The public will buy the story that the broadcasters are "money-grubbing weasels," but the real story is more complicated. Consumers will want to know what happened when the reality of DTV takes place in third world countries before it does in the US.

Broadcasters today are not broadcasters. Their market has been usurped by the cable and satellite companies. Only 15% of US households depend on OTA (Over The Air) reception. US broadcasters are really content providers to cable companies whose sole reason for still existing is that either they have good content or they depend on must-carry. Take a look at broadcasters' recent congressional testimony (House and Senate hearings). They actually put down the idea of people receiving their signal over the air as if it was ridiculous to expect anyone to actually put up an antenna to receive TV.

Broadcasters have no regard for the spectrum on which they squat, nor for the extra 6 MHz they have been given for HDTV. They only care about must-carry and holding on to as much spectrum as they can for as long as they can to ward off competitors who may have ideas on how to put them out of business. They are occupying 12 MHz of spectrum and will for as long as possible even as the 15% of viewers they now broadcast to dwindle to 10 and 5% and even lower.

If broadcasters were interested in broadcasting they would embrace technology that would allow them to effectively reach the viewers in their coverage area. In fact, they dread broadcast technology that would actually work. How could they demand must-carry if their own OTA broadcast could be easily received by all in their coverage area, encompassing even more viewers than are reached by the cable company? Their recent rantings before Congress were all based on the fact that their OTA technology did not work so they must be granted must-carry for their full digital channel and simultaneously for their analog channel until it is turned off. They pointed out over and over again that their OTA broadcast didn't work well and few people relied on it for reception and would not put up antennas that were "required" in most cases to receive DTV.

I have talked to most of the broadcasters. They know better. They know there is much better technology that will allow for easy reception by all viewers in their coverage area with simple antennas in most cases. Yet they voted 27-to-3 to reject that technology in favor of having the dubious argument that broadcasting doesn't work so we need must-carry. How do you explain this vote when broadcasters in places like Taiwan voted unanimously for the competing technology? How do you explain that every country in the world that has actively tested the two competing broadcast technologies has chosen the one US broadcasters rejected?

The broadcasters in the form of their organizations (the NAB and the MSTV) carried out tests of these broadcasting methods. They committed outright fraud and went to illogical and extreme measures to ensure that 8VSB won the test and that the COFDM modulation failed even though they knew it was far superior.

If 8VSB was successful in providing HDTV to the US it would be at an additional expense of many billions of dollars to viewers that is totally unnecessary and will deny reception to most in the big cities.

The broadcasters are simply trying at all costs to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. They are doing this with the help of an incompetent FCC which is ignorant of the technical merits and which has connived with the industry in both the fraudulent test and the imposition of the ancient and poorly designed 8VSB modulation system that simply doesn't work.

The broadcasters' own testimony argues for them being stripped of their broadcast spectrum. If their viewers won't put up antennas and it is unfounded to expect viewers to, then why do the broadcasters need any spectrum at all, let alone 2- 6 MHz channels?

In South Korea, the Zenith Corp. owns the patent rights to 8VSB. They charge around $5.00 per 8VSB receiver in royalties. The COFDM DVB-T royalties are around $.63 per receiver. Receivers for HDTV COFDM DVB-T in a small inefficient market like Australia go on sale this month including installation in your home for $335.00 and they work in most cases with simple indoor antennas. An 8VSB receiver costs between $500.00 and $1500.00 and requires fancy rotored rooftop antennas and then probably won't work in many cases (30% outright failure) because of multipath.

So why do the news media ignore and deny the reality that the US is going to be stuck with an expensive DTV system that doesn't work while the rest of the world is and has adopted a world standard that does work? South America has opted for COFDM even under constant pressure from the ATSC and CEA to stay with 8VSB. Taiwan has switched, the ATSC lost Australia even after heavy spending and arm twisting. You can also expect that Mexico and Canada will go with COFDM DVB-T.

The US TV viewer is being saddled with an extra financial burden because of special interests and crooked politics. More likely, HDTV will just drift along like it has thus far until Americans start coming home from overseas trips talking about the wonders of technology overseas. Then maybe the press will pick up on the real story.

There is one company, HiTop, that has a set top box COFDM DVB-T receiver that also has a screen so it looks like a laptop computer. It will adjust to either a 6, 7 or 8 MHz tuner so that you can use it all over the world to receive DTV. The only country it won't work in is the USA. It will work in the car at the speed limit. It will cost less than an 8VSB set top box with no screen and will work with a built-in antenna and weighs 5 lb.

The future could be very bright for broadcasters if they chose to be broadcasters. They haven't. They have chosen to be leeches off cable using the power of corrupt political influence and ignoring the best in broadcast technology. They have done so using fraud and deceit right into the face of the press and the press has totally ignored it.

Bob Miller is the president of Viacel Corp., a datacasting start-up who was a witness before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications last summer when it examined the COFDM /8-VSB debate, and just before the start of the infamous MSTV non-test of those modulation schemes.