Talk:Digital television

Universal standardization

From the article:

However, the world could not agree on a single standard (why?)

Chauvinism, short-sighted (and self-defeating) greed, stupidity, not-invented-here syndrome, politics. This is one of the very few areas where I belived that Microsoft got it right: namely, that the TV bitstream should be resolution-independent, and few tens of thousands of transistors should re-format it to fit the display device raster at the end of the display pipeline at a cost of around $0.01 per unit. However, the TV manufacturers and hardware manufacturers didn't want to lose face / market share to M$, so they (in my opinion) shot their own standard in the head to spite MS. -- The Anome 14:09 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but I can assure you that you cannot create a $0.01 device to perform standards-conversion on a television signal. The combination of interlace and different field-rate standards make the problem a total nightmare. Professional standard-converters are rack-mounted devices that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and still produce results that are distinctly lacking when viewed critically. -- elvum 10:32 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Articles that follow each deployment domain?

Should each geographical domain have its own page for this subject? There's a lot more to be said about this subject, but readers in one geographical location might not be interested in all the details of the other areas. - Bevo 15:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

" As of November 2003, only one Canadian television station, Citytv in Toronto, broadcasts a regular digital television signal."

What?? I subscribe to digital TV and I have hundreds of channels so there are way more than just CityTV! SD6-Agent 10:53, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What you have is digital cable. CITY's broadcast (over-the-air) signal is what is being referred to here. –radiojon 04:33, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Who invented digital television?

Well, article is just saying that digital television was introduced in 1990's. In my opinion it should also have information who invented it and when and there should also be a history section... Tarmo Tanilsoo 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be competently covered now in Digital television#Development ~Kvng (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be missing the major innovations which occurred in the early 1990s. I am new to Wikipedia and was very involved. I am working on some proposed edits, which I am posting to this "Talk page." I have also disclosed a potential conflict of interest (per Wikipedia guidelines) on my User page. Please take a look and weigh in. I may be limited in my ability to post to the actual article (still learning how this works). MtdigitalTV (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@MtdigitalTV I'm happy to help. I don't see any proposed changes posted here. I've read your COI statement and it does not look like a big enough deal that you'd need to use WP:ER formally or even informally. We need to be careful if you're planning to use the book you wrote as a source. Otherwise, I suggest you make the changes directly to the article. Always good to start small. I and others will review changes and let you know if you're straying into dangerous territory. ~Kvng (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. At first I did use references to my book directly on the article (because it was easy and convenient, not to sell books, and because I didn't know about the Talk page route). Now I realize the problem with doing that (citing my own book) on Wikipedia. I was advised by other editors to go through the Talk page instead. But I got a message that there are nearly 500 requests ahead of mine (not sure but I think this means almost 500 requests across all Wikipedia articles by editors stating a COI?).

After removing all citations to my book, I posted my proposed edits at the bottom of this page under a section called "Proposed edits" with other citations. These paragraphs appear after your response in March 2026 to a question about analog vs. digital where you mentioned the "digital cliff" and Claude Shannon. The next section is "Mystery ref." And then the section entitled "Proposed edits." I wonder if my view of this page is different from yours? I tried to write them with relevance, neutrality and conciseness (with the caveat that I was in the middle of it all, and it's a pretty complicated history). I included references to various other tech companies, not just GI, that were involved in the early days. Given the above, I'm wondering if it would be most efficient for you to look at them, and as a "non COI" editor, post them in the article to the extent you think they're useful. Or ask me questions if you're not sure about relevance, etc. Then, maybe I could help with minor edits if need be on the actual page. Please lmk whether you can see the proposed edits and what you think. MtdigitalTV (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I took your suggestion of "starting small" so it's easier to follow my proposed edits. Please see paragraphs 6 (new) and 7 (edited), which together explain what happened in the US to cause the FCC to delay its process in favor of a digital HD standard. MtdigitalTV (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for submitting a COI request below. Now wait for someone to act on it rather than editing the article yourself, please. MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look below for what I submitted. Currently, the article talks about the FCC taking specific actions in response to something, but it doesn't explain what that "something" was. This small addition fixes that anomaly.

In the United States, during the late 1980s, the FCC established an advisory committee to determine a new, advanced television standard for over-the-air broadcasting. In June 1990, at the deadline for proposals, General Instrument Corporation's VideoCipher Division, based in San Diego, California, announced the development of the first all-digital HDTV broadcast system capable of delivering signals over normal-bandwidth satellite, cable, and over-the-air channels, and submitted it to the FCC for consideration. At the time, both Japan (NHK) and Europe (Philips, Thomson, et al) were developing analog HDTV systems, called MUSE and HD-MAC respectively.

As a result of General Instrument's announcement, the FCC delayed its decision on an advanced television broadcast standard until a digitally-based standard could be developed. In addition, the FCC declared that the new TV standard must be more than an enhanced analog signal, capable of providing a genuine HDTV signal with at least twice the resolution of existing television images. To ensure that viewers who did not wish to buy a new digital television set could continue to receive conventional television broadcasts, it dictated that the new ATV standard must be capable of being simulcast with NTSC on different channels. The new ATV standard also allowed the new DTV signal to be based on entirely new design principles, incorporating many improvements over existing analog television. Also, various companies already involved in the FCC standardization process began changing their approaches from analog to digital HDTV. MtdigitalTV (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Since the 'something', in your opinion, was something you and your coworkers did, I'm afraid I have to insist that COI guidelines be closely followed here. And you're missing a citation that states that the FCC delayed its decision as a direct result of your company's action. MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see the Benton cite addresses that, but uses weaker wording that when you're proposing here. MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I researched your question regarding a source for the "FCC delay" following GI's announcement and submission to the FCC of digital HDTV. The strongest source for this specific area is the 1997 book by Joel Brinkley, Defining Vision. I just re-read the relevant section. Brinkley goes into great detail as to exactly what happened during the FCC process. He worked for the New York Times starting in 1983, and won a Pulitzer Prize, i.e., highly credible source. It wasn't so much that the "FCC delayed the process." It was more like: Dick Wiley, the FCC advisor in charge of the testing, was determining the order of testing starting in the summer of '91. He started with the 2 analog systems (from the Philips/Thomson consortium, and then NHK's "narrow MUSE" analog system. Then the 4 digital systems were tested sequentially thru 1992, starting with GI's 1080i system. The process did get stretched out longer than anticipated to give GI's competitors more time to develop their digital HD prototypes. So a more accurate statement (citing specific pages in Brinkley's book) would be:

"As a result of GI's announcement and submission of its digital HDTV system to the FCC, several of the other competitors changed their system proposals to a digital approach. The first two systems tested in the second half of 1991 were older analog systems (from Philips/Thomson/Sarnoff/NBC and NHK), and then four digital systems were tested sequentially, starting in November 1991 with GI's system and continuing through the summer of 1992 with 3 other systems (from Zenith/AT&T, Philips/Thomson/Sarnoff/NBC, and MIT."

I think the above paragraph could be used instead of the current 7th paragraph in the "History - Development" section. It should logically follow the paragraph above starting with "In the United States, during the late 1980s..." MtdigitalTV (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that specific sentence was already in the article before I got involved. I could try to find a source but deleting it might be fine. The delay related to the time required for the other competitors to switch their systems to digital, and have prototypes ready for FCC testing. ~2026-25774-73 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Canada [13] | USA [5] | EBU [9, 12] | Japan & Brazil [36, 37]

What do mean those values ? [13], [5],[9. 12]...

--Mario CUSENZA (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See #Mystery refs in table headings. ~Kvng (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead content.

The article states:

"...the glass in cathode ray tubes contains an average of 3.62 kilograms (8.0 lb) of lead."

This is sourced to an activist's statement that is not backed-up by an unbiased source. According to the How Stuff Works site, a large CRT contains about 5 lbs of lead. That is not sourced either but I don't think they have an axe to grind. Rsduhamel (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no longer a specific weight given in the article. Makes sense because it would depend on the diagonal size of the tube. ~Kvng (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Explain the expanded coverage with decreased power...

...as implied by pages like

• http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/dtvmaps/ and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/WBPH.gif

The map is an image, so I can't C&P, so I'm retyping selected information.

The map (the .gif) is for WBPH-TV, analog channel 60, digital channel 9 located in Bethlehem, Pa.

It is apparently a map to show the change in coverage for terrestrial (iiuc (that is, OTA)) reception around the area. It says that the Digital License is (will have--was this a prediction?) 3.20 kW ERP at 284 m HAAT, while the analog is 2950 kW ERP at 286 m HAAT (I'm guessing that HAAT has something to do with the height of the transmitting antenna).

But:

  * the area bounded by the solid line (showing the area served by the digital transmission) is significantly bigger than the area bounded by the solid line (showing the area served by the analog transmission), and
  * concomittantly, at the bottom of the map, it indicates that the analog signal served (or had a potential audience of) 1,975,850 persons, while the digital signal serves (or was predicted to serve) (a potential audience of) 5,277,028 persons.
  

This seems almost magical.

Can anybody explain all (or, at least, some more) of the factors involved in what makes this change. I do see the one comment above that there is a difference in the method of power measurement for the analog vs. digital signal (the analog measured as the peak power, the digital measured as the average power), but several other stations that I looked at don't have anything close to a 1000 to 1 ratio between the two.

And, iiuc the 284 vs. 286 m HAAT, it seems like the increase in coverage occurs with a reduction in the height of the transmitting tower. (But my understanding of the HAAT acronym is strictly a guess.)

That's a general question, but I'd like to add some specific questions whose answers would be helpful or interesting to me:

• Is there some difference in the polarization of the signal between analog and digital that partially accounts for the difference in coverage? Or the behavior with respect to bouncing off the atmosphere (I wouldn't think so, only because the frequencies are in the same ballpark)?

• Does somebody here have a idea of how the actual consumption of electrical power has changed (if at all)?

• ???

I've looked at a few similar maps, all for the same general geographic area, and all that I looked at showed a considerable increase in coverage (i.e., potential audience) with the conversion to digital, and a considerable decrease in power (but most are not in the 1000 to 1 ration shown here--others seem to be more like 10 to 1).

It seems to me that there is something here that should be explained in an article on digital television or some related article.

Rhkramer (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As the signal weakens with distance, digital signals can either be received with full fidelity or you get nothing (see Digital cliff). Analog signals get nosier and less stable as the signal weakens. So it is more difficult to define successful reception for an analog signal. If you define it as a pristine picture, the radius is going to be small. The other thing going on is digital transmitters use sophisticated modulation, encoding and error correction and receivers use sophisticated DSP to lock onto and a extract faint digital signal from noise and reflections. Thanks Claude Shannon! ~Kvng (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. We used to describe analog TV as "graceful degradation" since the picture gets fuzzier with distance (lower signal-to-noise) but you can still see the picture, more or less. With digital it's all or nothing, as long as the receiver is above the signal threshold. In general, digital signals use less power for covering a specific geographic area. For satellite transmission, stronger error correction coding can be used to use less power and/or a smaller dish. But that implies some of the error correction bits are taking away from the available pool of "information" bits. btw please see my recent proposed additions to "Digital television" on this talk page. I need help from one or more editors. MtdigitalTV (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Mystery refs in table headings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are some mysterious (to me) references in the table headings in Digital_television#Protection_parameters_for_terrestrial_DTV_broadcasting. This table was added in 2006 and the article had no references at this point so these numbers don't refer to our current reference list. Was this table inappropriately copied from another source? ~Kvng (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed edits

I'd like to add some paragraphs in the Digital television article, either in the "History" or the "Development" section, and also in the "Inaugural launches" section. Please see my User page for an explanation of a potential COI. Recap: I worked for companies in this industry during my entire career, including General Instrument, and I also wrote a book about the history of digital television, Televisionaries. I have not been promoting my book for around 10 years. I didn't cite my book in the proposed insertions, although some reviewers have considered it the definitive history through the 2010s. I believe my proposed edits below to be neutral (i.e., as much as possible from an insider's perspective) and well-sourced irrespective of not citing my book. I tried to strike a balance between the pioneering role of GI in digital TV, while explaining how the advent of technical standards led to a competitive market, and also to strike a balance with an appropriate level of detail while maintaining a concise approach. If/when these edits are incorporated online, the page could use similar additional detail for non-US markets, especially in terms of the "Inaugural launches" section.

Here are the proposed insertions:

[This first proposed new paragraph is important because it explains the specific event that changed the trajectory of HDTV, and digital TV in general.]

1. (in History -Development section, new 6th paragraph): In the United States, during the late 1980s, the FCC established an advisory committee to determine a new, advanced television standard for over-the-air broadcasting. In June 1990, at the deadline for proposals, General Instrument Corporation's VideoCipher Division, based in San Diego, California, announced the development of the first all-digital HDTV broadcast system capable of delivering signals over normal-bandwidth satellite, cable, and over-the-air channels, and submitted it to the FCC for consideration. At the time, both Japan (NHK) and Europe (Philips, Thomson, et al) were developing analog HDTV systems, called MUSE and HD-MAC respectively.

[My second proposed insertion relates to GI developing a digital standard definition (SDTV) system first (before digital HDTV). It should also go in the History - Development section. The importance of this proposed insertion is: it was obvious that HDTV would take many years to develop due to regulatory and market issues, and the fact that consumer HDTV sets didn't exist yet. It is important for the history of digital TV to explain this distinction, as the digital SDTV market became quite large and important in the 1990s, leading to many digital satellite and digital cable TV deployments in various countries, well before digital HDTV could occur.]

2. General Instrument (GI), recognizing that digital HDTV would take many years for market development, focused its initial development plans on a digital standard definition system (digital SDTV) for satellite and cable TV distribution, receivable via digital set-top boxes for display on the installed base of pre-existing television sets. Because there were no technical standards yet for digital TV, GI's initial proprietary digital TV system comprised: (a) its advanced video compression algorithms; (b) a new digital transmission system (digital modulation and forward error correction for satellite and cable delivery); and (c) a conditional access and encryption system for content security and monetization by media companies.

At the September 1990 International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) in Brighton, England, GI demonstrated its DigiCipher digital television system, incorporating a flexible degree of compression from 2:1 (HD) and up to 10:1 (SD) channels within a single satellite transponder or cable TV channel. The advent of digital SDTV television meant that future satellite TV services could deliver hundreds of digital TV channels through a single communications satellite to small home dishes. It also meant cable operators could use digital television technology to expand their content offerings and improve video quality.

Meanwhile, the FCC proceeded with its advanced television standard for over-the-air terrestrial broadcasting through its Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) and the Advanced Television Test Center (ATTC). Two analog systems (from the Philips/Thomson/Sarnoff/NBC consortium and NHK's Narrow-MUSE system) and four digital HDTV prototypes were tested sequentially by the FCC's Advanced Television Test Center in summer 1991 through summer 1992. They were developed by: 1. General Instrument; 2. a competing consortium comprising Philips, Thomson, Sarnoff Labs, and NBC; 3. another alliance of Zenith Electronics and AT&T; and 4. MIT (in partnership with GI). After the competitive testing phase, the various companies were encouraged to come together in a "Grand Alliance," with a goal of combining the various technologies into a unified digital HDTV broadcast system. Key technical elements of the system included MPEG-2 video (with interlaced and progressive formats), Dolby AC-3 audio, MPEG-2 transport, System Information (SI) tables, and 8-VSB transmission. MtdigitalTV (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Standards bodies, such as MPEG-2, ATSC, and DVB, developed digital TV-related technical standards through the 1990s, and these activities are ongoing with new technology generations. Standardization was important because it led to a more competitive market environment for technology providers and service providers. Over time, GI's early proprietary digital TV systems were superseded by competing standards-based products not only from GI (acquired by Motorola in 2000) but also from Scientific-Atlanta (acquired by Cisco in 2006), Harmonic, Tandberg (acquired by Ericsson in 2007), Philips, Thomson, and many others.

[The next proposed additions are intended for the "Inaugural launches" section. They're focused mainly on the US market (other markets can be added later?). Please note that all of this is detailed in my book (see my User page regarding potential COI). However, I did not use any references to my book, citing other sources to the best of my ability.]

3. In June 1992, General Instrument and HBO commenced a field trial of GI's DigiCipher SDTV system for transmission from HBO's Hauppauge, NY satellite uplink site to cable headends throughout the U.S. HBO executives wanted to determine whether, by offering subscribers a digital multiplex service with different genres, it could create a "stickier" and more valuable content package for its subscriber base. The GI/HBO field trial was successful from both a technical and marketing perspective, and HBO started making roll-out plans while simultaneously coordinating with the major cable operators such as TCI and Time Warner regarding how these leading US cable companies planned to proceed with digital cable TV.Meanwhile, various international satellite television programmers decided early on to also make use of GI's digital satellite TV technology including Rogers in Canada, Multivision in Mexico City, Telefe in Argentina, BBC World Service, Middle East Broadcasting Centre (MBC) delivered from London, PBS, and Viacom.

The US cable industry, however, decided that with the MPEG-2 standard specifications approaching finalization, they would wait for GI's MPEG-2 based system for delivery of digital SDTV over cable. Various US programmers (e.g., HBO, Showtime, Disney, ESPN, PBS, Discovery) wanted to go digital right away, however, for content expansion and bandwidth efficiency reasons, deploying digital (SDTV) satellite signals to cable headends, with GI agreeing to upgrade the original DigiCipher technology to its MPEG-2 compatible system (DigiCipher II) when it became available. John Malone, the chairman/CEO of TCI, strategically saw the competitive threat of high-power DBS satellite operators (e.g., Hughes Communications' planned DirecTV service), and negotiated a large contract with GI for MPEG-2 digital cable boxes so that TCI and its cable cohorts could also take advantage of the digital TV revolution.

The PrimeStar satellite service became the world's first digital TV service to consumers' homes, launching with GI's DigiCipher system on March 22, 1994. (PrimeStar was later acquired by DirecTV). DirecTV launched next, with its digital satellite platform in the summer of 1994, using the Digital Satellite System (DSS) system and technology from Compression Labs (encoders), Thomson/RCA (set-top boxes) and NDS (conditional access and encryption). In 1996, another high-power Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) competitor, Dish Network, was launched by Echostar utilizing the DVB digital satellite TV standard and technology from Harmonic (encoders), Nagra (conditional access and encrytion), and Echostar (set-top boxes).

However, the launch of standards-based digital cable, digital satellite, and digital HDTV services depended upon the successful resolution of the intellectual property rights (essential patents) related to the MPEG-2 video standard. Since there were numerous patents essential to the MPEG-2 standard owned by multiple companies, it became a significant stumbling block for the global media industry to utilize the MPEG-2 standard. Led by CableLabs, a group of the leading current MPEG-2 patent holders (General Instrument, Sony, Matsushita, Philips, and Thomson) was formed. After a series of contentious meetings and negotiations, the group finally agreed on a reasonable and efficient joint licensing structure. This milestone culminated in July 1997 with a celebration and press conference in Tokyo at The Okura Hotel, attended by technology companies from all over the world. Since many companies were already shipping MPEG-2 compatible digital satellite and cable TV products, and also DVD discs and players, it was a major relief to see the patent issue resolved.

Digital cable TV was first tested and launched in the US in 1996 by TCI in Hartford, Connecticut, using General Instrument's MPEG-2 based technology and products, leading to a TCI national rollout, followed by Comcast, Cox and many other cable operators throughout the US. By 1998, Scientific-Atlanta started shipping its MPEG-2 based digital cable headend and set-top boxes to Time Warner Cable and others. The cable operators installed GI's and Scientific-Atlanta's digital infrastructure equipment in their headends to receive the digital satellite TV signals and reprocess them for digital transmission to cable subscribers' homes equipped with digital set-top boxes. In the mid-2000s, telcos such as Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse also entered the market with digital TV service, both using technology from Motorola, which had acquired GI several years earlier.

As the turn of the century approached, the "chicken and egg" HDTV situation between lack of HD content and the small installed base of consumer HDTV sets began to make progress. The FCC had mandated that US TV stations in the top 30 markets, covering half of US television households, must start broadcasting digital signals by November 1999. There was no requirement, however, for the content to be in HDTV format, so long as it was in a digital SDTV format. CBS began some limited digital HD broadcasting of certain special events, such as the October 1998 spectacle of astronaut and US Senator John Glenn becoming the oldest person to fly in space aboard the space shuttle Discovery, with 8 CBS affiliates carrying the network broadcast in high definition. The following month, ABC delivered the movie 101 Dalmations in HD, and then on January 30, 2000 ABC broadcast Super Bowl XXXIV in HD.

In the satellite and cable HDTV markets, HBO launched HBO HD in March 1999, followed by Viacom's Showtime HD launch in 2001 . Mark Cuban's HDNet went live via DirecTV in late 2001, delivering exclusive HD coverage of the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorist attack. Discovery HD Theater launched in June 2002. By March 2003, ESPN debuted its new ESPN HD channel with the Major League Baseball season opener, and a plan to deliver 100 professional baseball, basketball, hockey, and football games live in HD. Then, in July of 2003, Cablevision Systems, through its Rainbow content subsidiary, launched Voom, a high-power DBS satellite and service dedicated to HDTV. Chuck Dolan, who much earlier in his career was the founder of HBO and then Cablevision, believed there was an untapped market for a pure HDTV content service. By 2004 Voom was delivering 36 HDTV satellite channels including many unique channels programmed by Cablevision's Rainbow Media subsidiary. The Voom satellite and orbital position was sold, however, to its competitor, Dish Networks, ending the Voom standalone HDTV service. Regardless, many new HDTV content channels continued to be created and delivered and digital HDTV, with much higher video resolution than SDTV, was finally poised to be the future of home television entertainment. DirecTV, Dish Network, and various cable operators all deliver more than 100 HD channels to subscribers. In the 2020s, with 4k HDTV resolutions (and even some 8k), and subsequent international video coding standards such as MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding), HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding), VVC (Versatile Video Coding), and the AV1 codec, developed by an industry consortium, the digital television technology and market continue to evolve.

MtdigitalTV (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Which citation, specifically says 'fundamental breakthrough'? MrOllie (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That was my characterization but I believe I deleted it in the latest iteration (?) because I was trying to just use facts without embellishment. It was a major breakthrough, though. In fact, much stronger and more colorful language was used at the time in various media but I think just using the date and the event is sufficient for Wikipedia. ~2026-25774-73 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's still in the text above. We need to stick to the sourcing very closely, particularly for value judgments. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I had taken out the "value judgment" ("fundamental breakthrough") when I inserted it in the article (but then it was deleted or reverted), and I did not change it correspondingly in the Talk page proposal. Now it should be there too. ~2026-25774-73 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of this wording is confusing elsewhere, as well. This calls GI's system the first, but the current article describes European projects that apparently predate their announcement. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit confusing. That's why I stated in the GI context "within standard-bandwidth" channels. Because the fundamental breakthrough had to do with breakthroughs in GI's video compression algorithms (to get the bitrate way way down to where the signal could fit in standard channels), and less to do with the basic idea of digital (in an impractical context due to impractical bandwidth considerations). I think the paragraphs you refer to are extraneous, but I was reluctant to delete what someone else had written. It makes it more important to include what happened wrt the actual breakthrough (digital HD within the channel-limited bandwidth constraints, which was considered impossible at the time). Brinkley's book makes this distinction clear. It's also why the media headlines were so hyperbolic at the time; it was considered a major, game-changing inflection point. I believe my current proposal on Talk page explains this without using hyperbolic language. And the "within standard channels" language distinguishes it from the (not so relevant) European experiments you refer to. It was widely known at the time that the European plan for HDTV was the HD-MAC analog HD system, to counter Japan's NHK analog MUSE system.

Also, the way the FCC response is currently written in the article is not quite right. It says "the FCC took action" as a result of digital's apparent feasibility. The FCC was already in action, and determined its testing schedule (with a combination of analog and digital systems). This activity is more accurately described in the third paragraph of my second proposed edit in the Talk page. ~2026-25774-73 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, the current wording in the article (prior to the "FCC took action" comment) isn't quite right. It says something to the effect that in 1990 digital HD was "clear" and therefore the FCC "took action." This isn't accurate, although the FCC did agree to test digital systems as part of its upcoming testing. There was still substantial skepticism of digital HD following GI's announcement. Many, including competitors, said "impossible" in response to GI's claims. Only after the FCC "slot 3" test of GI's digital HD system in late '91 (following the 2 analog systems) did many start to see the inevitability of digital HDTV (because GI's prototype system tested very well, essentially proving feasibility). The subsequent 3 digital HD systems had more problems but were not disqualified. The FCC decided to change it from a competition to a cooperation of former competitors. Then the Grand Alliance came together ("encouraged" by the FCC, which was a combined system of the 4 digital HD entrants). I think this is explained in my Talk proposals, and it is described in great detail in Brinkley's book, which surprisingly was not cited in the Article prior to my involvement. (My book wasn't cited either, nor was the relevant chapter in Tom Southwick's book, Distant Signals.) MtdigitalTV (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think you should consider the relevance of the first two paragraphs under "History - Development." The first paragraph, about Toshiba developing digital signal processing for its TVs, is not relevant to the development of a digital TV system. It even says so in the last sentence. Years after the Grand Alliance standard was set, all the major TV manufacturers incorporated digital chips inside their TV sets in response to the digital TV signals. Again, I didn't want to delete what someone else wrote, but it's not really germane to the discussion of the origins of digital TV. The chips in the HDTV sets were a response.

The second sentence of the second paragraph is not completely accurate. MPEG in the early 90s was not focused on digital TV, but rather on stored media applications (e.g., CD-ROM). Largely in response to GI, the MPEG-2 committee decided to incorporate HDTV resolutions in July 1992 at its Angra dos Reis, Brazil meeting (I was there). The MPEG-2 standard was finalized in '94 and adopted in '96. It was really GI's motion-compensated compression algorithms in the early 90s that affected (first) the FCC process, and soon thereafter, the MPEG-2 standard body. This above cause and effect does not necessarily need to be described in Wikipedia (maybe too much detail?). But the "horse (GI) before the cart (FCC process and MPEG)" should be mentioned in accurate chronological order on Wikipedia. MtdigitalTV (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)