PC makers have occupied the home office and seized the den, and now they want their share of the living room, too. They want it badly, because after years of talk, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently told television broadcasters to start putting some 0s and 1s into the air -- it mandated the complete conversion from analog broadcasts to digital by 2006. And from now until then, PC makers will square off against TV makers in a scramble for our attention as we discard our current sets and buy digital boob tubes.

TV or Not TV?

TV today is analog. PCs are digital. The two mix as well as oil and water.

When broadcasts turn digital, transmitting to PCs will become easier because PCs will no longer need to transform analog signals to digital data to air TV broadcasts. But it still won't be easy. Why? Mostly because TVs and PCs use entirely different techniques to paint images on their respective screens.

TVs interlace their images, which means they first display half a screen's 525 lines, then weave in the other half. PCs use progressive (or noninterlaced) scanning, which displays each line of the image sequentially. Progressive scanning requires more bandwidth, but it creates a clearer picture using fewer lines.

It sounds like a simple difference, but it's not, because a program shot with interlaced-scan cameras often won't properly display on a progressive-scan monitor, and vice versa. Broadcasters therefore have to have equipment to create and display one way or another, or, more expensively, both. And here's the rub: Neither PC nor TV makers want to change their ways.

The TV's Mine . . . No, It's Mine!

And so the PC and TV industries planted the seeds of conflict -- a potentially massive formats battle that could make Windows versus Macintosh and Beta versus VHS look like friendly disagreements.

That's because although the FCC set the time line for digital programming, it didn't rule on some critical issues, such as the proportions of the screen or how the images are scanned. Instead, it said the marketplace should decide, which leaves broadcasters with a bunch of options.

Digital channels will carry far more information than do current analog frequencies (primarily because they can be compressed), so it's certain we'll see higher-resolution images, hear CD-quality sound, and -- this is where PC makers salivate -- be able to download data, such as Web pages and interactive entertainment, should broadcasters choose to provide it. What's uncertain is which resolutions (480, 720, or 1,080 lines), physical formats, and scanning modes (interlaced or progressive) broadcasters will use.

Some may transmit high-definition (HDTV: the Holy Grail of TV, thus far) signals with expanded resolution and a movie-style aspect ratio; others may merely broadcast digital images that look much like today's TV pictures. Some programs may carry accompanying data -- Web content or e-mail -- and some may not. The FCC has left those details up to the TV broadcast industry. And the major television makers are claiming they'll develop digital TVs that support all these resolutions and scanning modes when they appear late next year, which would ensure you'd be able to receive all the available programming.

Wait, TVs Aren't Smart

Not so fast. Compaq, Intel, and Microsoft recently pitched a couple of initiatives that standardize on the computer-centric progressive scanning and, except for televised movies, 480 lines. That, they say, would make digital TV less expensive, since broadcasters would only have to have equipment for one format and scanning mode. And by the way, PCs would then sit in the catbird seat. According to PC makers, why shouldn't they? Having been derived from digital roots, their wares, they believe, take the smartest approach to blending television and data.

And they're not wasting time pushing their argument. Just days after the April FCC announcement, Compaq and Intel proposed standards, such as the PC Theatre Initiative, that, if adopted, would give computers an early edge in the battle for the digital living room. Microsoft, meanwhile, said it's busy adding television-friendly software to future versions of Windows and pitched its own Entertainment PC98 Initiative as the guideline for hardware makers building living-room PCs next year.

The reaction from broadcasters to those propositions was immediate: No way. Interlaced scanning has served TVs well for decades, and there's no reason to toss it out now. (It doesn't hurt TV's case that everything from the broadcast and cable infrastructure to VCRs and camcorders relies on interlacing.) Providing equipment for both -- interlaced and progressive -- would be a nightmare for broadcasters. If you double the number of cameras, encoding hardware, and transmission gear, you double the cost as well.

Don't Touch That Dial

Broadcasters can call the shots regarding scanning modes and resolutions and effectively lock out PC/TVs from early digital programming. And the sheer clarity of digital will be enough to, initially anyway, convince some of us to spend the $2,000 to $5,000 for one of the first digital TVs.

Source: Computer Life