Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

HDTV and Its Impending Problems? 402

Posted by Cliff from the do-lawmakers-think-about-this-when-they-make-laws dept.
NeuroManson asks: "With the growing hype surrounding HDTV and copy protection, and as further corporate control of the FCC becomes more commonplace with the inevitable arrival of the technology thanks to Hollywood, you will have no choice in the future of watching anything else, since your TV, VCR, etc, will be forced into obsolescence. There are two things that this brings to mind that should be addressed: who will be paying for the retrofit to the thousands of CRT and TV manufacturing plants around the world to make this possible; and assuming that this is going to be a US only problem in the short term (approx 3 years), how do they propose to safely dispose of all those outmoded TVs?" About the only way that this can happen by the recently proposed deadline of July 1st, 2007, without trashing and replacing the majority of our current televisions, American television owners would have to have their TVs "serviced" by a qualified technician to continue to receive broadcast signals. Having a secondary tuner would not work as that would break the "trusted" display chain that Hollywood is seeking to establish.

"Assuming there are approximately 300 million Americans, with 2/3 having upwards of 2 TV sets, that amounts to close to 500 million or more perfectly functional TVs that will wind up in landfills or third world 'recycling' countries like China. These are not exact figures, but you get the idea. As this grinds on, it looks like economic and ecological impacts are the predominate risks involved, as well as not being able to record the latest Star Trek because they put a copy-block flag into the digital broadcast. This is something that I think everyone, from the geek on the web to the little old lady across the street, through the average soccer mom should be concerned about. Any suggestions as to how such could be made publically known, organized against, and promoted, in such a way that the public would know it as a threat, not only to their way of life, but also to their pocketbook and health?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HDTV and Its Impending Problems? More

HDTV and Its Impending Problems?

Comments Filter:

  • Just dont buy one.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by umask077 ( 122989 )
    Should be obvious to most that television dwindles intellect. My solution is to just not buy one. Dont really need it.

    Got the net for news and I can watch dvds on my computer.

    • Re:Just dont buy one.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:27AM (#4306607) Homepage Journal
      Huh. I doubt I'd be able to cook nearly as well as I can now had it nood been for Alton Brown and Emeril Lagasse. Yes, there is a lot of television not worth watching but that's pretty much true of any media.

      Still, I tend to envision television's ultimate form as every show ever made in every language. To steal a quote from a Qwest commercial. At any point I should be able to choose to watch any show no matter how obscure. Hollywood opposes that unless they can get their cut. Hollywood's idea of the ultimate form of television is that every viewier pays for every bit of content they watch. And they'll happily charge you for the privilidge of watching commercials if they can get away with it (Case in point, been to a Movie theater lately?)

    • Re:Just dont buy one.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:40AM (#4306631) Homepage
      Who is it that always mods these posts up. Every time there's a story about television, someone chimes in early with a "I haven't watched TV for ten years and I'm better for it. Throw your TV away!" post. I'm vasilating between whether I think these posting are trolls, just idiots, but that's not relevant.

      What is relevant, is the fact that someone, each and every time, decides that these posts are worth modding up.

      They're not.

      They're not interesting. They're not insightful. They're not funny. They're either off-topic or they're troll. Please start modding them down, or at least not modding them up.

    • Re:Just dont buy one.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:36AM (#4306781) Homepage
      "Should be obvious to most that television dwindles intellect. My solution is to just not buy one. Dont really need it.

      Got the net for news and I can watch dvds on my computer."

      They aren't selling. That is why they already pushed the deadline back once. There is really no reason TO buy a DTV right now, as VERY few stations and cable systems even broadcast in it.

      Why should someone pay $1200 instead of $300 for a TV when there is no benefit?

      And even if there WERE more DTV stations broadcasting, is it really a benefit, when freedoms we have had in the analog world are forefit just for the priviledge of a (possibly) more "ShinyThing"?

      Remember that while the FCC has mandated DTV, they did NOT mandate any standard for what a DTV signal is!

      This means that a TV station has the option of broadcasting in anything from HDTV quality, down to MULTIPLE heavily digitally compressed SDTV signals!

      There is no assurance that EVERY or even MOST programs or stations you receive will be any better in quality than what we get today on NTSC analog!

      • Re:Just dont buy one.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by lightcycler ( 587416 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @11:53AM (#4306999)
        In the UK, Digital Televisions are not available in sizes less than 28", and at approximately double the price of the equivalent analog TV. They offer no additional features, since they use the same signal. Even when digital signals are available, they will offer only double the picture quality (oh wow, an EGA mode), preferring to spend their bandwidth on american-style hundreds of channels of crap, rather than improving quality in the 2-3 channels that people might watch.

        Right now, only the most "have-to-have-latest" type of people are even considering DTV, and even they have to admit it's not any better than standard. If DTV is to become popular, broadcasters will need to wait until enough people have the receiving kit (i.e. until enough people decide to pay double-price for a standard household item) before they can switch-off analog signals and force the rest to sign-up or sit out.

        Doesn't seem likely in the medium term. Hell, most people don't even see the advantage in DVDs, and digital television has far fewer distinguishing features.

        Needless to say, when DTV is in the process of becoming popular, it won't help when the early-adopters report that their video-recorders don't work, or that they can't change channel during adverts. If so much of a hint of hollywood-style customer-screwing gets talked about, the whole project could be delayed by years. This could be an advantage... it could even be specially arranged....

      • They didn't mandate the signal? They surely did.

        They demanded that an inferior technology be used instead of Wi-Lan- and in fact the president of Wi-Lan had some great comments about letting the marketplace and engineers decide rather than the FCC, whose job it is to determine which frequency will be used, and other than that, get out of the way.

  • Simply put (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cscx ( 541332 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:10AM (#4306578) Homepage
    It just won't happen. This is an FCC/Hollywood pipe dream. If it does actually happen this way, there will be revolution, trust me. There are people who can barely afford TV sets today, let alone taking that privlege away from them by forcing digital down their throats.
    • This will really be an issue when the widower living on a fixed income only watching basic cable has to pay for such an upgrade. Pissing off that voting block is suicide.
      • This will really be an issue when the widower living on a fixed income only watching basic cable has to pay for such an upgrade. Pissing off that voting block is suicide.

        The only mandate for HDTV is for broadcast signals. Cable will not be affected by the proposed mandate since a cable TV company can broadcase both standard and digital signals at the same time without conflict. Same goes for satelite.

        The ridiculous part of this whole thing is that almost nobody who buys a big screen TV connects it to a broadcast signal as the primary feed. Most people watching HDTV signals for real today are taking them off satelite.

        Broadcast HDTV so far is a bust, the signals don't work in appartment blocks with a set top antenna.

        So if the edict did get made law the people affected would be the people who listen to broadcast signals - mostly people who can't be bothered with tv much, can't afford cable or are watching on second sets.

        Withdrawing these people's ability to watch TV would be interpreted as yet another corporate, for the rich policy. But since those people won't be able to vote it does not matter. Any complaints that are made will merely divert attention away from the huge contracts Haliburton and other Bush crony-capitalism companies get to exploit Iraq's oil (bill for security paid for by US taxpayer) and of course the effort to remove the limit on presidential terms...

        • Ok, your posts prove how messed up Slashdot Moderation is. The first part of what you say is not very informative, as we all know that broadcast HDTV is not going anywhere fast. The most informative part is where you dig out the conspiracy theory on the Bush Administration. And WTF is the crap about the Presidential term limits?
          So we are basically informed as to your lack of independent thought. Troll material, I would think, then one sees the link to a Salon Blog. Of course, we all know how objective and realistic Salon's readers are.

          Grow up and read some history books, instead of cliff notes written by the extreme left.

        • Incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)

          by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:56AM (#4306851)
          Most people with HDTV sets don't have HDTV, they just get better DVD quality. A lot of people get Digital Cable (heavily compressed NTSC/480i signal) and are convinced that their expensive set is important.

          I have an apartment, and I got an attic antenna giving me the local OTA signals. Combine that with DirecTV (HDNet, ShoHD, HBO-HD), and you get 8-9 HDTV signals. It's fun, it looks great, but it ain't easy.

          Broadcast HDTV is going strong, slowly. All the HDTV STBes for satellites include an antenna input. Samsung has a line of OTA-only STBes.

          Living in a city (I live in Boston), you start to think that everyone lives in apartments. However, more middle-class individuals live in houses in the suburbs. Home ownership remains high. Houses can put roof-top antennas up, etc.

          HDTV is coming along, its coming along slowly, but its coming along. Personally, I would expect HDTV to die a few years after the DTV switchover. I would expect the local affiliates to show 6 480i signals in the HDTV over-the-air. This doesn't bother me though, if you can get 40 channels over-the-air with a $150-$200 STB, that will put a lot of preasure on cable/DSS.

          • Re:Incorrect (Score:3, Informative)

            by Storm Damage ( 133732 )
            Most people with HDTV sets don't have HDTV, they just get better DVD quality. A lot of people get Digital Cable (heavily compressed NTSC/480i signal) and are convinced that their expensive set is important.

            I have an HDTV set, and I receive HDTV channels from my Digital Cable provider. They give me all the local OTA HD channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOS, WB), an HDTV Demo channel looping some beautifully-produced PBS programming, and the HDTV-version of HBO (which I also subscribe to). If I subscribed to Showtime, I'd also get SHO-HD. Furthermore, my Digital Cable provider (Time Warner), does not charge extra for these channels. They are included with the digital cable package, and can be used by anyone with the necessary hardware (Analong component video outputs are right on the cable box).

            So, apparently, I'm getting a similar HDTV experience to your own, but from a single service provider, and without the hassle of setting a big antenna on top of my apartment building. Unfortunately, I don't have an attic in my apartment, and since it's concrete-block construction, including the walls between units, indoor antennas can't pick up a lot of signal anyway.

            Also, although I'm in an apartment, I live in a rather suburban area dominated by single-family homes. I doubt I'm the only person in my area with this setup.
        • You do realize that the FCC was pissing people off even during the Clinton administration. I strongly doubt that both Bush and Clinton have the same plan. It is more likely that the same people are still working for the FCC.

          I would find it more likely this plan was from the Democrats than the Republicans as the entertainment industry supports the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans financially. I would try to find something on vote-smart.org, but it is under construction (?).

          Even saying that, I believe it is the FCC that is running around with too much power. Remember that some of the "fees" that they add to your bill were never approved by Congress.

    • Re:Simply put (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
      It just won't happen. This is an FCC/Hollywood pipe dream. If it does actually happen this way, there will be revolution, trust me.

      Actually what this is about is two Congressional scams. The first is that the 'balanced' budget was predicated on the govt. getting paid a vast sum for the returned analog licenses. Of course the budget also assumed other things like 4% growth, no war with Iraq and the tax cuts not costing anything.

      The second more important scam is the campaign bribe extortion racket. Tauzin and co want to milk this for as long as they can so don't expect the stupid Tauzin/Hollings deadlines to be kept. They don't want their meal ticket going away. They want this to be like the banking reform act which was kept on the boil for 15 years with cash extractions every campaign cycle.

      As for a 'revolution', talk like that will get you up in front of an Ashcroft tribunal for a secret trial.

      But a more relevant consideration is that without the media broadcasting their reassuring pro-Bush propaganda (complete with serious consideration of spurious claims of left wing bias) there is a serious prospect of regime change. So maybe the regime does want to disable home VCR use, don't want anyone challenging things when the regime tries to rewrite history again (like claiming they never campaigned for social security privatization or the spurious post-facto claim that the pledge to balance the budget had conditions).

      This it a regime that very much wants to control the media. They are people for whom no power is sufficient. Even the US Presidency does not give them enough power, they want more.

      • I know I'm a moron, but I really really tried. What does this mean?

        But a more relevant consideration is that without the media broadcasting their reassuring pro-Bush propaganda (complete with serious consideration of spurious claims of left wing bias) there is a serious prospect of regime change.

  • It's not all bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:12AM (#4306581)
    While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for.

    Mike
    • That's fine and good, but I refuse to have gigiabit wireless at the expense of the freedom to tape a show and watch it at my convienence.

    • Re:It's not all bad... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alienw ( 585907 )
      Apparently, you don't know how the FCC works. The frequencies will be auctioned off to the highest bidder, for private use (probably cellphones). Not to mention that gigabit wireless cannot run at those frequencies anyway (band is too narrow).
    • "While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for."

      No, the FCC is slobbering with greed over the MONEY that it will get for all those frequencies.

      Does anyone believe that an agency intent on auctioning off every part of the broadcast spectrum it can instead of allocating it by merit is going to do anything not in the best interest of the almighty buck?

    • Re:It's not all bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Amiga Trombone ( 592952 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:47AM (#4306820)
      While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for.

      OK, but consider this - suppose in the early days of VCR technology, congress had mandated the use of Beta as the standard format for video reproduction? That would have precluded entry of VHS, laser-disk and DVD into the market.

      The problem with government mandated technological innovations is that they tend to stifle any further innovation. Why would anyone bother to spend the time and money developing what might be superior technology? You can't compete with a standard required by law.

  • problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chainrust ( 610064 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:15AM (#4306585) Journal
    Although broadcasters will be broadcasting HDTV by 2006, there is a catch. HDTV can be broken up in to several different, lower quality channels. Its much cheaper for networks to do it this way, so what do you think will happen? The other big problem is that by 2006, the majority of us will still have plain old nonHD-TVs. What incentive will there be for the networks to provide a high-quality signal? I don't think its realistic to expect networks to broadcast high-quality TV for free when they can split the signal and make more money, especially when the consumer demand is not there. The only hope is to have pay channels like HBO - I think thats the only real HDTV you will see.

    • Re:problems (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ealar dlanvuli ( 523604 ) <froggie6@mchsi.com> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:48AM (#4306646) Homepage
      This is the one thing I always try and impress upon people.

      The snow effects you currently see on a big screen tv when watching 80$/month cable will turn into large blocks or black rectangles. The world isn't going to magically quadrouple thier bandwidth overnight, and most stations don't broadcast anything near a proper signal as it is.

      Currently a television signal could be "crisp and clear", for example several of the "remember 9/11" shows had proper recording. In all cases I thought I was watching mid-res HDTV but in reality I was watching plain old TV. People don't care enough to require this (nor do they feel they have the ability to modify the market), and I strongly doubt they will in the future either.

      • Re:problems (Score:4, Interesting)

        by powerlord ( 28156 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:44AM (#4306806) Journal
        This is the one thing I always try and impress upon people.

        The snow effects you currently see on a big screen tv when watching 80$/month cable will turn into large blocks or black rectangles. The world isn't going to magically quadrouple thier bandwidth overnight, and most stations don't broadcast anything near a proper signal as it is.

        Absolutely true. I've got basic cable, my in-laws have digital cable.

        Every now and then I get some static on my reception... no big deal really. Sure, it degrades the quality of the picture, but the mind works great and can pick up on enough thats going on, that it has never turned out to be an issue.

        I was over at my in-laws. They started getting static. First it started with some mild pixelation on screen, followed by the sound getting spotty (like a bad cell phone conversation), and then they kept having the screen freeze and strobe slightly (kept getting packets of data but not enough to redraw the screen).

        Yes, this is just "traditional TV" broadcast in a Digital format but the idea is the same. Signal Quality is important. Without good signal quality, I'll take analog over digital ANY day of the week.

      • Re:problems (Score:3, Informative)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
        The snow effects you currently see on a big screen tv when watching 80$/month cable will turn into large blocks or black rectangles.

        They already have for me. The digital channels on my cable system look like a bad Real Media video stream over a 14.4 modem. Even without interference, the compression artifacts are often visible.

        The most annoying part is that when the blocks become visible, they can remain motionless even when the object that contains them moves. That is really distracting and unnatural.

      • My 'TV' is a 27" Sony PVM video monitor, and while it is not a truly top-end display, it produces a much better image than any consumer TV i have seen, and it shows up the inadequacy of the picture transmitted through the cable here in NZ rather obviously. The snow is extremely obvious on practically all the channels they carry.

        My other big screen, a 29" Mitsubishi VGA monitor (also has composite/S-Video input) has major problems syncing properly to the signal produced by the cable box, (has no trouble with Playstation/VCR/DVD signal)which makes me wonder just how bad the signal these clowns are broadcasting is.

        Connecting my PS2 to the Sony via the RGB SCART connector shows me what a sharp, beautiful picture my 'low-tech, analog' display is capable of, but if the cable companies apply the same production quality to their HDTV signals that they do to their current 'low-fi' broadcasts, theres just no point in wasting the money on an HDTV-capable set.

  • HDTV Reality (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Navaash Fenwylde ( 35067 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:19AM (#4306594) Homepage
    My father bought an HDTV about a month ago (a Phillips, IIRC). It's very nice, though all of the signals are still coming in analog (4:3) because the digital cable receiver *doesn't support HDTV output*, meaning he has to replace it with one that does. Oh bother. It's wonderfully ironic when the local nightly newscasts declare they're "broadcasting live in HDTV" yet the output doesn't change to match this fact.

    At least DVD playback looks really good.

    As for existing televisions, there are probably legions of geeks and middle-to-lower-class citizens that will either use their older game consoles with them, or simply choose not to buy into the hype and watch their older stuff that they've been taping but haven't had rhyme nor reason to watch, which is pretty much counter to what the industry wants.

    • Re:HDTV Reality (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mjpaci ( 33725 )
      You're confusing too many things right here.

      4:3 Aspect Ration doesn't mean analog. You could have 1080i programming in a 4:3 aspect ratio or 16:9 or 3.14159:1.

      Digital cable isn't high definition. Digital cable means that the signal from the head-end to the cable box is a data stream and the cable box decodes that. It could look good or bad depending on the quality of the original signal.

      The nightly news broadcasts in HDTV OVER THE AIR. Tell your father to get an antenna, put it on the roof and then look at the local news.

      --Mike

  • Not quite.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by _LORAX_ ( 4790 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:21AM (#4306596) Homepage
    Most information I've seen is that they don't mind 480i ( standard TV ) resolution output even if not 100% copy protected. What they worry about is HDTV 1080i or 720p becomming the next rippable format without a fight.

    C'mon this is the same crap the TV manufactured whined about when CC became mandatory. The chip now gos for $2US in bulk. By the time this becomes the standard simple decoder boxes will proabably be in the sub $50 range and the cost in a new TV will be less than $20.

  • What about existing HDTV sets? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tweakt ( 325224 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:22AM (#4306598) Homepage
    You are forgetting about the growing percentage of HDTV compatible TV sets already out there. The majority of these sets have analog inputs. Yep. High-Res, but its still analog. Basically its a large VGA monitor (only limited to 60hz vert refresh and ~80khz horiz.)

    Will these become "obsoleted" as well? No. The copyright protection systems discussed so far involve also the recording of analog signals. This is about the same as macrovision did for DVD players. This is already happening with DVHS.

    The truth is, probably ~80% of the HDTVs sold (all the reasonably priced ones) do not contain an HDTV tuner, they have analog inputs which are capable of 1080i, 720p, etc, resolutions. These _cant_ be simply ignored since it took so long to get capable equipment into the hands of consumers, the industry isn't just going to say tell everyone to buy another set.

    I imagine these will be grandfathered. New sets will contain digital connections (like DVI for example) and some kind of end-to-end protection, but this, as we all know is futile anyhow.

    For the time being, there are VERY few practical ways for Joe Consumer to record a high-def broadcast and replay it, or even send it to someone else. DVHS is the only customer usuable solution right now. Which as we read about earlier [slashdot.org] has already been taken care of.

    • Re:What about existing HDTV sets? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @12:51PM (#4307181) Homepage

      Interesting.

      The computer industry has a scam that they use with unsuspecting executives. It is the "security" scam. The industry ran this scam against the DVD consortium. In actuality, there was no security, but the computer industry managed to convince the DVD group that there was. The deception was, and is, immensely profitable for some hardware manufacturers. But, of course, a 16-year-old released a method of breaking the encryption (with help from more knowledgeable people.)

      More recently, Microsoft tried to run the security scam against the entire world. The Passport scheme was working well in the sense that only a small percentage of people realized that it was a scam. But the U. S. government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) told Microsoft to stop in its August 8, 2002 order: Microsoft Settles FTC Charges Alleging False Security and Privacy Promises [ftc.gov]

      Microsoft has run the security scam against its corporate customers. In actuality, the (local) security of Windows 2000 and Windows XP is very limited; if corporate customers realized this, they might not invest in these operating systems. See the section "Windows XP provides no local security" in the article Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [hevanet.com]

      You and others in your comments are questioning the HDTV security scam. You are saying, "Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this, and this, and this wrong with the scheme?"

      Now Microsoft and Intel and AMD are running the scam with a thing called Palladium. With Microsoft's Palladium, we will, supposedly, have security in an inherently insecure operating system. Palladium's security certificate system is like putting all the world's money in one bank. If someone, a disloyal employee perhaps, breaks into that bank, the entire security is lost, and everyone who spent millions trusting that system will both lose, and have to continue with the system, just like with DVD's.

      Palladium prevents security vulnerability the way the U.S. government's "War on Drugs" prevents illegal drug use. In actuality, the real purpose of the "War on Drugs" is to prevent competition by small illegal drug manufacturers, which would lower the price. The big manufacturers are selling more drugs now than before the "War on Drugs", and at artificially high prices.

  • ...that the standards being proposed for digital television transmission were open, and that the specs could be obtained somewhere (possibly the FCC). Hence it shouldn't be all that hard to build your own system to get around all the "don't copy" bits, etc.

  • The obvious solution is to have some sort of convertor box, like a cable box, that can receive the HDTV signals and output an NTSC signal that a standard TV can display.

    But that would allow people to circumvent the copy-protection scheme by hooking up a VCR. Maybe something like the old MacroVision scheme could be used to make the output viewable but unrecordable.

    Anyway, my point is that an inexpensive convertor should be possible, once the details are worked out. When the general-public outcry begins (and the impact on the economy is considered) I doubt that the industry will object too strenuously because TVs and VCRs have a limited lifetime, and eventually everything will be converted over to the new technology. I mean, how many black-and-white TVs and 8-track players do you see in stores these days?

    I predict that a compromise will eventually be reached, and the old technology will be allowed to fade away naturally.
    • The conversion to new technology isn't as fast as you think. I'm still using two 20 year old TVs (a 25" Zenith and a 13" Hitachi with a completely manual tuner). Admittedly, part of why I'm still using these is 1) I don't care that much about getting anything bigger or more modern and 2) there isn't much of a technology roadmap. I suppose that when I can get a decent sized HDTV compatible in the $500-1000 range, I could be convinced to upgrade.

      As long as the technology is unsettled, at least some people will be reluctant to do anything as long as they have something that works. There will also be a lot of people who just can't afford to upgrade. Advertising driven TV is dependant on a mass audience and the lowest common denominator will dominate it for a long time, no matter what the people pushing the new stuff thing. These are powerful interests.

      • Re:It's not nearly as bad as it sounds (Score:4, Funny)

        by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @01:27PM (#4307329) Homepage
        What will you do with your 20 year old TV's when they stop broadcasting analog signals on VHF and UHF, which if I'm not mistaken, is the plan?

        The reason you (and I) have been able to enjoy the low costs that come with durable equipment is that the transmission standards haven't changed in fifty years.

        Now, suddenly, there are as many new transmission standards are there are kinds of recordable DVD. Can you even keep track of them all? I can't.

        In the United States, it doesn't seem to be possible to buy such a simple thing as a cell phone that will work anywhere. Shortly, it probably won't be possible to buy a simple TV that will pick up every local broadcast.

        You'll have to have a stack of three or four converter boxes... which upgrade their firmware automatically every few months and will then mysteriously stop working, and you'll have to wait two hours on hold listening to irritating music interrupted every minute by a recorded voice apologizing for the delay...

  • I challenge... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billbaggins ( 156118 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:26AM (#4306604)
    I challenge the statement that an external tuner won't work. One thing that Congress has actually been pretty decent about is that it still has to be possible to time-shift programming. (See the SSSCA [cryptome.org] and CBBTPA [cryptome.org] for details.) So somewhere in this mess it's still gonna have to be possible to hook up a recording device. Unless Congress mandates that all TVs come with recording equipment internalized as well, that "trusted display chain" is nothing but a pipedream, and deep down even Eisner realizes it.

    What's more, they probably want to make it possible to use existing VHS recorders, because otherwise people will go out & get TiVos and DVD recorders and other things that will make it very easy to exchange Content with all their eyepatch-wearing friends. If the VCR works, the TV will too. I wouldn't worry about throwing out that tube just yet...

  • You can't polish a turd (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El Puerco Loco ( 31491 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:31AM (#4306614)
    the problem with the tv today is content, not presentation. crap like "friends" and "survivor" and "who wants to debase himself on national tv for a few dollars" isn't gonna be any better in 720p than it is now. well, if bush gets his way at least the history channel will have some new stuff to beat into the ground by this time next year. grrr. screw you kids and you newfangled digital tv, i'll stick to npr and the bbc on the wireless. feh.
    • the problem with the tv today is content, not presentation. crap like "friends" and "survivor" and "who wants to debase himself on national tv for a few dollars" isn't gonna be any better in 720p than it is now.

      Correct. But I feel that these shows might look better in 1080i:

      Sopranos (oops already is)
      Six Feet Under
      Curb Your Enthusiasm
      West Wing
      Sex in the City
      Law & Order(s)
      CSI (whoops already is)
      NYPD Blue (whoops already is)
      Firefly (yep I liked it)

      etc...

      Just because shitty shows exist on TV doesn't mean all shows are shitty. Every time there's a TV-related posting on slashdot, you get some idiot posting on here about how there's only crap on TV, and THEN THEY LIST ONLY THE CRAPPY SHOWS!

      It's like being pissed off that everything's red when you're wearing rose-colored glasses.

  • The real problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PoiBoy ( 525770 )
    Aside from forcing stupid copy-protection schemes from us, the biggest hurdle to widespread HDTV usage is the cable industry. AFAIK, the cable industry still has done nothing toward upgrading their systems or even determining a standard to push HDTV signals through the cable system. Since roughly 70 percent of American households have cable, this seems to me to be the biggest problem.

  • This is absolutely ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:38AM (#4306626)
    ... for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it. Wild claims by ill-informed posters decry the supposed "lack of difference" in picture quality or fears that their TV's will be remoted controlled by Hollywood.

    I've owned an HDTV for over two years now. A big one! Widescreen, rear projection. I watched a boatload of DVD's on it via a progressive scan player. 480p looked pretty damn good! Leaps and bounds above interlaced NTSC video from a VCR. Nobody will deny this, of course.

    Three weeks ago, the first local station went up with the DTV (digital TV) broadcasting. Last week I purchased a DTV set-top-box and a very small UHF antenna which I hid behind the TV. I turn it on and get to watch real, true high-definition content received directly from the air! No cable, no satellite. Even watching non-HD content that is upconverted directly from the network -- it blows DVD away!

    Anybody who says they can't see a difference is either not watching HDTV or a blind luddite!
    • So, can you still record programs with a VCR ?

    • Re:This is absolutely ridiculous... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:47AM (#4306816) Homepage
      ".. for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it."
      "I've owned an HDTV for over two years now. A big one! Widescreen, rear projection."
      Three weeks ago, the first local station went up with the DTV (digital TV) broadcasting."

      Yeah, HTDV IN THEROY can provide incredible pictures. But reality is that it will be YEARS, if not DECADES after the deadline, if ever, before the majority of signals are more than standard TV is now.

      It's like saying that Slashdot is anti technology because it's ANTI MICROSOFT! DTV is much like Microsoft: They promise you the moon (HDTV), but charge you a premium and still deliver the same old crap (SDTV), but the only new "feature" is intrusiveness, loss of privacy, and "fair use" (DRM).
      • What about microsoft? The parent comment had nothing to do it. Looks like somebody's got a grudge.

        The fact is that digital signals from local affiliates look 5X better than the analog equivalent.

        Have you seen HDTV yet? Do you own one? I do. The difference is like night and day.
    • It's not about not being able to see the difference ... It's about having your hand forced to spend money tomorrow on something that works acceptably for 95% of the population today.

      Like it or not, the American public depends on the Television as both a source of information and entertainment. If overnight, a switch is flipped cutting this source off ... the FCC stands to isolate and infuriate consumers that have little incentive, and no desire to "upgrade".

    • Anybody who says they can't see a difference is either not watching HDTV or a blind luddite!

      I'm one of those that couldn't really see a huge difference. Then I figured out why... "HDTV ready" means absolutely nothing. By that, I mean that there are no monitors that can display "true" 1920x1080 HDTV resolution. That means that no matter what the resolution, anyone can call their TV "HDTV ready" even though it can't come close to displaying an HDTV signal.

      I used to think that HDTV looked "kind of better", but not enough to get excited about. After I started doing research into it, I realized that most home electronics stores don't really carry the high-end monitors, and that's why I got an early bad taste in my mouth.

      If I was confused about this, I'm sure there are a LOT of people confused by it. A lot of people haven't really seen HDTV in high-res. And NOBODY (or very few, at least) has seen HDTV at HDTV resolution.

      Personally, I'm waiting for Plasma screens to come down in price to where I can buy one of the higher resolution screens. Speaking of this, I should give a plug to this site [plasmatvbuyingguide.com], which has some great reviews and price comparisons of all the major plasma brands.

      Unfortunately, the one that I want is still about $8K (1365 x 768 resolution). :-(. That's a little more than I want to spend on television.

    • You realize that your HDTV screen will not show anything other than 480i after they introduce the new encrypted digital broadcast. The converter box analog outputs will ONLY be 480i. Enjoy your HDTV picture while you can, and I hope you liked spending your money.
    • (* This is absolutely ridiculous.... for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it. *)

      This is because most slashdotters are probably nearsighted, and we don't want to watch TV with our uncomfortable lenses on. Thus, plain ol' TV resolution is fine for most of us.

      Thats one theory at least. I usually don't watch TV with my specs on (unless the swimsuit part of the Miss Hong Kong pagent is on.)
    • The fear is that the closed encrypted systems will be used to perpetuate the current monopoly electronic publication by the big broadcasters. If you and I are not alowed to record these shows, what makes you think we will be alowed to make them much less make them available to anyone over the current closed channels? Cox and ATT won't let me do so much as run a web or mail server, do you think I'll be able to share my HDTV recordings? Do you think I'll even be able to watch them without paying some asshole a licensing fee? Those are the concerns with federaly mandated Digital Rights Denial measures.

      As for the obsolecense issue, my old equipment will not end up in a landfill. My VCR, camcorder and TV work just fine, thank you. I have equipment which I can use to edit the tapes into digital format and make shows for distribution in either analog or digital form. Those tools are not going in the trash till they and everyone else's break. If I can't convince morons like you that Toe-Zan does not have your best intrest at heart, I'll just have to settle for "obsolete" technology to share my stuff with my family and friends.

      No, I'm not going to buy any of those silly new things until the smoke clears. As Hollywood sucks harder, I demand less. It's amazing what you can do when you don't follow all that nonsense.

  • Don't confuse DTV with HDTV (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wfmcwalter ( 124904 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @09:47AM (#4306642) Homepage
    The deadline of which the yahoo! article speaks is for DTV - where the over-the-air/cable signal is digital. There is no requirement for the resolution to be any greater than currently available for NTSC.

    Digital TV has been creeping in for years, all without anyone buying a new TV. In the UK we had BSB digital a decade ago, and BskyB is digital now, and I believe Dish network in the US is also digital. Most europeans have access to over-the-air digital with DVB boxes, and in the US one can get AT&T digital over cable. [Some of these (dish, BskyB at least) transmit one or two HDTV channels, but these mostly seem to be used in TV stores to try to sell the occasional HDTV set.] All of this is done with external translator boxes in the comsumers home - almost no-one has either a DTV, never mind an HDTV.

    My local COMET store is selling funny little DVB translator boxes for around 60 quid, so all this stuff about digital TV adding hundreds to the cost of TVs is horseshit. I'd bet that once every TV can do DVB, they'll be _cheaper_ than regular TVs.

    Now, there's other reasons to worry about DTV, not least the greatly increased control this gives the content/distribution folks, but "I need to buy three new TVs" isn't one of them.

  • It's sad that this is being forced upon Americans so Michael Powell can land a cushy Hollywood job after he steps down from chair.
  • The problem that happens in all this trusted mumbo jumbo crap is that in the end it will be my eyes and ears that process the light and sound. Without that, there can never be any hollywood or movie industry. So as long as it can be seen or heard, it can be recorded as well. Last I checked, even grabbing the analog signals before they make it into the CRT would be good enough for a recording, wouldn't they? If not, any joe schmoe could video tape the images and play them back. The trusted computing/television is nothing more than a pipedream as many of you have said. If humans (not roswell aliens) designed the system, then it is crackable. Here is to another 50 years of great hacking (damn I shouldn't be drinking on a sunday =/)

  • Shoot Your TV. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuantumWeasel ( 606327 )
    The enemy is not Big Media. The "enemy" is a Consuming Public willing to exchange basic freedoms for perceived features. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: They deserve neither.

    The Big Media's greatest strength is also their Achilles Heel: profit motive. If people really don't like something, and won't pay for it, it will go away. Witness DIVx.

    Ed Abbey had a solution for all this years ago: Shoot your TV. Repeat as necessary.

  • It's not that extreme. (Score:5, Informative)

    by rob_from_ca ( 118788 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:03AM (#4306683)
    It was tough to find the questions buried in that long commentary, but here are the answers:

    1. Who pays for the factory retrofits?

    It's not like we're talking about a completely new way of generating images that makes all old factories completely obsolete. Most of the parts stay the same, there are a few new ones, and some need to be built with better specs. The manufacturers are constantly upgrading their facilities, because it enables them to sell more TV's cheaper. So they'll pay, and if it does cost a lot, they'll pass some of it on to the consumer, just like they always do, but I'd be suprised if there's a huge jump in priace in 5 years. HDTV Tuners started out at $1000 and have dropped to $500 in about two years, and they're still not really being manufacturered in quantities yet. Plus, tuners to upgrade old sets don't need to be high-res, which makes them much, much less expensive.

    2. Where do all the old TV sets go?

    Where do they go now? Into landfills. That problem has got nothing to do with HDTV. There will be an easy, cheap, external box to buy that will make your TV continue working. Hollywood doesn't care about low-res, NTSC analog outputs, only the higher-resolution ones, so they don't need a "trusted chain".

    There are things to be worried about for when it comes to freedom of digital media going forward, but this isn't one of them.
    • If Hollywood doesn't care about NTSC analog then they're even dumber than we all thought already. For Joe Schmoe, that level of quality is Good Enough. In fact, it's overkill. Joe Schmoe likes to record things in SLP because "I can get 8 hours on a tape!!" It looks like ass but he doesn't care.

      They bitch about Napsterization. What is the predominant type of mp3 traded on p2p? 128kbit fixed rate mp3s are what I mostly saw. I almost NEVER saw high quality VBR encoded mp3s. That is just a little too much clue for ole joe. So what do you think is going to be traded video wise when it gets a little more practical for Joe? I'm betting on MPEG1 made from SLP tapes. Hollyweird's "quality" argument is irrelevant.
  • "Having a secondary tuner would not work as that would break the "trusted" display chain that Hollywood is seeking to establish. "

    Yes it would work, for non-hdtv's at least. The tuner would output a standard low res NTSC so there is no need to copy protect it. The only problem is for those buying HDTVs now that don't have the required encrypted digital input. Seeing as those TV's are only coming out now I'd say that that would be most HDTVs out now. But still this isn't as bad as replacing every tv. Just those early adopters who bought HDTVs would need it upgraded. And early adopters always go through things like this, they know what to expect.

  • Pardon me? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kaphka ( 50736 ) <1nv7b001@sneakemail.com> on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:30AM (#4306763)
    the inevitable arrival of the technology thanks to Hollywood
    I realize that this isn't your main point, but it came so far out of left field that I stopped reading right there. I guess the author figured that he couldn't blame this one on Microsoft, so "Hollywood" was the next best scapegoat.

    "Hollywood" is probably the only force out there that is fighting HDTV. (There are other interests who oppose the obsolescence of analog TV, but they have nothing against HDTV per se.) Remember, it was "Hollywood" that changed the format of their movies to make them incompatible with television [geocities.com]; HDTV would allow recent movies to be aired unedited for the first time in 50 years, so they'll probably have to come up with a new way to get people into theaters.

    The only force that's pushing HDTV, other than consumers who want better quality, is the wireless industry, which has plans for the bandwidth that analog TV currently occupies. (And they have a valid point, to some extent... why should we all be denied the next generation of whiz-bang cell phones, just because a few people are too cheap to buy a new TV?)
    • The public safety people (police and fire department) have been pushing this for many years. Not that they care about television. They want some of the spectrum that can be recovered by moving from NTSC to ATSC (HDTV). It isn't just the cell phone companies. The FCC has been nibbling at the UHF TV band for a long time, both at the bottom and top of the band.
  • Congress will pass a law (DMCA) that makes it a felony to circumvent digital copy protection mechanisms, yet there is no similar felony for passing laws that circumvent our Constitutional liberty?

    Which is the greater crime here? The person who wants to crack CSS so he can watch a DVD on a Linux computer, or maybe so that he doesn't have to watch ADVERTISEMENTS on a $18 movie that he'd PURCHASED?

    Or a Congress who accepts Jack and Hillary's BIG LIE (along with a lot of their dollars) that digital technology is legally different from analog, thus "circumventing" the Supreme Court's many rulings on the legality of consumer analog recording, copying and time shifting technology?

    I vote for the latter.

    There will be no protections of the rights of American Citizens so long as there are no criminal penalties for legislatures who pass illegal laws. They should have to cite where in the Constitution authority is granted to pass said law. And they should be removed from office if convicted of voting for one that is Unconstitutional.

    We should not have to solely rely on the courts to protect us. Legislatures should be AS beholden to "ignorance of the law is no defense" as we plebes are expected to be of the thousands of byzantine laws we are subject to at any given time and in any given place.

    The only law they are really subject to in passing laws is the Constitution. Which anyone can read in under an hour, so what I'm asking isn't impossible.

  • Some facts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AstroMage ( 566990 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:35AM (#4306780)
    Reading the posts so far, it seems that very few people understand the issues involved. An exception is a reply titled "Don't confuse DTV with HDTV", look it up above. Here are some more facts to set matters straight:
    1. The FCC says that analog transmissions will shut down on 2007 only if 85 percent of the population will have DTV receivers.
    2. Rather than replacing your TV set, you can use a Set Top Box that receives digital transmissions and converts them to either NTSC or AV signals.
    3. You could use a DVD to do the same job.

    In addition, I believe that by 2007 DTV prices will drastically go down- even today, you can get a large DTV screen for $1600.
    So don't panic, things are not as bad as you think ;)

    To read more, check out: http://www.oren.com/knowledge.html

    Hope this helps :-)
    Astromage

  • Public television? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by handsomepete ( 561396 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @10:47AM (#4306817) Journal
    I was just talking to someone here at work who is somewhat acquainted with a few of the local TV stations. He said that, on average, it will cost approx. $1.7 million to outfit a television station with the necessary technology to prepare for all this nonsense. That may not be a massive amount to a big city CBS affiliate, but what about public broadcast stations? Won't they also have to participate in this?

    I'll certainly bitch and moan if I have to outfit my TV with some new-fangled doo-hickey to watch anything, but I'll bitch and moan even more if I lose the small local/publically funded stations here. That's a lot of call in donations for a station already on a tight budget. Is there some sort of government money available for what they're forcing on everyone?

    (please note, this is just a figure that some guy gave me. I'm not claiming it to be absolute, just what I heard.)

  • This is what happens when you get the gov involved (Score:3, Insightful)

    by browser_war_pow ( 100778 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @11:01AM (#4306865) Homepage
    As the subject says, this is the kind of shit we have to deal with when people see the state as the be-all, end-all solution to problems. I'm semi-opposed to file sharing because it eats up the bandwidth like crazy at my university, but even then you won't see me advocating prosecution. This is what happens when institutions of control push one thing over another. I know from personal experience why this is bad because I'm one of only 2 CS majors at my school that use OSX. Our school is geared toward whatever the professor wants, --if it can run on a PC--. Even though all of the curriculum for the BS can be completed with a Mac running OSX, a Sun Blade 100 (isn't that the $1000 one?), etc. A perfect example of them choosing to limit our options even though it is completely unnecessary.

  • home videos (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 )
    So if my new TV won't show a picture unless it has the new `broadcast flag' (or something) what happens when I try to plug my camcorder into the back of it to watch a video of my kids ?

    Am I going to have to buy a new camcorder ?
    What if I want to make a copy of a birthday party recording to give to my mum ?

  • Commander Data said it best... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Skater ( 41976 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @11:10AM (#4306881) Homepage Journal
    I'm reminded of something Data said in one of the early episodes of ST:TNG: "That form of entertainment didn't last much beyond the 22nd century." (paraphrased, century might be wrong, etc. You get the point.) The television industry will kill itself by making it too difficult to watch, and we'll find something else to do, and we'll be all nostalgic for the time when we could sit in front of the TV.

    This leads to the question: what will replace TV?
    • Interesting. I'd argue that the basic human demand for live drama hasn't changed too much in several thousand years, so there will always be a demand for plays, shows, and movies.

      But I'd say that a lot of the interest in inane television programming is due to a lack of social interaction. This is all armchair, but did you watch more TV during those halcyon childhood summers playing with friends, or when you now get home from your job at 9pm and are too tired to call one of the three people you know in the entire city? Isolation is TV's best friend.

      So in that case, maybe an explosion in the quality of videoconferencing software and hardware will replace much of the demand. Friends will replace "Friends". Talking on the phone sucks. I would much rather have seven chat windows open when I want to talk with my friends back on the other coast. But how much better to be able to communicate almost as though face to face? No replacement for having true in-person social interactions, but definitely a replacement for text chat, and just maybe a TV killer...
  • Some people think I'm anti-capitalism. I'm not. I just get upset when congressmen and FCC committee members attempt to mandate corporate expansion of power to secure campaign donations and guarantee corporate careers after their duties as 'representatives of the American people' expire.

    The FCC has taken huges leaps in expanding corporate freedoms. Any search of slashdot archives will tell you that, in the past year, The FCC is responsible for: (1) giving broadband cable companies a monopoly by denying competitors access to their lines, (2) ruling that telephone companies can sell names and phone call information to affiliates, creating opt out marketing (Spam), and (3) current debates over broadcast flags that would prevent time shifting and sharing, requiring early adopters to replace their HDTV equipment.

    The FCC is dominated by Republicans - 3 to 1 - because Bush is clever (contradiction?) enough not to appoint a Democrat to the vacant 5th seat. Since the committee chair is a Republican, Michael Powell, who has declared that Big Media doesn't need any restrictions, any agenda he dictates will become Republican agenda. He is guaranteeing for himself a fat paycheck from Hollywood after his low-paying job in the FCC is over.

    Does anyone else feel that the FCC needs some drastic reform to ensure that the committee is turuely "independent" as it is officially touted?

  • They aren't going to necessarily phase out analog
    broadcasts any time soon; they are just requiring
    that all TV's support digital.

    You won't have to get rid of your old TV either,
    cheap tuners will be available to take the basic
    digital 480 signal and display it on the standard
    composite connection that virtually every TV and
    VCR already support.

    HDTV tuners today are $500; by the time this
    technology is mandated, the cheaper 480 tuners
    will likely be less than $100.

    The copy protections will only prevent users
    from recording and using the raw digital stream.
    Devices that record the composite signal, e.g.
    VCR's and Tivo, will still work just fine;
    though VCR's auto-programming features might have
    some trouble.
  • Speaking from here in Norway, our last analog satellite broadcasts are shutting down now 15. October, the two big national broadcasters (NRK and TV2) being the last to go. After that, you'll *need* a digital decoder box, never mind that we got two perfectly fine analog decoder boxes as it is. No TVs come with digital decoders (as far as I know, at least it's not an advertized feature), it's all about external set-top boxes. And there's no talk about moving to HDTV either (or more like HDTV-PAL, they couldn't actually settle on a STANDARD? No, sir.) Analog transmissions are shutting down, they're obsolete. Of course you can have DRM, in the same way you had ARM (like Macrovision), but digital broadcasts are the future no matter what.

    Kjella
  • Most people cant afford a 40" widescreen TV. To draw use of HDTV you need a big telly or you wont notice much difference from 3 meters away. Big televisions are expensive and hasnt really taken off except at stuff crazy youngsters and cinefanatics.

    Most content is of pretty poor quality on most channels (many not even stereo). To expect that everyone owning a television should run out in a buying frenzy just to get sharper picture on otherwise pretty fscked up content (jeopardy in HDTV?) are just plain stupid. It is a dream conceived by manufacturers and Hollywood over a bong the size of Wembley Bowl.

    What eludes atleast me is what are the benefits for the comsumer?

    I can see better sound and picture being good while you watch movies but most people just watch shows and where are the benefit there?

    3D Tv would be another thing but just slightly better sound and picture doesnt really cut it for the big masses.

  • FUD! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @11:55AM (#4307005) Journal
    Several points:
    • The deadline is ONLY for over the air broadcasters using the 2-63 channels on the standard dial.
    • The deadline only mandates the inclusion of digital tuners, not HDTV or any other resolution or format change.
    • There will likely be no end to analog broadcasts on the deadline date, but years afterward. At least not until there is evidence that a significant majority of people have new sets or converters.
    • Even when digital is broadcast exclusively, all you'll need is a set-top converter to view these broadcasts on a standard(today) analog TV. (these should be cheap, I but I think they should be free)
    • If you subscribe to cable TV, your current analog cable stations can stay analog.
    • Another FCC mandate requires all digital simulast of analog content by April 2004. That's not going to happen.

      • The whole thing here is that the FCC wants this conversion to take place as soon as possible so they can re-parcel the old televisions spectrum and sell it at auction for bug $$$. TV stations pay nothing for the airwaves under the "public good" clause.

        All those analog TVs will still be useful. Just as B&W monural TVs can still be used today in the age of color image and stereo sound. Please don't use such alarmist tones unless you really understand the issues at hand.

  • Reverse march-of-the-morons (Score:3, Funny)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @12:13PM (#4307061)
    1. High price of new digital TV's means only the rich kids get them.
    2. Rich kids stay at home and watch HDTV all day.
    3. Poor kids stuck with books and the library.
    4. Poor kids become rich adults, rich kids become poor adults.
    5. Repeat, alternating generations.
  • Three things that could come together happily:

    1) A huge audience with prematurely obsolete video equipment, looking for material to watch on it

    2) Independent filmmakers who don't expect to make money off their first efforts, just exposure

    3) Broadband

    I'm not qualified to propose a workable economic model for this, but it has the feel of something exciting waiting to happen.
  • Contrary to what is being stated here, the SIGNAL is what is changing, the TELEVISION does NOT have to change.

    Sure, your VCR will be outmoded, but, last I checked mine is a big ass clock.

    There will be set top boxes for those people not wishing to spend their hard earned, or non-existant income on a brand spanking new 16:9 television. These boxes will take a 1080i, 720p, 480p, or whatever signal they decide on and down-convert it to good old 480i (AKA NTSC).

    You can then plug in a cable from this box, to your regular 1950s color televisor console television should you so desire.

    Or, cable companies/broadcasters have the option of taking a HDTV bandwidth frequency that should hold a 1080i signal, but they wills end 2 - 3 480i shows through it. Not every show will benefit from HDTV. Hell, last I checked up until a few years ago all of our old shows are still 480i/NTSC/PAL so it's not like broadcasting reruns of Seinfeld or Star Trek is going to get anything out of 1080i broadcast. So we can have channels of 480i being multiplexed into the HDTV.

    So don't lament and throw away your television yet. It'll be decades before you have to get rid of yours.

    Me, I just bought a HDTV capable Sony 57" Widescreen. But I watch lots of DVDs, and I have DSS HDTV.
  • If this goes through, this may be Presient Clinton's most lasting effect on American culture, even more than putting the InterNet in every school. No machine is used more hours per day by more Americans (or anywhere else in the world) than television. Time to leave the primitive 1940s standards and move to 1990s standards. The stuff is great, if it can succeed.
  • The SF Bay Area has three active HDTV broadcast stations right now. Yet when you go into a store and see HDTV receivers, they're always playing some canned demo high-resolution content. A few times, I've asked in stores for a demo of actual reception, and they've never been able to do it.

    Has anyone ever seen over-the-air HDTV?

  • I'll buy a HDTV as soon as Hollywood pays for it.

    I bought a good TV and Dish Network so I could watch babylon 5. That the only thing I could see that was worth paying that much for the TV. Now that there is nothing worth watching on TV, if someone thinks I should have a HDTV, they can pay for it. Otherwise I'm keeping what I've got since it works fine. Once the major broadcasters switch to digital only, I will have three choices, watch cable (or sat), watch the hundredes of vidoes that I've got, or tune out. I guess I could buy a new TV so I can watch the local broadcast is an option but I haven't tuned those morons in for very long time.

    Not having new TV signals will not be a bad thing for me. One thing that will be a problem is how will congress or the president deliver their load of media crap to me if I don't have a new TV? I guess thats not my problem after all. If my congresscritter wants my to watch their nonsense, they can pay for a new TV or digital tuner or whatever since I'm not going to.
  • 300,000,000 million citizens does not mean 300,000,000 people who are all in the same age and income range.

    2.5 kid nuclear families are ~5 people (if we round down), which divides to 60,000,000. This doesn't account for seniors, low income people, or high income people. But it's more accurate than nearly everyone owns 2 TVs.

    If most of them (2/3rds) owned 2 TVs, and everyone else owned 1 TV/family, then it'd be about: 100,000,000 TVs tops. Or about 1/5th of what you just projected.

    Don't you think that's a littre more accurate, NeuroManson? You can't just spew random statistics and hope they're correct. You have to justify the numbers, or you'll fall into various traps when modelling systems without actually examining those systems.

  • You're mixing two seperate issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Sunday September 22, 2002 @03:25PM (#4307819) Journal
    There are two completely seperate issues that most here can't seem to see.

    One is a purely technology issue: converting a 50 year old analog broadcast system to a modern digital system, with many technical advantages.

    The other is political: Hollywood, and the congressmen they own, are trying to subvert the open system to extend their control to unprecedented levels.

    Now, even the tech issue is being misrepresented here. What's this garbage about throwing away all existing TV's? A simple digital receiver will output NTSC that your existing TV and VCR can use. These are already available, and will be VERY cheap once people start converting.

    The technological advantages are very clear, DTV allows 6x the resolution of DVD's (1920x1080), Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, sub-channels to display more than one program per channel, program guide data included in signal, and a perfect digital picture - free of static/ghosting/fuzzines/etc.

    Check out this site [feldoncentral.com] for some screenshots to demonstrate the quality of HDTV broadcasts.

    As a big fan of HDTV, I hate the Hollywood efforts as much as anyone. But, these misconceptions only cloud the true issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close