A Direct Broadcast Satellite Delphi Study: What do the Experts Predict?
[This text is based upon the author’s Harvard dissertation. It appeared in Satellite Communications magazine, April, 1981.]
Some surprises appeared when seventy-two experts recently communicated their views concerning direct broadcast satellites in America. This Harvard study may signal some of the major issues to be debated in the next few years as the DBS drama unfolds.
A majority did consider DBS desirable, likely, and economically viable —even in the light of cable growth. A smaller percentage (but still a majority) favor a pay-TV system on DBS. Most do not expect DBS to alter broadcast TV significantly or to force a dynamic shift in other communications markets or services.
Once Comsat announced plans to develop a direct broadcast system for the United States, it seemed that a systematic evaluation of DBS issues would contribute to the public debate. Involved in telecommunications studies at Harvard at the time, I began to coordinate a DBS research project involving:
interviews with leading communications authorities in government and industry; and
a Delphi questionnaire survey which would allow a larger number of experts to interact with one another on DBS issues.
Of course, these seventy-two Delphi study participants do not represent a random selection of the general population: they were deliberately chosen to voice varied viewpoints and represent interest groups. Broadcast networks, local TV stations, and cable operators were included, along with government regulatory agencies, Congressional staff and industry leaders. Independent consultants and university researchers participated, along with representatives from the public service sector and consumer groups.
After twelve months of DBS reading and interviewing, we developed a list of 340 DBS concepts and policy issues. From this research a Delphi questionnaire was designed, pre-tested, and then mailed to potential participants. A very high rate of survey returns seemed to confirm the idea that this topic was of great interest. Very busy communications experts responded—probably because they, themselves, wanted to interact with others on DBS matters.
"Delphi" Study Design
The survey consisted of some Yes/No items, but it also featured a rating scale on the likelihood and desirability of varied DBS options. It seemed best to probe both aspects since individuals could then specify some DBS outcomes that might be very desirable (theoretically), but were very unlikely (in the real world in which we all must live).
To aid in the statistical analysis of returns, each participant provided data on their professional/job roles and on their expertise levels in four areas: telecommunications, public policy, satellite technology, and DBS. Thus, by means of computer analysis, it was possible to see if engineers responded differently from government staff, if there was a DBS viewpoint peculiar to lawyers or engineers, etc.
All Delphi respondents were also asked to recommend any other individuals who might be valuable participants, and any additional DBS topics they would like to submit for the group's analysis. Many individuals and topics were added to the study on the basis of these recommendations.
The study technique receives its name from the famed Delphic Oracle believed to deliver futuristic wisdom in ancient Greece. Developed by the Rand Corporation, the strategy allows people who are scattered to communicate indirectly with one another. (This is sort of a conference without a conference room.)
The Delphi study often allows planning experts to predict developments in a field or market. A questionnaire or scenario is designed and circulated to individuals for reactions. Group totals are then circulated so participants can reconsider opinions in the light of group responses. Often Delphi participants move through numerous rounds as the group is propelled toward a consensus.
A recent variation of the technique, used here, is the "Policy Delphi." This is not designed to gather a consensus; rather, participants are urged to lay out varied policy options for consideration by planners, public officials, or regulators. Most of these DBS Delphi participants responded to two different rounds of the questionnaire, thus allowing them to reconsider their original responses in the light of the group DBS totals.
Only a few study highlights can be presented here due to space limitations. Three areas will receive additional attention below because they would probably be of special interest to Satellite Communications readers.
Regulatory Responses
A majority of participants do endorse innovative regulatory approaches for DBS. Some analysts (including a staff report at the FCC), have noted that since start-up costs are so high and the results risky, regulators should make it easy for DBS developers — to encourage them to enter the market. Easy entry was urged by 61.4 percent of the Delphi group. Government agency staff urged easy entry five to one. (This may surprise some who would expect government personnel to want more regulations instead of less).
Industry representatives and lawyers were split about evenly on the easy entry question, while engineers voted yes almost three to one. Interestingly, only 35.3 percent of the group feel an easy entry policy is likely to emerge. This was one of several areas in the study where the group described an option as desirable, but unlikely.
When asked about regulatory specifics, however, some were approved and some were not. Over 70 percent endorsed "no program-content rules" and assigning blocks of frequencies. However, 70.9 percent were opposed to the elimination of cross-ownership rules and 80.7 percent opposed the elimination of technical standards for compatibility or signal quality.
Efficient Use of Spectrum
The study shows some interesting variations among professional groups on the question "Is a DBS pay-TV system efficient use of spectrum?" Industry reps are almost evenly split on this question. Of the engineers 68.8 percent said it was efficient; 58.6 percent of the policy analysts agree; the group total (63 percent) falls in between. It should be noted, however, that many people did not respond to this question. Thirty-four of the panelists said a DBS Pay-TV system was efficient use of spectrum, but a higher number (38) either said no or did not respond to the question. The majority of the participants, therefore, seem uncertain about whether this form of DBS use constitutes efficient use of spectrum.
An interesting pattern of engineer response emerged. They do say a DBS Pay-TV system is efficient use of spectrum more than the group. They think scarcity is still a policy factor, but are less concerned with diversity than others. They seem more certain that DBS will be done and say it is very desirable more than the group does.
These interesting variations among engineers do not prove statistically significant, however, so we cannot say they are strongly pushing an "engineer's viewpoint." It would seem that engineers contributed a valuable and relatively objective viewpoint to our analysis, thus strengthening the group's perceptions.
DBS and Local Service
Many commentators have questioned whether DBS would adversely affect local broadcast service in America. As Figure 1 indicates, most participants feel local needs can be, and are, met by commercial TV, local PBS stations, cable systems, low power stations and VHP drop-ins.
According to 83.1 percent of the group DBS will not serve local needs. One prominent scientist, in contrast, said "DBS will enhance localism." Perhaps he meant that a national or regional service like DBS will force other broadcasters to meet local needs by re-focusing their markets somewhat. We should also note that some public service advocates strongly disagree that local needs are being served well by terrestrial communicators.
Conclusions
In spite of potential legislative, regulatory, and political hurdles, these Delphi participants are very optimistic about DBS developing in the U.S. They were open, to an unusual degree, to innovative regulatory approaches. They seem to conceive of DBS in TV-program only terms, rather than endorsing new uses of the spectrum, but that may be because they were responding to the Comsat Pay-TV, format.
The group is not sure of Pay-TV as efficient use of spectrum. It may be, though, that new advances in spectrum sharing may ease the current spectrum pressures. Some Delphi participants expressed concern that DBS development might close off long-term broadband service with its potential interactive capability of education and medicine. The question of a cable/DBS interconnection in urban areas was viewed with approval by many.
An engineer once said to me that he never felt he understood the theory in his textbooks until he could work through the exercises at the end of the chapter. Theoretical study of DBS must now confront a specific test case in the Comsat FCC proposal. Hopefully the varied details of this Delphi interchange, when studied by analysts, will enhance both the theoretical study and the specific Comsat exercise.
One cannot develop public policy through expert opinion alone. Extensive legal and economic analysis must be done and several good market studies are already part of the literature. This Delphi may, however, provide one model of a systematic, cooperative, dialogue among varied groups in order to clarify telecommunications issues. Particularly in an age of lagging productivity, many are urging that government and industry interact cooperatively rather than confronting one another. Perhaps through such dialogue new telecommunications regulatory guidelines can be developed as varied new forms of the technology emerge.