV
would have to have an engineer living in the
house.
That wouldn’t be a problem in your houses, but
most families don’t have a resident engineer. An important
fact to keep in mind.
Back in the 50’s, when you
checked into a hotel, you didn’t expect to find a TV in your
room. If you were staying in a better quality lodging, you
could call down to the front desk and ask them to send up a TV
--- and they'd add a few dollars to your bill for this extra
amenity.
One might even say that this was the beginning
of pay-per-view.
But if you were traveling outside of a
major metropolitan area, you couldn't count on viewing
anything.
Meanwhile, at that very same time, in other
parts of America, beyond the reach of The Big Three broadcast
networks, cable pioneers were bringing TV to places like
Astoria, Oregon; Kalispell, Montana; and Pottsville,
Pennsylvania.
These were the daring innovators of
community antenna TV. The pioneers of cable engineering.
People like Robert and Gene Schneider, who provided the
seat-of-the-pants engineering that helped Bill Daniels launch
his cable system in Casper, Wyoming back in 1953. The first to
use microwave technology.
Pioneers like these are
profiled in a new book called “History Between their Ears.”
It’s written by Archer Taylor whom many of you know as an
engineering giant in his own right.
During the early
1990’s, when Continental Cablevision got involved in a cable
TV venture in Singapore, whom did we look to for technical
advice? You guessed it…Archer Taylor, who was still going
strong at age seventy something.
Archer’s book draws on
the oral histories of some of his fellow pioneers. These were
people who literally scaled mountains to find a spot where a
community antenna could pull in network signals from hundreds
of miles away. Sometimes they went prospecting for antenna
sites on horseback and sometimes they barnstormed in tiny
planes.
Conditions have changed a lot since then. But
each of you has something in common with those early pioneers.
The cable industry has entrusted you with its
future!
As all of you know, we’re building a broadband
future that includes high-speed Internet, cable telephony, and
the still uncharted territory of Interactive TV. And the key
to the success of each of these services is how well we deploy
technology. Thus far, the consumer response has been great.
Ten million digital video, four million cable modem and more
than one million cable telephony customers. But that’s just
the beginning of the story.
And in our core video
business, we’re continually pushing the edge of the envelope
to offer customers more choices and greater value. Digital
Video. Video on demand. Subscription video on demand. Now more
than ever, “the future is on cable.”
Every one of these
services depends on creative, responsive engineering. And
we’ve certainly got that. Cable engineering today is the
junction where science and technology connect with practical
applications. And that’s a winning combination.
But
sometimes it’s easier said than done.
I’m thinking of
the well-respected head of a famous R&D organization.
This was a man who supervised the work of Nobel
laureates. He was a much-quoted expert on the big directions
in technology. But the digital time display on his office VCR
was always flashing 12 o’clock -- because he didn’t know how
to set it.
Apparently he wasn’t an SCTE
member.
The real strength of SCTE is that it blends
futuristic vision with practical reality. The American
National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) has accredited SCTE for
standards development. In this role, you hold the future of
the cable industry in your hands.
For example, as a
result of SCTE’s recent adoption of standards that will allow
new integrated digital TV receivers to be connected directly
to cable systems, consumers can be assured that new digital
consumer electronics products will be compatible with
cable.
So to John Clark, and those of you who serve on
SCTE’s digital video and data standards subcommittees, I say
“thank you.” Our industry is very grateful for your
efforts.
In my job, I tend to look at the future in
terms of public policy issues. But there’s not a public policy
issue on NCTA’s radar screen that isn’t based on science and
technology.
Whether it’s the connection of integrated
digital TV receivers to cable systems or providing a choice of
ISP’s over broadband cable networks, those of us responsible
for public policy continually look to engineers for
guidance.
And while CEOs like Joe Collins, Brian
Roberts and Jerry Kent are better known to Wall Street, Chief
Technology Officers like Jim Chiddix, Brad Dusto and Tom
Jokerst deserve enormous credit for their companies’
successes.
And CableLabs’ Dick Green, David Reed,
Rouzbeh Yassini and Don Dulchinos, who have pioneered the
development of DOCSIS, PacketCable and OpenCable specs,
deserve our industry’s special gratitude as well.
A
great deal of our work at NCTA is encouraging public policy
that gives technology the free market running room it needs to
grow.
A case in point is the Notice of Inquiry on
Interactive TV which the FCC put out for comment in January.
In this proceeding, the Commission asks dozens of questions
about the state of Interactive TV and possible regulatory
models.
NCTA takes no issue with pure fact finding.
But we consider regulation of yet-to-be-developed services to
be counter-productive to their very development.
There
are those, for commercial reasons of their own, who want the
government to regulate Interactive Television before it’s ever
launched. And it’s a bit disconcerting that they have gotten
as far as an FCC Notice of Inquiry.
FCC Chairman
Michael Powell recently commented on whether it’s wise to
start regulating ITV before the market is even visible. As the
Chairman put it: “I don’t believe in regulating phantoms.” I
couldn’t agree more. And given the Chairman’s caution, it’s
unlikely that this particular effort will get very far. But a
Notice of Inquiry has been commenced. And that fact alone is
disturbing.
It’s like finding a dead shark in your
swimming pool. No immediate danger. But it would be foolish
not to ask two questions.
# 1 – How did it get
there?
And #2, what are the chances of seeing another
one, alive?
The first question is easy for us to
answer. The NOI was an outgrowth of the FCC’s review of the
AOL Time Warner merger. Certain parties --- mostly broadcast
entities, wanted the FCC to place ITV carriage requirements on
AOL Time Warner. The Commission turned them down but as a
compromise launched a general Notice of Inquiry.
Among
those advocating regulation are media heavyweights Disney and
Viacom. Their combined market capitalization comes to $160
billion. Their holdings include broadcast and cable networks,
TV stations, radio stations, home video stores, amusement
parks and other enterprises.
In other words, they are
not strangers to free enterprise. Therefore one might ask, why
do they think the laws of the marketplace can be suspended for
Interactive TV? And, do they think cable operators are going
to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Interactive TV if
there are pre-existing limits on how ITV services are
permitted to develop?
Specifically, these media giants
want a guarantee that cable operators will carry any ITV
services that broadcasters might develop sometime in the
future. Never mind that most cable systems aren’t even
offering ITV services today. Never mind that we don’t know
what kind of services consumers will actually want to buy.
Never mind the fact that it is presumptive to think that cable
systems will be the only providers of future ITV
services.
If this reminds you of the so-called “open
access” debate about high-speed Internet service, you’re quite
right. There are similarities. In both cases, the petitioners
to the FCC are substantial companies who want a free ride on
somebody else’s investment.
At least with broadband
access, there was a developing market and a definable service
in place. With Interactive TV, the menu hasn’t even been
printed, but some are already demanding a free
lunch.
Those who seek regulation rehash fuzzy arguments
about maintaining “openness” of the Internet, as if
Interactive TV were an advanced form of Internet access that
is already available to consumers. But most of the ITV
services provided or contemplated by cable operators are
different from – and in many cases, have nothing to do with –
access to the Internet. For the most part, they are services
that complement and enhance the multichannel video programming
offerings of cable operators.
We are talking about
services like electronic program guides, movies on demand and
the inclusion of personal video recorder functionality in
digital set-top boxes. When one thinks about Interactive TV,
these are by far the most promising early forms.
One of
the other principal proponents of regulation is Gemstar, the
owner of TV Guide and the dominant provider of electronic
program guides. Yet Gemstar has already struck deals with
three out of the four largest MSO’s for inclusion of its
electronic guide in their service offerings. So, where is
there any evidence of market failure?
And ironically,
as video on demand start-ups like Diva and In Demand struggle
to obtain product from Hollywood studios, Disney-owned Buena
Vista Television and Viacom’s Paramount Pictures refuse to
make their first run movies available to video on demand, on
cable.
Should the government require Disney and Viacom
to sell their first run movies to cable? Of course not! But
nor should the government require cable operators to carry
whatever ITV services these companies might develop in the
future.
If a viable market is going to develop for ITV
--- and I don’t doubt that it will --- it needs to be driven
by free market forces not the heavy hand of government
regulation!
Interactive TV needs the attention of the
members of the SCTE --- not the attention of the
FCC!
While some of the technology involved in
Interactive TV may seem revolutionary, the process of its
deployment is likely to be evolutionary. That is because we
are dealing here with cultural norms, long-established viewing
habits, and personal choice – things that drive the use of
technology, not the other way around. Regulation, on the other
hand, would only serve to discourage investment and slow
deployment.
I, for one, look forward to the future
advances technology will bring to our industry and our
customers. With your continued leadership, we will remain an
industry that utilizes technology in creative new ways that
benefit American consumers.
Thank you very
much.
# # #
|
  [archives] |
| | |
