Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using Bandwidth Of HDTV

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the what-a-mess dept.

the coose writes: " Got an HDTV set yet? Wait before getting one; here's why ... " Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.

149 comments

  1. Re:Why do I want HDTV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    HDTV is necessary so that all the geeks that read this site can go out and buy another version of Phantom Menace from George Lucas, and then bitch about it.

    And HD Porn -- once you exactly how scaggy those girls, you'll turn gay and that's progress.

  2. Re:a cheap alternative by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    But it's 480i, not even 480p. That's less rresolution than a DVD with a decent PC-based deinterlacer. The real attraction of HDTV is in the 720p and 1080i modes. (Of course, 1080p is also theoretically possible)

  3. Remember the Back Cover of Wired? by jacoby · · Score: 1

    This is exactly what Nicolas Negreponte said would happen in his column in the back of Wired. Seriously, I like nice screens, but my problem with TV isn't the brightness, it is the intelligence, and HDTV does nothing to fix that.

    And if you were going to have big huge barrels of bandwidth available, would you waste it on a high-quality video feed of Jeopardy?

  4. Re:The hidden dangers of HDTV by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    of course, the legality of this protection would severely break under the supreme court's ruling that time shifting is legal. but this is approximately the same thing that the decss fight is involved in, so there's some hope.

    (besides - do you really think that sufficiently smart vcrs will allow commercial editing? dvds already play commercials that you can't fast forward through or skip, without a modified player)

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  5. Re:Oh my God! It's the monolith from 2001! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    no, monoliths are 1 x 4 x 9 (and presumably more in higher dimensions)

    maybe you're thinking of the import models.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  6. Re:The hidden dangers of HDTV by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    See, to my mind the thing is this:

    Copyrights are only granted for a limited time. Public domain works should not suffer from conditions which prevent them from being used by the public in any manner whatsoever. This harms the public domain, and the first amendment (use of p.d. materials is protected speech) as well as anyone who holds a copyright on the materials that would be encrypted indiscriminately.

    These sorts of schemes would deny the exercise of legal copyrights to anyone who wasn't a major media corporation.

    Clearly it's time for the government to lean towards the side of the first amendment - better to have some infringing speech if that's the cost of having lots of free speech. Restricting speech to spare a few people screws everyone right up the ass.

    Additionally, when it comes to TV, given that tv stations are tightly regulated by the government, allowing this sort of thing could be interpreted as the govt. attempting to circumvent the first amendment.

    No sir, I don't like it.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  7. Re:I dunno. by unitron · · Score: 1

    "Once HDTV signal is sent via optical cable,..." it isn't broadcasting anymore and what we are talking about here is broadcasting and the way that broadcasters think that they have some God-given right to spectrum space that's actually public property (although the politicians are trying their best to screw us out of it and hand it off to their rich buddies, instead of just making them pay rent on it).

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  8. Re:The real problem for HDTV is... by bonehead · · Score: 1

    Agreed. With the current quality of programming, I'm down to about 6 hours per week of television watching. (That's up from 2 now that my Tivo is grabbing stuff for me.)

    Personally, I'd gain much more from datacasting than I ever would from a clearer image on my TV.

    Of course, YMMV.

  9. Re:Problem is: (1) price (2) size (3) recordabilit by Mr.+Frilly · · Score: 1

    Even hooking up a regular NTSC TV to a digitial receiver should give you an image quality improvement. There's two reasons for this. One, you don't have as many noise problems 'cause the broadcast signal is digital (no more ghosting, yeah!). Two, now analog resolution losses. Imagine having all your broadcast stations at better then DVD quality.

    Now, for the average Joe, they just need to start making cheap digital receivers, or including digital receiving abilities in current low quality (i.e. NTSC) sets, and everyone should be able to switch over to the new system.

  10. *sigh* It's the price, stupid! by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

    If HDTV hucksters really want to ramp up sales, they need to stop packing in features and LOWER THE PRICE, just like they were taught in ECON 101. $6000.00 is too much for teevee no matter how clear it is -- I'm waiting for it to hit $600 or lower.

    Yeah, yeah, recovery of development costs and all that. But it's not going to move in volume until the price comes down. (Like Dvorak's Law: no computer, no matter how sexy, will appeal to the mass market until it goes below $2500.)

  11. Re:idiots by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the TV stations are really crying about this one -- All they need to do is beta test High Definition broadcasts for a couple years, declare it a failure, and then start rolling out paging and data and other services in that extra bandwidth space. Or better yet, broadcast 4 standard definition channels, quadrupling their ad space they have to sell.

    Meanwhile, when Analog TV is about to be killed, all they need to do is roll out some little old ladies who watch PBS all day and can't afford a $100 converter box. Congress loves little old ladies, and Analog TV won't be killed for another 10 years.

    So, where they once had 1 analog channel, they soon will have 1 analog, 1 digital, and some additional channels and services to make money on. And all for free. Poor guys, Congress has been so mean to them.
    --

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  12. Re:HDTV by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    They probably could support 480i today for only a small extra cost.

    The big cost is large, high resolution tubes. Of course, this gives the TV manufacturers a huge opportunity to upsell. I wouldn't expect 1080 (or whatever the high definition res is) to be a standard TV feature for some time.
    --

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  13. Re:Ads everywhere (rant) by mattc · · Score: 1
    I hear that... sometimes I just want to throw the fucking radio right out the window! And since the big corporate interests and national public radio are fighting LPFM, don't expect things to be changing any time soon!

    In the past, you could just turn the radio to another station if the one you were listening to had too many ads. But now of course since every station is owned by a nationwide corporation (such as Clear Channel) you get the same 15 minutes ads / 5 minutes content on EVERY station.

    However, I do not think the web will ever be like that. Why? Simply because how cheap it is to create and maintain a web site. On the airwaves there is only a limited space available (87.5 to 108.0 I think), but on the internet there is unlimited space. For example, if slashdot starts putting up 5 ads on a page I can just stop visiting it and go to a similar site like Kuro5hin to get my news. The web offers the user a vast amount of choice, and I don't see how any corporation can prevent it.

  14. Re:Transmission Standards by erice · · Score: 1

    It's too late. Really. If we start mucking with the HDTV spec now, sales of existing televisions and existing broadcast equipment will fall through the floor. We'll be back to square one again. And, if you've been following the HDTV effort you will know that maketing HDTV a reality has been a long and painful process.

    And, it's not like you can just change a cheap component and be done. OFDM is significantly more complex than 8VSB. And end user equipement will need to support both. 'Does wonders for the cost model of already too expensive HDTV receivers.

    BTW, in the wired world, OFDM is called DMT. Alcatel's version of DMT is the standard for ADSL.

  15. Oh my God! It's the monolith from 2001! by Zoyd · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that the aspect ratio(16x9) of these HDTV things is the same as the aspect ratio of the black monoliths from 2001, a Space Odyssey? We've found the secret of human intelligence -- HDTVs showed up at the dawn of humanity to teach us how to make tools, then disappeared, only to be rediscovered by us in...2001!

    1. Re:Oh my God! It's the monolith from 2001! by Zoyd · · Score: 1

      no, monoliths are 1 x 4 x 9 (and presumably more in higher dimensions

      Yer right. Sorry. I'm an idiot today.

  16. Re:Bad numbers. by Zoyd · · Score: 1

    Those are not the only bad numbers. How about this example from the article:
    The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions...

    According to this article, HDTV has six times the resolution. 1920 x 1080 vs. 720 x 486 (2,073,600 pixels vs. 349,920 pixels).

  17. Illegal? by pheonix · · Score: 1

    So, is this illegal, or just un-ethical? It seems pretty obvious. They got the bandwidth for free to use for purpose A. They are now opting to use it for purpose B; possibly opting to use it for purpose A in the future.

    What exactly can be done? The government isn't going to want to piss off the media to this great an extent, it'll hurt re-elections. By the same token, they can't just let this go, can they?
    -Jer

  18. ta hell w/ HDTV by pnkflyd51 · · Score: 1


    The Feds and consumer electronics wasted their time on HDTV.

    Video over IP is what we need. Then we won't be held to the same 75 channels of shit. There will be as many video sources as there are websites today- any we'll be able to watch anything ANYTIME. Not just Wednesdays at 8pm.

  19. Don't choose 1080i, choose 720p by Argyle · · Score: 1

    The above poster is correct, choose the best resolution in your monitor, that is 720 progressive, not 1080 interlaced.

    The current production gear is now making 1080 progressive pictures, but I know of no consumer sets able to display this.
    -----

    --
    nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
  20. There is no workable business model for HDTV by Argyle · · Score: 1

    While the datacasting model is neato and all, the plan is a bit flawed for the home user. With the current transmission technology, a user MUST place a DIRECTIONAL antenna on their roof to pick up these signals. That means that as you change stations, you must turn your antenna with a rotor to pick up the new station.

    For those of us that can't wait three seconds for a page to load, it ain't just going to cut it. Furthermore, if you can't place an antenna on your roof, you are SOL. Indoor antennas for HDTV do not work. The proposed alternative plan of CODFM modulation does solve these problems, but the FCC just killed the proposal to use it in America.

    I work for a large trans-national entertainment company, and believe me we are trying to figure out how to make money off this, but without cable carriage, it just won't work.

    I've seen HDTV and it does rock, especially the sound, but watching the local news in HD isn't too impressive. If you have to have it, buy the DirecTV box and see the movies as intended.

    HDTV is a huge political tarball that no one wants to touch for fear of getting dragged down.
    -----

    --
    nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
  21. Just like cable modems by crimoid · · Score: 1

    Using excess HDTV bandwidth is exactly the same thing that current cable providers are doing with traditional cable systems. IMHO this isn't a bad thing as it is adding value to something that would otherwise go wasted AND it gives consumers more options.

    1. Re:Just like cable modems by M-G · · Score: 1

      Because the broadcasters only decided digital TV was good when they lobbied the FCC enough to let the broadcasters decide if they wanted to use all of their bandwidth for digital TV or not.

      The incumbent licensees were automatically assigned the HDTV bandwidth, because the FCC wanted to move to HDTV and reallocate the existing VHF spectrum. No quarrel there.

      But the broadcasters immediately decided they wanted to use their allocated bandwidth for anything they wanted...so they could send a lower quality TV feed (than full HDTV), and add subscription based services to bring in more revenue. _That's_ the part that's annoying. The incumbent broadcaster can now pursue other money-making ventures not associated with "serving the public interest", as their broadcast license requires, without paying for that bandwidth like everyone else has to.

    2. Re:Just like cable modems by acarollo · · Score: 1

      Good point, as long as this is not cutting any other valuable, consumer oriented service, what's the big deal?

  22. Re:WTF? by LocalH · · Score: 1

    Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon. What are you smoking, rob? I guess that memory I have of watching the US (tennis) Open on HDTV was just a hallucination. It is a reality, you've got the money; turn off your reality-distortion field and go buy one. Please moderate down for defiance of the infallible Malda. Umm, not exactly. Unless you live in one of the top markets in the country, you don't have HDTV. We haven't even begun thinking about the conversion to HDTV yet- I truly see us just upconverting our NTSC broadcast to HD and leaving it at that for a few years. I haven't heard about the other stations in this market (92nd, Tri-Cities TN/VA) so I'm not exactly sure. But here, HDTV is definitely not a reality.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    Commodore 64 Democoder

    --
    FC Closer
  23. Re:WTF? by LocalH · · Score: 1
    Damnit...what's up Rob? Not flaming you or anything, but I previewed my post and it checked out good, hit the Back button, saw the post with correct formatting and the tags still in the comment box, then hit Submit. When the post came up, it had absolutely no formatting (and yes, I did have HTML Formatted selected. Anyway, without formatting, here is the post the way it should have been (Rob, can you please check this out? This seems to be a serious bug that I have just come across now.)

      • Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.

      What are you smoking, rob? I guess that memory I have of watching the US (tennis) Open on HDTV was just a hallucination.

      It is a reality, you've got the money; turn off your reality-distortion field and go buy one.

      Please moderate down for defiance of the infallible Malda.
    Umm, not exactly. Unless you live in one of the top markets in the country, you don't have HDTV. We haven't even begun thinking about the conversion to HDTV yet- I truly see us just upconverting our NTSC broadcast to HD and leaving it at that for a few years. I haven't heard about the other stations in this market (92nd, Tri-Cities TN/VA) so I'm not exactly sure. But here, HDTV is definitely not a reality.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    Commodore 64 Democoder
    --
    FC Closer
  24. Bad numbers. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

    Someone involved with that article seriously screwed up some of the numbers. A trivial example: Your average DVD movie takes 4.5 Gigs to 5 Gigs. Yet they say 75.6 Gigs = 75 DVD quality movies. Sorry. More like 12.

    1. Re:Bad numbers. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Actually, 1.5 Mbps to 2.5Mbps is certainly not DVD quality. 1.5 Mbps is the rate that VCDs use for MPEG-1 and is considered only slight better than VHS quality. MPEG-2 isn't an improvement in compression technology, it's an expansion of various datarates and resolutions and options. A typical scene encoded under MPEG-2 will use a significantly higher bitrate. I know from personal experience that 60 minutes of 4:3 TV aspect ratio DVD takes in the area of 3 gigs. So no you will not fit 75 dvd quality movies into 75 gigs. It's just not going to happen.

    2. Re:Bad numbers. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Your average DVD movie also contains a bunch of other stuff besides the movie -- and generally has more than one copy (angle, etc) They are refering to the space requred to store 1.5hr of MPEG-2 content (which is usually about 1.5Mbps to 2.5Mbps -- that's 48 to 80 movies on a 75.6G drive)

      "75 DVD quality movies" does not mean "75 DVD's"

  25. Re:10^12 channels and nothing's on... by tiny69 · · Score: 1
    The following information is from the book:

    Electronic Communication Techniques, 4th Edition, By Paul H. Young, ISBN: 0-13-779984-5

    Quote: In late 1992, the FCC released a channel plan whereby existing broadcasts of the standard NTSC television format will be assigned a second channel for high-definition TV (HDTV) broadcasting. Thus, TV broadcast stations that want to transmit HDTV in the next 10 years will be required to broadcast simultaneously using the NTSC standard and the HDTV standard on a seperate channel. However, near the year 2007, the NTSC standard will be phased out and the channels allocated to NTSC will have to be given back to the FCC for HDTV allocations. End Quote

    (The following are NOT facts. If anyone can counter them, please do.)

    From my understanding, a standard format for HDTV has yet to be agreed upon and SET IN STONE. A number of TV manufacturers are selling HDTV's under what they assume the agreed standard will be. This leaves the consumer with the possibility of buying a current HDTV that will NOT work when the FCC reallocates the bandwidth. Personally, I'm going to wait until 2005-2006 before I even consider buying an HDTV.

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  26. Re:I dunno. by Zurk · · Score: 1

    which doesnt mean anything. you still have to shell out $$$ to buy a HDTV convertor box or even more $$$!!! to buy a HDTV set.
    of course, since theres nothing worth watching on TV anyway...

  27. Re:a cheap alternative by drivers · · Score: 1

    You wrote:
    get a Hauppauge WinTV-D , its a $250 HDTV tuner card, works in win/beos/linux, and probably others

    It decodes 480i to 1080i signals but renders it as a 480i picture.... There's no major benefit.

  28. Problem is: (1) price (2) size (3) recordability by Cmdr+Taco · · Score: 1
    HDTV is just too 31337 for the average Joe's pocket book. And with gov't mandated HDTV rollout, you're screwing over the little guy because broadcasters won't want to maintain two parallel broadcasting signals for very long. Once viewership reaches some percent level, they'll dump NTSC TV and implement their data plans or whatever on the old channel spectrum. They already can't wait as the article implies.

    So mfgs MUST cut the price of the sets of the format won't take off. Period. And rollout the smaller HDTV sets. 13" and 19" 16:9 TVs are needed too. And don't say "but that defeats the point of HDTV". Gotta be there so us poor plebs without $thousands to burn or a palace with room to hold a 60" set can watch the mandated HDTV signals.

    16:9 aspect TVs are much cheaper in the UK than in the US. Why?

    Also, this whole HDTV thing smacks of an MPAA copy protection scheme. I see a few HDTVs for sale, but... Where are the HDTV VCRs for sale so I can record HDTV programs? HDTV is a view only format. The MPAA must be thrilled.

  29. Something Similar Starting Here by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

    They are doing a beta roll-out here of sending data through the Digital TV streams. You get a digital TV antenna and a card that goes in to your PC to watch Digital TV on your PC as well as receive other information at the same time. Check out http://www.dtvplus.com. Could be interesting.

    1. Re:Something Similar Starting Here by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I know several people who have been "testing" the system. And as fate would have it, I was at WRAL one afternoon when that stuff was being installed (for a completely unrelated reason :-)) This sorta thing will kick ass if they can get it to do what they intend.

      [I'll have to go see the new transmitter tower.]

  30. Re:TV? What's that? by SporkyTheUnforgiven · · Score: 1

    That's what I'm screaming. I've stopped watching TV- I'd rather entertain myself than be forcibly entertained by something as one-way as TV. What I'd like to see is broadcasters hooking me up with a piece of that 17Gbps bandwidth... But only if I could get it going at a nice high speed in _both_ directions. Don't think that'd work too well, since I can't have a VHF tower in my backyard.

    --
    -- All hamsters are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Socrates was a hamster.
  31. Poor wording! by bugg · · Score: 1
    " Got an HDTV set yet? Wait before getting one; here's why... "

    Let's say someone answers "yes" to the initial question. Then you go and tell them they shouldn't have bought one. That doesn't make any sense!

    --
    -bugg
  32. Re:Forgot... by Cramer · · Score: 1

    GSM is a better cellular system too, but I don't see many telcos dropping CDMA systems.

    Beta is better than VHS, but we all know where that ended up...

  33. Re:Another ABC news story gets it's facts fscked by Cramer · · Score: 1
    1. so why do all of these VCDs look like crap?
    Because the VCD standard is 320x240 MPEG-1. Plus, 90minutes of video+audio has to fit on a 74min CD. (translation: destructively compress the hell out of it.) Oh, and the MPEG data is stored on the CD more or less just like a regular audio CD -- with most of the error correction codes turned off to get more space; this is ok as MPEGs can live with some bit error.
  34. Re:Auctioning off spectrum by Cramer · · Score: 1

    Technically, it is rented... TV stations can (and do) loose their broadcast license.

  35. Re:Resolution! by RickyRay · · Score: 1

    Should we buy an HDTV? YES!!! But I'm just talking about the TV, not necessarily the receiver. On the very same day I bought two projector TV's, both around 50-inch, and one of them is HDTV (only $2400; Toshiba is awesome!). The difference between them is night and day. What do I watch on it? DishNetwork, SVHS, and DVD. I don't have an HDTV decoder yet. I _never_ watch local channels, so I probably wouldn't use it if I had it. The TV already looks gorgeous with the programming I have.

    The important part to keep in mind is that DishNetwork and others will soon start to broadcast using HDTV (initially pay-per-view, later everything). So a high-end receiver will be able to do it. In fact, for a couple of years I've had their digital version of a vcr, and I will soon be able to not only record digitally right on my satellite receiver but be able to record HDTV right on my receiver (yes, better than DVD!).

    Yet another advantage is that some video card makers will soon have units that can handle the resolutions of HDTV, so you could play your favorite games at 720P or 1080I on a bigscreen. Sweet!

  36. Huh? How? (WAS: Re:HDTV sucks. Take a look.) by hodeleri · · Score: 1

    I don't see how I could get an image of that quality out of my SD TV, the pixels are just to damn big.

    --
    marotti.com
  37. goverment dictating market by paulydavis · · Score: 1

    This shows how absurd the goveremnt foray into the market is. Congress was set up to be slow.. slower than market. It cant predict market forces. the Reasons for an FCC are long gone. tech moves at pace that if your compeditor crowds him out you inavate around him. Just look at the end of the article expected 750 million for auction of airwaves...i guess that excludes me an some guys in my garage. The less goverment the better.

  38. Re:10^12 channels and nothing's on... by grumling · · Score: 1
    Well, standards in video are a little strange. The standard for color television in the US (NTSC) was never ratified, broadcasters just started using it, manufacturers (RCA) just built sets and production equipment the way they (RCA) wanted, and next thing you know, we have a color television standard. However, there is nothing that says a broadcaster MUST transmit NTSC video, just accepted practices.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  39. Re:Details? (Linux support, digital cable) by grumling · · Score: 1
    It is not necessarly ready for HDTV. Some of the newer boxes (that will be released by GI/Motorola this summer) will decode just about anything you throw down the pipe.

    That being said, it does decode an encripted MPEG 2 signal that has been multiplexed on a 6MHz carrier of some sort. Much like a standard def HDTV stream. However, the RF section is completely different (HD uses 8- or 16-VSB modulation, Digital cable uses QAM-64).

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  40. Re:Cable Companies by grumling · · Score: 1
    No, most cable companies are concerned with "must carry" rules and HDTV. The .gov has stated that broadcasters have 2 channels available until 2006/whenever there are "enough" sets out there. The concern of cable companies is one of bandwidth.

    1) Who decides when there are enough sets to turn off the analog signal? How is the verification process going to work? Maybe a question on the 2010 census?

    2) Do cable companies have to carry both signals (A and D)? Can they prefer one over the other? Can they convert the digital signal to analog?

    3) Can the broadcaster specify which signal they want transmitted? In other words, can they force cable to carry the analog signal, even though most people are watching the HD signal?

    4) Do cable companies have to provide all feeds from a broadcaster (in the case of multiplexed signals), or can they just carry the main feed?

    5) Assume a cable box provided by the cable company is able to decode the HD signal from the broadcaster. One of the functions of this box is impulse PPV (just click on the 'buy' button, and the box sends purchase back to cable company. Now the broadcaster decides to offer PPV content (which they are able to do under the rules). Who becomes the collection agency? How does the box figure out where to send the information?

    Now, one can argue that 'they' will figure it all out when the time comes, but there has been very little response from anyone when these questions are raised. Cable wants to see HDTV as much as anyone else, they know that digital signals are going to be the norm, and it will make their systems much better, but they need a few answers from the broadcasters or FCC first.

    BTW: HDTV uses the same 6MHz as analog video. It is just compressed digital. The modulation format is 8 or 16 VSB. 8VSB is used for over the air broadcasts, 16VSB is for cable. And, cablemodems are not the same as digital cable. They use similar technology, but are not related in any way.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  41. Re:idiots by grumling · · Score: 1
    There is an unwritten rule in Washington when it comes to the television press: Don't piss 'em off. There is a very real concern that the broadcasters have way, way too much power over the political landscape. Congress doesn't want to piss off anyone in the media, especally television, because they are in charge of picking who gets elected. I'm not trying to sound like one of those crazy people who call in on AM talk radio, but there is some truth to the idea that TV can make or break a candidate (or elected official).

    As a theoritical example: Congressman complains about the HD land grab. Network news doesn't like his comment, so they make sure they only get his "bad" side, the one with the mole. And, they screw with his lighting a little bit. On a subconcious level, people think he's not someone they want representing them.

    Now, when election time comes along, they find every little mistake on the campaign trail and make sure it gets on the air. They continue to point their cameras at every one of his physical flaws. Third party candidates get a lot of coverage. Next thing you know, he's looking for a job.

    Don't think this hasn't happened before. Think about the last presidential election. One candidate was loved by the media, one hated. Who won? Why didn't the media like the one guy? Could it be that he thought broadcasters should have to pay for the second channel?

    Pay attention to the lighting on 60 minutes this week.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  42. Re:Why do I want HDTV? by El · · Score: 1
    You want an HDTV because making every television currently in use obsolete is good for the economy!

    Personally, I suspect analog television broadcasts will continue side-by-side with HDTV for quite some time after 2006...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  43. Video Game Systems by Atlas · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how well video game systems will use the HDTV technology? Does the DreamCast or PS2 output video that will take advantage of HDTV sets?

    --
    --------------------------------------------------
    "All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind."
    1. Re:Video Game Systems by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure I remember reading at a number of game sites that the PS2 supports HDTV sets - I know I saw a picture from Japan of a game running side by side on a normal TV and HDTV (and unlike the US, they have small HDTV sets in Japan that are at least sort of affordable!). Ahh, here's a list of the ports on a PS2 that shows the AV Output

      The games have to be written to take advantage of the different aspect ration though - I'm not sure which ones currently support HDTV aspect ratios.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Forgot... by kcarnold · · Score: 1

    To convert to COFDM will require changing only one component of the transmitter, and a new set-top box for the few people who currently have them. Act now before there are too many people using the existing, inferior system. (Plus If You Act Now... that even has its own acronym -- PIYAN :-)

    1. Re:Forgot... by kcarnold · · Score: 1
      Dang Mozilla -- erased my reply :-(.

      The reason Beta was not adopted over VHS was because of a phenomenon Bill Gates calls a positive feedback cycle. Such a cycle requires a critical mass of owners of a product to be present. A critical mass is not yet present in digital television. Only a small percentage of US households now have digital television receivers. For those with set-top boxes, the change to allow COFDM as an alternative format would require either purchasing a new box, or upgrading the old one with a Flash ROM upgrade, if it has such facilities. For those with a television with a built-in receiver, it is always possible to buy a set-top box and then plug it into the television's auxiliary inputs. It's not like allowing COFDM will instantly break all of what little is currently out there.

      Kenneth

  45. Re:Transmission Standards by kcarnold · · Score: 1
    I had a full reply to your post, but Mozilla crashed right as I was about to hit "Submit" :-(.

    First, your link doesn't work.

    Sinclair is not doing independant research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard.

    Okay, and research like that is what Sinclair asked for in its petition to the FCC. For more information, see the link in my first post.

    In order to attempt to be impartial, the advantages that are often given to 8-VSB are an increased bitrate (19.4 Mb/s instead of 18.6 for COFDM) and less transmission power requirements. The latter is given extensive discussion in the FAQ I referred to in my first post. As for bitrate, it's only a 4.1% reduction, hardly a reason to abandon a format. The bitrate determines the maximum quality of the transmitted picture, so this would translate into a 4.1% worse picture. On the other hand, many people have to look very hard to see a difference between 480p and 1080i. Remember also that the amount of extra coding in COFDM is variable, allowing tuning of the bitrate to reliability ratio to match expected viewership.

    Although Sinclair's first tests were done using first generation receivers, newer receivers have been tested by Sinclair and others, and although ease of reception was improved, the promises of "solving the 8-VSB multipath problem" have not yet materialized enough to convince Sinclair, NBC, and other broadcasters to jump back on the 8-VSB bandwagon.

    Sinclair does not sell transmitters at all. Acrodyne, in which Sinclair owns significant stock, does make and sell transmitters, but a transmitter does not carry with it the requirement to transmit only a certain format -- the exciter does. There should be no concerns of Sinclair or Acrodyne that do not apply to all companies in their respective markets.

    Kenneth

  46. Re:Transmission Standards by kcarnold · · Score: 1
    Yes... good points. However...

    ... sales of existing televisions and existing broadcast equipment will fall through the floor.

    Yes, but there isn't that much that's currently being sold. Besides, all Sinclair is asking -- asked, rather -- for is that COFDM be accepted as an alternative to 8VSB. This would not mandate any change, but only allow the option for consumers and broadcasters.

    And, it's not like you can just change a cheap component and be done.

    Well maybe it might not be cheap, but it is only one component for the broadcaster and a new set-top box for the consumer. That's why you should buy TVs with separate boxes now. And yes, current receivers are expensive, but if previous technology introductions are any model, that will change. Smaller, cheaper, better, as they say.

    But the root of the matter is this: NTSC was always worse than PAL, and people knew this. The only reason that they couldn't improve the format was that too many people were already using NTSC. Do we want history to repeat itself? Sure it might be a pain now, but what the US decides now is what it is probably going to live with for the next up to 100 years conceivably. And now, broadcast television needs even more of a benefit to compete with cable, satellite, and internet data sources. This is why we need to switch to COFDM now!

  47. why tuners? by snorks · · Score: 1

    How about satelite, cable or multicast ip?

  48. preach it brotherman! by snorks · · Score: 1

    Luckily, here in Seattle we've got some nice noncomercial radio and tv. I never listen to commercial radio it gives me a fscking headache. Who wants to hear the new nsync hit 5 times an hour anyway?

  49. Why? by doogles · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain to me why, and this is not intended as flamebait, ANYONE would embrace an HDTV standard that incorperated interlacing?

    To me, 720p would be better then 1080i. Does anyone have links to which broadcasters are embracing which standards?

    1. Re:Why? by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Pure marketing specsmanship, as far as I can tell.

      To Microsoft's credit, they actually tried to drive a stake through interlaced video once and for all when the ATSC standards were under discussion. Unfortunately the NAB lobby won.

      Personally, I think anyone who supports 1080i HDTV should be forced to look at it all day on their computer monitors.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    2. Re:Why? by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

      acquisition and bandwidth - no cameras etc exist to deal with 1080p @ 30 Hz - some film makers are working with 1080p @ 24 Hz now, but that is several years later.

      i don't have the info in front of me and am not as knowlegable about the reasons - ive read them, just don't remember, so i can't contribute much more, but will follow up if i can find more info in a timely fashion...

      --
      The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  50. ~6000 is BS by mrnick · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows how statistics works you can make a case for anything given the right formula and data. I just bought a 58" HD Ready TV and it cost me ~3000. But a lot of the cost was it's 58" and its widescreen format. They do have 30" tube HD ready televisions. Yes they cost more but I believe the main reason is the fact that they don't produce enought because demand is low. My thoughts are that we have plenty of television stations and the interactivity within television does not impress me. woo hoo I get to pick whats going to happen next in the toyota commerical. What I would like to see if a better quality picture and HDTV provides that. I am not to concearned with the local stations sending it though. I am sure if we took a poll of the slashdot users to see if they were using broadcast television, cable, or DSS then I am almost positive that broadcast would be the looser here. What we need is the cable TV companies to support, we need more stations on the DSS to support it and we need more people to buy the sets. It is mandated that by 2006 we you will be watching televison on HDTV or a converted HDTV signal on your non HDTV tv anyways. So why not help get behind this now and ensure quality television in the future. This is like people saying "uuhh I don't need cable modem 33.6K gets me everything on the web anyway" I know the arguments of why VHS won over BETA even though BETA is a far better quality video. But do we want to stick our heads in the ground and let it happen again? I think not.

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  51. THE REAL PROBLEM... by TangoChaz · · Score: 1

    There's only one reason all this hasn't taken off. Consumer prices.

    The broadcasters would be falling over each other to get HDTV compliant if they had a larger consumer base. They could justify much larger costs (even to the bank) if the consumers were there, based on the advertising revenue potential.

    Many consumers would be there already, in the course of the natural upgrade and replacement cycles, if the technology was even moderately affordable, but few are willing to shell out this kind of cash when so few stations are even ready. (For example 2 of 9 HDTV stations in the Portland, Oregon area.)

    I've spent some time on the manufacturing side of electronics. I happen to know that there are many ways to limit electronics manufacturing costs, and considering the quality of some of the brighter old-technology projectors in the past, there is no question that the whole HDTV unit could come in for $1000 or less, even for the some of the earliest of adopters.

    It would only take one manufacturer with the foresight to be the "HDTV Hero," and defer their NRE (non-recurring engineering cost) long enough to prime their market prices. The broadcasters are being forced to convert anyhow, perhaps the networks could be persuaded to help fund this - a greater short-term cost, to be sure, but providing a major boon in advertising revenues in just a few years.

    "If you sell it cheap, you won't be able to build them fast enough..."

    I've been trying to think outside-the-box, and I have two ideas.
    1.) government (or someone with something to gain) could/should supplement local cable providers for the purposes of bringing them into compliance. This could dramatically increase demand.
    2.) For the purposes of lowering per-purchase costs, the tuner and the display should be separated. Yes, I realize this model doesn't hold up in the long run, and yes, I realize that some manufacturers have already gone this route, but they failed to bring down the costs. If we could get:
    A.) Tuners, say with or without a VCR capable of recording HDTV, with NTSC, HDTV and RCA outputs, and
    B.) Stripped-down monitors and projectors with only the RCA, NTSC and HDTV inputs, I think the whole thing would get a whole lot easier on the consumer, and therefore more profitable for the manufacturers and stations.

    That's my $0.98...

    TangoChaz

    --------------------

    --

    TangoChaz

    --------------------
    Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools because the
  52. Sponsored by: by KPU · · Score: 1

    I opened up the article and there was the perfect sponsor for such a venture: Sponsored by: Windows 2000. I wonder if that had any association with the article. . .

  53. WTF? by gammatron · · Score: 1
    Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.

    What are you smoking, rob? I guess that memory I have of watching the US (tennis) Open on HDTV was just a hallucination.

    It is a reality, you've got the money; turn off your reality-distortion field and go buy one.

    Please moderate down for defiance of the infallible Malda.
    --

    --
    http://gammatron.weblogger.com
    1. Re:WTF? by Detritus · · Score: 2

      Can't you still broadcast a HDTV network feed even if you have no HDTV production equipment?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  54. Re:HDTV by grubby · · Score: 1

    Who really cares that much about HDTV? I know I won't be spending that kind of cash for a higher quality picture on my tv. I just got done spending too much on my 52" rear projection, why would I want to have to throw out my expensive tv because it doesn't look quite as good as the hd's? I watch dvd's on it every weekend and it looks great to me. The question is how good is good enough?

  55. Re:Resolution! by bolthole · · Score: 1
    Yet another advantage is that some video card makers will soon have units that can handle the resolutions of HDTV, so you could play your favorite games at 720P or 1080I on a bigscreen. Sweet!

    I got to play with a playstation 2 in japan, with teken III on a philips HDTV. Very nice.

  56. Re:HDTV is overrated. by bolthole · · Score: 1
    I don't understand this fascination with HDTV, it's pointless. The current NTSC/PAL standards are just fine.

    I see HDTV as important, not for TV,but for "other uses".

    FOr example, "webtv" almost caught on really well, but is failing for the same reason it seems good: It relies on the "monitor" a family already has, in their standard television set. And a standard television set is LOUSY for displaying text from web pages, etc, etc.

    In maybe 4 years, when an HDTV screen becomes more reasonable, then a large percentage of the population will then have high resolution monitors in their house. Then the webtvs of this world will really have something to work with.

    [And PS2 games will kick ass ;-)]

  57. I guess wildly wasting money is annoyning... by billyt007 · · Score: 1
    Personally, I was looking forward to everyone having to toss their old TVs...maybe it would wean people from sucking on the glass teat, and that would raise the collective IQ of the country.

    Well, yes I guess having the government force us to waste money is a good thing. Seriously, did you ever stop to think that maybe those less fornuate then you can't afford to get brand new, expensive TVs, that really don't necessarly want. But if they don't they wouln't be able to see basic news services or weather. So forcing people to toss out their old (still perfectly useable) TVs. Yea that will definetly raise the IQ of the country. Screw conserving let's get new TVs!

    --
    Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
  58. Free Wood For Bookcase Manufacturers? by Smurfy · · Score: 1

    I remember once a teacher pointing out that most of us have more TV's in our homes than bookshelves. I thought about it a moment and was relieved to conclude that I had way more bookshelves than TV's. It's obvious what this says about our culture. I've seen libraries be closed down due to lack of funding in smaller areas and that's just plain sad. Yet leave it to our government to give shit away so that some big company using third world labor can make money. Maybe they should charge them for the airwaves, put that money back where it belongs. Who cares if you can nullify your mind with better resolution. This is a luxury people, not everyone can even afford a TV. Knowledge is a neccesity yet when it's time for the money, it's not there. Scary scary... Just a thought before you get your panties in a knot... -smurf

  59. Re:Eh, is this interesting... by Mekanix · · Score: 1

    .... why did I know this would happen? Some people just can't handle critisism....

    Bjarne

  60. Sooo cool by rwade · · Score: 1

    I agree with rob, this doesn't really interest me in my current situation with a regular television, and the fact that I don't watch _that_ much tv, but if any of this bandwidth usage stuff takes off, imagine the possibilities! no more tuning to cnnfn for stock info, just turn on the regular broadcast tv and watch as the stock quote go across the whole screen on a weird channel instead of just a little bar on the bottom of the screen! or even, a live doppler radar channel for us weather watchers! just immagine! dvd could become useless, as we could have encrypted showtime coming over the airwaves instead of having to wire up the house!

  61. Re:jerkoff by rwade · · Score: 1

    ok, sorry....someone seems to have posted rob's girlfriend, kathleen's address and phone number. I replied to it and I guess they just erased it, with good cause... :) good job catching that one rob.

  62. Digital Signal by sacdelta · · Score: 1
    Signal quality is essential to HDTV. The advantage of a digital signal is that if you receive it, you get pretty much perfect reception. With an analog signal, you get more static as you lose reception quality. With a digital signal it is pretty much all or nothing.

    Many cable companies already use a digital signal. I don't know how compatible that signal is with the HDTV programming however.

    --

    Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

  63. Re:The hidden dangers of HDTV by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    This is why there are no consumer HD vcrs available - the tech is there, but no copy protection.

    The other half - a big part of the problem - lack of programming - stems from a lack of copy protection - no one wants to expose their IP to free digital copying. There are already plenty of extra bits set aside for various things, including this. Now if the IP owners would just set a standard everyone could get back to work...including the people who are going to break the copy protection.

    Commercial editing will be easy - just use the psip tables to get the info you want and throw out the rest.

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  64. Re:Airwaves should be rented, not sold by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    Getting the FCC involved with $ has been the single worst event in broadcast history. You now have a regulatory body that has abandoned regulation and is now a revenue source. (the fcc does have the power to take back the frequencies at any time, it just has to be prepared for the political fallout)

    Look at radio, instead of 1 am and 1 fm in a market, a company can now own 8!!!

    Granite broadcasting has now done the same to tv - a company can now own 2 stations in a market, not just 1.

    In relation to HD, after the conversion to digital, the FCC is going to take back the old freq's. (don't hold your breath though)

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  65. Re:Why do I want HDTV? by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    The requirement is that 85% of the households in a market have to be equipped to receive digital transmissions - if that threshold isn't met, NTSC continues...

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  66. Re:Transmission Standards by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    "Yes, but there isn't that much that's currently being sold. Besides, all Sinclair is asking -- asked, rather -- for is that COFDM be accepted as an alternative to 8VSB. This would not mandate any change, but only allow the option for consumers and broadcasters."

    AM Stereo anybody?

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  67. Re:The hidden dangers of HDTV by sik+puppy · · Score: 1

    it gets worse: on page 18 of the april 2k issue of Broadcast Engineering, in an article titled "Hollywood pursues copyright protection" there is a reference to a scheme being developed by Digital Display Working Group (DDWG) to provide copy protection between a computer/set top box and the monitor. joy. Intel has developed Highbandwidth Digital Copy Protection to encrypt each PIXEL (!!!) between STB and monitor.

    The rest of the article discusses this in a bit more depth, and is worth reading: www.broadcastengineering.com, click columns and it is the second article (sorry - haven't learned html yet)

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  68. Airwaves should be rented, not sold by Jonathan+Blocksom · · Score: 1

    The FCC should be renting the airwaves, not selling them. Instead they sell them off and never get rights back to them... Of course, the cost would be passed along to consumers, but all of our taxes would be lower, and people will complain about paying $1 more in taxes a lot more quickly than $1 more for mobile phone service.

    --
    GollyGee Blocks -- 3D creativity software for kids.
  69. Another ABC news story gets it's facts fscked by Picass0 · · Score: 1
    The new digital channels have 19.4 megabits/second of data capacity, said Gary Schultz of the Multimedia Research Group. A standard-definition television image only takes up 4-5 megabits. There could be up to 7 megabits/second of free space between the lines of an HDTV image, Schultz said. That's enough to send 75.6 gigabytes per day: 75 DVD-quality movies, 120 CD-sized video games, or 15,000 MP3 music files.

    Wow. A DVD movie is 1 gig? Gee... so why do all of these VCDs look like crap? A DVD movie should easily fit on 2 standard CDs.
    It's always nice to see simple fact checking taking place before a story is written.
  70. Re:Ummm.. 320x200 isn't VGA... by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1
    So, you're a nitpicker and a thief. Of course you're too much of a tightwad to buy a quality hi-res, widescreen display. (implied smiley)

    --

  71. Re:I dunno. by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1
    Reception *is* currently spotty, due to a few things - HDTV is only being broadcast via airwaves/satellite feeds right now (and in large cities, no less). Remember the old rabbit-ears? Same difference, just digital. Once HDTV signal is sent via optical cable, reception will improve dramatically.

    --

  72. Re:HDTV by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1
    You can get a Toshiba 40", widescreen HDTV-ready for $2200 today. And it's not "a little better resolution". That's like saying my 1280x1024 res display on my PC now is "a little better" than my 320x200 VGA screen from 1991.

    --

  73. You obviously haven't seen an HDTV broadcast... by Rico_Suave · · Score: 1
    It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV). And try watching an anamporphic DVD on an HDTV set... amazing.

    --

    1. Re:You obviously haven't seen an HDTV broadcast... by Xenu · · Score: 2
      Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.

      There is a huge amount of content, such as movies and old television shows, on 35mm film that could be broadcast in high resolution.

    2. Re:You obviously haven't seen an HDTV broadcast... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 2

      It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).

      The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.

      Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.
      --

      --
      Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  74. Re:Go ahead and buy a tunerless HDTV now by Hotaine · · Score: 1

    Wow man - Thanks. I'm on the verge of buying a new projection TV. My wife wouldn't go for the $5,000 Mitsubishi I wanted, so I was about to settle for a Sony 53" (non-HDTV). This 40" HDTV looks like the hookup though. Hadn't even considered Toshiba.


    Today's flame war is sponsored in part by Caffeine(TM)

  75. Re:Go ahead and buy a tunerless HDTV now by Hotaine · · Score: 1

    While I agree there is inaccuracy in lots of the comments on /., and I also agree that this particular comment looks like it was written by a Toshiba Whore, I am also capable of researching the information posted and making my own decision. It's something we higher primates are gifted with. Keep trying, you'll get it.

    BTW, what's wrong with jizzing after reading Ayn Rand? :)


    Today's flame war is sponsored in part by Caffeine(TM)

  76. Re:HDTV (catch 22) by sirLOL · · Score: 1
    I agree, but the article sounds like they're caught, it won't come down 'till it's more popular, and it won't be more popular till the price comes down.

    It looks like there's a simialr effect with the service too (the won't offer more programing till more people have it, more people wont have it till more programming is offered).

    --
    - "yes but can you hit someone over the head with a rolled up internet?" -Foxtrot
  77. Re:Why buy HDTV? by Other1 · · Score: 1

    X-files is filmed and then brought down to NTSC resolution. HDTV will allow you to see it closer to what it was actually intended to look like. Funny thing about the digital nature of HDTV though is that with analog transmissions you still get a picture with sound even if it is a bad signal. WIth the on off nature of digital if the signal gets weak you won't get it at all.

  78. The internet is for communications not broadcast by bigpat · · Score: 1

    The nature of the internet is 2-way not broadcast communications. This talk about broadcasted data seems a lot like the promise of satellite Internet (eg give us a big pipe to suck on, but then make us dial in to upload anything) Check out the IETF's MANET to see what the spectrum really should be used for. Wireless, high-speed, free internet for all. With little difference between router's and hosts.

  79. Re:I dunno. by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

    No e-mail during thunderstorms.Familar for myself,as the power goes out every time a sparrow farts on the power lines. The current analog tv signal is non-existent here,due to local geology.Either cable(lousy service) or satelite is the only way to get tv.Digital cell phones do not work,analog is unusable.HDTV in eastern KY? Unless service in this area changes drastically,we might have that here in 3001 or so.Service like that do not seem to come east of the Winchester Wall.(A term used by Eastern Ky.residents,describing the fact that tech innovations,such as free ISPs,decent telephone lines and DSL,do not come east of Winchester KY.)The major players seem to think we are savages or cavemen. If this sound cynical,so be it.It is a fact of life here.

    --
    Geek Hillbilly
  80. I want LDTV and datacasting by GodSpiral · · Score: 1

    Datacasting will be far more useful than HDTV or even SDTV. There seem to be lots more economically useful applications for low definition tv.

    You can fit 194 100Kb compressed video streams into one channel.

    Porn and action films would have a high demand for higher quality broadcasts. Other stuff would have higher demand if it were cheaper.

    The one thing I don't get about datacasting is how does it deal with transmission errors

  81. Cable Companies by acarollo · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen anything yet about any of the major cable companies commiting to HDTV? I thought that was a pretty important point raised in the article: how good can HDTV get when your limited to the major networks and local channels? Also, I wonder how much of an issue signal quality will be for a broadcast HDTV signal?

    1. Re:Cable Companies by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Very few cable companies have warmed up to HDTV. The signal take a fair amount more bandwidth than a standard cable channel -- and the bandwidth can vary. Cable companies are quickly throwing digital hardware down so who knows what's on the horizon. [One of the reasons for digital cable is signal quality. The other is cable modems -- analog cable was never designed to be bi-directional; in fact there are laws against putting signals back into the public cable network.]

  82. Why the US HDTV Standard is inferior to Europe's by anon7864 · · Score: 1
    This article missed the boat...we(the US) could have all this, *and* be able to recieve it on the move. The big issue at hand is that the US needs to re-define it's 8-VSB standard and adopt the European DVB-T standard. We NEED mobile HDTV reception.

    This article on EETimes tells why the US standard sucks when it comes to mobility...

    Beans

  83. THEY BROADCAST FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 0000 by TinMan00 · · Score: 1

    Allegedly, the freebies are going
    to go to the broadcasters who give back
    their present NSTC licenses.

    You got all these 'open source' dudes
    walkin around' here talking about Freedom of
    Information... this is your grand opportunity.
    If your going to create new & inovative
    communication software it seems that
    the first priority will be to define
    an GPL-HDTV standard before the sharks can.

    Make it easy so it can be
    implemented with inexpensive equiptment
    and broadcast by ham radio, Ir [down the road], or even
    bounced off sattellites with
    monochromatic laser, [cheap equiptment that
    can be dowload with a 4" plastic reflector,
    an molded prism & a photodiode.

    Heck, the best in Entertainment
    beamed all over the world on GPL
    legal equiptment. Hams do it but they
    only do this Slow Scan. There is
    nothing to it but to do it. Pay attention or
    pay the man.

    Also the first experiments in
    Tv were revolving mirrors,
    which were noisey, expensive, smudgey.
    unreliable, & couldn't be timed right.

    All these problems have been solved!
    floppy step motors, crystal timed control
    pulses, molded, optical parts, quality controled
    armature, hi intensity point light sources
    etc.Put it all together for a $200 tv with
    a ten foot wide picture.screen.

    THE NICE THING 'BOUT A PROJECTED
    T V IMAGE IS TWO POLARIZED PROJECTIONS
    MAKES... 3 D.

    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    One of the more remarkable aspects
    of dental caries is that the
    trauma to the cheek tissue is
    signifigantly greater than
    the turgor elaborated about the
    damaged roots in many patients.
    Sounds like radiation damage
    caused by a MICROWAVE LASER.

  84. HDputer by nikhilwiz · · Score: 1

    I'd like a HD computer tho. who carez fer the idiot box NEwayz... gimme more bandwidth!!!

    1. Re:HDputer by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Well T1's are fiber optical and every packet travels at 1.54 MB/sec until it becomes saturated. Although a T3 would probally be a better idea

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    2. Re:HDputer by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Forget HDTV we need to make T1's affordable for home users. Forget DSL and Cable Modems. I want to so much bandwidth I need to use a dual Athlon as a router.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    3. Re:HDputer by anonymous+cowerd · · Score: 2

      T1s are not fiber, my company has a T1 coming in and all it is is ordinary twisted pair copper wires. Of course the line has been tested and is guaranteed and all, when you follow it back to the CO there's a lot of difference, but the wire coming through the wall is indistinguishable from the twisted pair coming into my house. (Which supports a regular telephone together with cheap 64/256 ADSL, but my house line tested OK for up to 768/768 DSL.)

      Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  85. Re:Why the US HDTV Standard is inferior to Europe' by Vektor+C · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why do we NEED mobile HDTV reception!? Can you give us more on that?

  86. double the bandwidth? who cares! by hartsock · · Score: 1

    So what if HDTV pushes double the bandwidth, there's nothing good for them to push at us! we need double the bandwidth for TCP/IP not for NTSC.

    --// Hartsock //

    --
    Live to Code, Code to Live!
  87. Why this is BOGUS by Xylantiel · · Score: 1
    The basic problem is that the timeline is as follows

    Bandwidth is allocated to Broadcasters for HDTV

    Broadcasters delay putting the HDTV signal in the bandwidth

    Consumers don't buy HDTVs because there is hardly any content for them

    Broadcasters claim there is no demand for HDTV so they should be able to use the bandwidth they got for free as they please.

    Wait a second!! This seems like a cheat to me! It looks to me like they were given the bandwidth (rather than having to pay for it) specifically so they would put the HDTV into it before there were many HDTVs out there.

    The best analogy I can come up with is this:

    A country needs more grain, they have some extra land so they give it to a farmer with the understanding that he will plant grain, otherwise he would have had to buy the land.

    The farmer never puts out any seed and basically ignores the land.

    No grain grows (duh!)

    Later the farmer decides he now wants to use the land for tobacco (a lucrative crop, but not what the country gave him the land for). The argument he uses is that there is no grain growing on it so he should be able to use it for something.

    I would say this is crazy, but it seems like a really close analogy to me. I say to the broadcasters: put the HDTV signal up, then we'll talk about what you can do with the extra space.

  88. Re:Why HDTV Fails by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    The real reason that many 'leaps' in technology fail is the cost/ease of use.

    Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventional 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a success. - ISDN 128K...ho hum.

    Actually, cable modems and DSL are pretty hot. The problem is that the companies involved generally have to upgrade their systems extensively. This costs money, so they expand slowly, in the areas with the best income/cost ratios. If they plan to offer it. There are many people who would get them in a moment, if it was offered in their area.

    For example, I'm too far away from the switch for DSL. And the cable company in my area is so tiny they operate out of a trailer home. They have no plans to upgrade & offer cable modem service. So I told them that I have no plans to subscribe to their service until they do. Besides, their service is so bad that I get better picture quality off from broadcast.

    As for ISDN, in many areas it comes out to costing over a hundred dollars a month for the line. It'd almost be cheaper to simply use multiplexed 33.6 modems. So unless you can use most of that bandwidth, it's simply not worth it. 53k not successful? Do you still see any slower modems for sale out there?

    Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed.

    Cost and ease of use/interoperability. I'm not paying $10 a disk for only a little more storage capacity, esp. when I'd have to haul the drive wherever I go, in order to access the data. Zip drives have done the best, but then you can get a fairly inexpensive portable drive for them that plugs into a parallel port, with software that's supposed to be easy. I currently use a CD burner for extra storage. I am considering a Zip drive, but the cost ratio... It'd almost be cheaper to get a portable burner (So I can use my work's LAN and T-3's for those big downloads...).

    Back on Topic Now

    This is the same problem that HDTV has, it's a incremental improvement that requires extensive (and expensive) replacement of existing equipment.
    It'd be more popular if somebody came out with a cheap tuner/converter that would downgrade the digital signal to analog for existing televisions. Or if it was like when the color television/stereo radio standards came out. If current televisions could still use the new signals, this wouldn't be a problem. But this was already done once when TV went color.
    The mandate back in the '60s for color was that existing B&W sets had to be able to still show the programs. This created a weird standard, with most of the signal being black & white, with an additional factor added to the end of the frequency. If you have poor reception, try setting it to B&W and you'll suddenly have a much better picture (just no color).

    For a detailed explanation, go to http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/ntsc /95x4.htm
    Go to chapter III.
    Basically it says that the B&W signal is twice as wide, and only has to carry half the data. (1 signal for brightness vs. 2 signals for color).
    I have to agree though, even if HDTV uses the bandwidth better, it sounds like it could use some more robustness.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  89. HDTV vs. computer monitors by Eccles · · Score: 2

    What might get me to buy a HDTV is if it were also capable of handling computer resolutions. If you can do 720p and 1080i, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to handle 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc. If my big-screen TV can also be a big-screen computer display, then I have a use for it right now, and I can wait for the broadcasts.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  90. HDTV sucks. Take a look. by heroine · · Score: 2

    For computer animation HDTV is real. For a gadget guru it's real. For high resolution live action it sucks. The current CCD technology only utilizes 1/3 of the total pixel count. All the live action HDTV looks more like standard definition 20 years ago because the technologies are at equivalent stages of development.

    Sample HDTV image:

    http://lds.org/med_inf/gen_con_pho/gen_con_sun_a ft/5-14_HR.jpg

  91. Re:Why HDTV? by logicTrAp · · Score: 2

    DVDs already have more resolution in them than a normal TV can display. Maybe VHS can't do HDTV, but saying that the source detail "isn't there" in movies is silly. If your eyes can't tell the difference even between DVD and VHS, you should probably start wearing glasses.

    The question is easy ("How can I make video look better?"). When the answer (HDTV/broadcasting) actually gets here is a bit trickier.

    The source detail is definitely there, so far we simply lack the tools to view it.

  92. Sony's new HS series sets aren't too expensive by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2
    Sony's new 53HS10 and 61HS10 sets look appealing, at least on paper (anyone bought one?). 1080i-capable, $3000 and $3500 respectively at Best Buy. My plan is to wait until Best Buy sends out their 10% off "Customer Appreciation" coupons and get another 5% off using my Sony card (normally 3% kickback, but 5% from May 1st thru June 30th). Of course, then I'll get whacked by Michigan's 6% sales tax, but what can y'do. Dish Network is alledged to have integrated HDTV satellite receivers coming out Any Day Now (can't find anything on their site currently, mostly because their search engine is broken). I've been a Dish Network customer for over 3 years so I'm looking forward to upgrading receivers ($500 is the rumored price).

    Then again, if Hauppage would make PC HDTV decoders that displayed full 1080i (only 480p currently), my new Sony G500 21" monitor displays 1920x1440 @ 75Hz quite nicely...

  93. This is new? by MbM · · Score: 2
    This may be a first for hdtv but the practice of using extra channel bandwidth for data is nothing new. WebTV sends urls of webpages in the extra lines of the closed caption data, Intercast is a technology that allows web pages to be sent in the actual tv signal. WaveTop is trying to be a portal by sending webpages, news and software durring PBS broadcasts.

    Chances are your local cable system is already sending out out this extra content, all you'd need to recieve it is a pc with a $50 tv card and some windows software (wavetop is proprietary and there are no good specs on how to decode intercast) or some linux software.
    - MbM

    --
    - MbM
  94. Re:Neither is movies? by jms · · Score: 2

    In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.

    Let me second this. Before the widespread use of videotape and satellite downloads as distribution media, networks used to film their television shows on 16mm or 35mm film and ship the film prints to the television stations, where they were broadcast by projecting them through a telecine projector into a video camera. Many series, such as Buffy and NYPD Blue are still shot on film, but distributed on video, so film prints of recent shows don't turn up on the collector's market, but episodes of shows like MASH and I Love Lucy were discarded by television stations by the truckload, and now turn up regularly on eBay. Try a search on "16mm TV" if you're interested.

    The film prints are generally full cinema quality, since they were shot on film, just like movies. Seeing an episode of "Love, American Style" on a 12 foot diagonal screen in razor sharp resolution is, um, an experience ... I'll leave it at that.

  95. Re:Ummm.. 320x200 isn't VGA... by Detritus · · Score: 2

    The first color television sets were very expensive, $1295 in 1954. That is approximately $8200 in today's dollars. The price dropped through the 1950s and the early 1960s, but they still were not cheap. The early color television sets also had reliability problems (all those vacuum tubes) and the picture quality was terrible by modern standards.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  96. Re:Perfect Example of the Political Pitfalls by Detritus · · Score: 2
    The point is that never before has the US tried to implement a broadcast standards change that wiped out the functionality of existing equipment.

    The FCC killed the 42-50 MHz FM broadcast band at the behest of "General" David Sarnoff of RCA. Sarnoff finally succeeded in crushing Major Armstrong, the pioneer of FM broadcasting, who committed suicide after losing too many battles with RCA.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  97. Why buy HDTV? by zCyl · · Score: 2

    My TV works just fine. The purpose of my TV is watching the TV shows I like, and it has that feature fully implemented and bug free. Why upgrade to a newer version if the current version works fine?

    Yes yes, HDTV is digital, and it's a different (not necessarilly better, but different) screen ratio, but so what? X-Files isn't fuzzy when I watch it anyway.

    I suspect the bulk of consumers have similar feelings toward HDTV. No one has given us a reason to buy into the idea, so no one is doing it. Most people don't just rush out to buy new stuff because it's new and "cool". If they want me to buy into HDTV, they're going to have to offer me some radically new features that make it well worth converting.

    Trying to use it for data is a noble attempt, but it doesn't really appeal to me. I use my computer for browsing the web, not my TV. It'll take something else to make me switch over anytime in the near future.

  98. Go ahead and buy a tunerless HDTV now by Quikah · · Score: 2

    You can always feed it anamorphic widescreen DVDs and get a picture better than anything a standard TV can produce. Plus DSS systems are starting to broadcast HD signals for select channels now. Go for it.

    You can get the Toshiba TW40X81 for about $2500. The OTA tuner will be about $1k. About 2x the cost of an equivalent standard TV setup, not the $6k they are claiming in the article.

    --
    Q.
  99. A history and background by erikn · · Score: 2

    Upside Today had a good report on this awhile back. I found it again, and you can read it here. It's called "Digital TV: What a mess", to give you an idea of the slant. :) The article talks about data delivery from a slightly different angle, in terms of interests and profit motives, and gives an overview of all parties involved: cable, broadcasters, FCC, consumers, equipment makers and policy makers. It has an obvious bias, and the typical Upside sensationalist tone, but taught me a lot of new things about how we got to where we are with HDTV.

  100. Re:idiots by Xenu · · Score: 2

    The FCC and Congress did not force HDTV on the television broadcasters. The FCC was looking into the reallocation of unused UHF TV channels to the land mobile radio service. When the NAB heard about it, they went ballistic. Looking for an excuse to hold on to their valuable frequency allocations, they found high definition television. Not only did it make use of unused TV channels, the original proposals used more spectrum than the 6 MHz needed for an NTSC channel. It boiled down to "Let us keep our huge, poorly utilized, frequency allocations and in return we will deliver HDTV to the American public in years."

  101. Re:Not giving away, trading for VHF by Xenu · · Score: 2

    I think the original plan was to reclaim the VHF channels (2-13), but many broadcasters have been lobbying to keep their VHF channel assignments, saying that they can't replicate their current coverage on a UHF channel.

  102. Kill Analog by Xenu · · Score: 2
    The high definition and wide screen features are nice, but for me, the most important feature is the fact that it is digital video.

    I've seen how good NTSC can look when displayed on a studio monitor in a TV station. Unfortunately, that bears no resemblance to the noisy, ghost ridden, ugly NTSC signals delivered by the idiots who run the local cable system or available over-the-air in my area. A end-to-end digital signal, even if it is only SDTV, would be a major improvement over the current situation.

  103. Re:A new Concorde jet? by Rombuu · · Score: 2

    I can remember spending $4000 for a 386 system right after they came out. Too bad computers never got any cheaper as time went by and production increased, eh?

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  104. How many tunerless HDTV's are out there right now? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    A number of articles have mentioned that it's a good idea to get a tunerless HDTV right now, and buy tuners and things to hook up to it.

    Is there anywhere that has a list of tunerless HDTV's? All I use my TV for right now is to watch DVD's and play console games. So really, a tunerless display sounds great to me...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  105. I dunno. by Matt2000 · · Score: 2


    Not sure about that plan. From the article: "But HDTV has been slow to take off. Reception is spotty..." Does that sound like the kinda thing you'd want to trust your data to?

    "Sorry dear, no email during the thunderstorm."

    Hotnutz.com - Funny

    --

  106. Re:Details? (Linux support, digital cable) by Foogle · · Score: 2
    My cable company is Adelphia. They provide "Digital Cable", and require you to buy a special box to decode it. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a standard. And, unless the BTTV people have worked some amazing magic, their cards will definitely not decode this signal.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  107. Re:a cheap alternative by leiz · · Score: 2

    consider the Pinnacle hdtv card, they have a comparison of their card with the Hauppauge card on their website. One of their advantages is that the Pinnacle card supports a resolution of 1080 while the Hauppauge downmixes everything to 480


    _______________________________________________
    Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well-done.

  108. Re:More than 5 digital channels. by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 2

    An HDTV channel is 6 MHz wide, as well.
    --

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  109. Digital Cable vs Terrestrial Broadcast HDTV by jguthrie · · Score: 2
    sacdelta wrote:

    Many cable companies already use a digital signal. I don't know how compatible that signal is with the HDTV programming however.

    I don't know what other cable companies use, but around here Warner Cable is using MPEG-3, like the satellite companies. While higher resolution is possible with MPEG, it's not at all compatable with any of the HDTV standards (and there are a BUNCH of those.)

    I suppose that one could get one of those receiverless HDTV's (at roughly 10 times the cost of a decent NTSC television with receiver) and use it to display HDTV resolution stuff transmitted over the satellites or cable, but the real point of the matter is this:

    sacdelta also wrote:

    Signal quality is essential to HDTV. The advantage of a digital signal is that if you receive it, you get pretty much perfect reception. With an analog signal, you get more static as you lose reception quality. With a digital signal it is pretty much all or nothing.

    This is why I don't have digital cable any more. By the time they'd repaired the cable enough to receive any digital cable, our analog cable reception (digital cable transmits all of the old analog cable channels using an analog signal) was simply fabulous Sometimes, we'd get hit by line noise and it would absolutely wipe out all of the digital channels. Turn to one of the analog channels and there wouldn't be enough static to notice. (If it wasn't a P5, it was certainly a P4.99.)

    When I think of all of the times that I've watched P3 or worse analog signals, I'd have to say that HDTV over terrestrial broadcast channels is a really incredibly stupid idea. It can't possibly work. (Think of how many people you know with perfect off-air reception. I don't know any except for W4KFC who does ATV so has all these marvelous antennae.) The fundamental characteristic of NTSC television signals is robustness and HDTV throws that away in favor of benefits that few truly appreciate. (Who, after all, wants to see Jay Leno's makeup flaws? Does that help you understand the monologue?)

    HDTV may be the thing to send over cable or satellite (although I think there already is broader acceptance of MPEG over those media and others as well) but for terrestrial broadcast, it's not the best choice.

  110. Why do I want HDTV? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2

    The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions, led Congress to mandate that all broadcasts be digital by 2006 and impelled the FCC to give broadcasters extra airwaves for free

    So I own a 26" color analog Television set. I paid $250 for this baby back in 1996. I don't have cable. I get my reception from a pair of rabbit ears or an attenna on my roof. Sure the image is fuzzy every once in a while, but I don't care. This setup works great for me. Unless the TV breaks, I have no intention on replacing my set. There's a very good chance that my TV set will last through 2006 and later.

    Maybe I'm mistaken, but according to what I read (In this article and elsewhere), I won't be able to receive analog broadcasts past 2006. I will either need to replace working television with a new Digital capable one, or I will need to buy a Digital-to-Analog converter. How much will this box cost? Probably a couple hundred bucks in the begining. I don't want to spend that (and alot of families can't afford this). But if I don't buy this converter, I won't receive any broadcasts, right? Yay, excluded from information because of economics.

    Even though 90% of the stuff on TV is crap, television is still a useful medium. From news about tropical storms to the State of the Union, most people get their news through TV. Don't we have a right to access this media without spending more money?

    Alot of people have told me that "well, you need to spend money on a Television anyways, which isn't that much different then spending money on a converter box." But the difference is that I can pick up a used television at any Thrift Store for $20, and it works well enough-- it's got sound and an image. Enough to receive useful news.

    So why do I want HDTV?

    The broadcast spectrum is supposed to be "Free" as in "Democracy", not free as in "High Resolution+ THX sound".

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  111. Ads everywhere (rant) by jzuska · · Score: 2

    I can't stand this. When I pay for a service nobody should be able to spam me with ads. I think this includes pay cable tv stations. I remember how cool HBO was and all the rest of the cable stations were when it first came out. I cannot believe how much advertising is done through the media today. I turn on the radio in my car on the way home from work and all I get is ads. I'm in the car for 15 fscking minutes and not a single song plays. So radio and tv are in the crapper. Our lovely web is nearly there. This is all done to make some corporations insanely rich. I get spam, everyone gets spam, you can filter it, but many times someone has sent me and important forward or a document that I needed and It got filtered out. If I pay for broadband I want disgustingly fast access, not more complex advertising. Samething with HDTV. If I pay 6000+ bucks for this tv I better not even see one commercial. But that wont happen. We ARE going to see more complex targeted advertising on the net, tv, magazines, radio. It will never stop. There are only 3 sure things in life death, taxes, and avertising. You will consume what we tell you to. See FIGHT CLUB. nuff said

  112. Re:Not giving away, trading for VHF by Cramer · · Score: 2

    The FCC mandated every TV station must be broadcasting a DIGITAL signal by 2005 -- that was later dropped back to 2006 and could drop back even further -- or they would lose their broadcast license. They've given away the necessary spectrum for a full HDTV signal. However, a great deal of content is currently "up-converted" from NTSC, so there's little point in shipping it out as 1080i. The HDTV signal can support _4_ programs plus a bit of data -- not T3 volumes, but some. PBS is interested in sending multiple programs and streaming computer "interactive" content along side the program; for example, transmitting a "side bar" for Nova.

    The FCC is making broadcasters move away from NTSC to HDTV. They haven't said what resolution or ratio of "TV" to "data" one must transmit. [Give them some time. They are part of the .gov]

  113. Re:Transmission Standards by ecampbel · · Score: 2

    This response to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.

    Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.

    By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.

    Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?

    --

    Sig goes here
  114. Resolution! by ChristianBaekkelund · · Score: 2
    This article talks so much about the bandwidth capabilities of this new "data-streaming"...but, as a consumer and developer, what I care most about at this point (which may possibly change in the future) is better resolution, not more bandwidth! Of course the two are forever intertwined, but HDTV directly has a much better resolution than my old crappy NTSC TV, and that means so much more to me than having interactive content, more channels, etc. etc.

    I will never, ever buy a console gaming system, for example, until one comes out that can match the resolution of my PC! What's the point, otherwise, when I can play the exact same game on my computer at 4 times the resolution of this crummy NTSC game on my TV?

    This is, IMHO, one of the most important sentances in this article: "Multicasting or datacasting is fine, as long as they don't abandon HDTV," he said. So very true...so don't buy an HDTV yet?...no, please do! Support the standard, so I don't go blind by the time I'm 60!

  115. Transmission Standards by kcarnold · · Score: 2
    One of the problems for DTV, and the major reason that reception is currently spotty, is the current transmission standard. 8VSB, as the current standard is called, is flawed. See my earlier article for some information, and find more thanks to Google.

    COFDM is clearly the better solution. This was a major topic of discussion at this year's NAB, and a demonstration by Acrodyne of a COFDM signal transmitted from ~17 miles away being received in the convention center without any problems showed this quite well, as did Sinclair's earlier testing in Baltimore, which I discussed in my article; see above.

    This is seriously not a troll, but instead, I think, a wake-up call. Another poster asked if you would want to trust your data to spotty reception. There is no reason to. With superior "ease of reception" in metropolitan areas, or other areas with a lot of multipath, or "ghosting", and equal or better reception outside of the city, there is no reason not to go with COFDM.

    A bit of the science behind it: 8VSB uses one carrier that carries all of the information, which is typically MPEG-encoded video. COFDM carries the exact same information split up into many carriers across the 6 MHz spectrum given to a television station. If one of those carriers is somehow damaged, other carriers containing duplicates of that information can be used. The amount of duplicate data can easily be adjusted at the transmission side, allowing for the most data during non-peak hours (for use by data and multiple virtual channels), but increased signal reliability during prime time.

    By the way, some xDSLs (which?) use (C)OFDM. Many mobile communications systems either are currently or will in the future use a multi-carrier system like COFDM.

    For a bit more information, see Sinclair's COFDM FAQ.

    Kenneth

  116. Corrections by kcarnold · · Score: 2
    I have noted a few errors in my first post that I wish to correct.

    First, the signal that can be carried using COFDM is not exactly the same as the signal for 8-VSB. In fact, the bandwidth is adjustable up to about 20 Mb/s, but sacrificing some signal reliability. As I said, this can be tuned for the specific scenario.

    Also, there are reasons not to go with COFDM as a single standard format. But there are no technical reasons not to consider it as an alternative. A major concern is that adopting COFDM even as an alternative system would slow DTV reception. Possibly, but do we want an inferior system?

  117. HDTV is OK by meckardt · · Score: 2

    Its slow coming, but its coming.

    I am about to become a test subject for trial HDTV broadcasting later this month. Of course rather than just issuing us a box, they are providing a computer board to do the same thing (and a high-end graphics card if we don't have one), so that we have the HDTV signal pumped directly into the computer, from where we can route it to the TV. Best of all, after the test is over, we get to keep the goodies for free. =7)

    On the set side, I was in a Circuit City store a couple of months ago looking at big screen TVs. I wasn't really considering one of the grainy beasts very seriously until I saw a 61" HDTV. WOW! The only question is, how long do I have to wait until I can pony up the $8k the thing costs? Definitely no later than the end of this year, and depending on the stock market (and my stock options), it may be considerably sooner.

    As far as misuse of airwaves as described in this article, these things have a way of catching up with the misusers. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the picture.


    Gonzo
  118. TV? What's that? by loosenut · · Score: 2

    Isn't it that old tech that was around before the Internet? I figured it would have ended up in a museum by now.

  119. Monumental Stupidity in Congress by hypergeek · · Score: 2
    I can't believe this! Congress just gave the extra bandwidth for HDTV to broadcasters for free with no strings attached, and trusted them to use it only for HDTV, then sat there dumbfoundedly as they (gasp!)... used it for other purposes!

    #ifdef DRIPPING_SARCASM

    Hmm... let's see. While we're at it, why not give small children handguns to protect themselves from child abuse! It's not like they'd come up with other ways to use them!

    Why not give North Korea large supplies of plutonium? I'm sure they'll only use it to make cheap electric power, and maybe recharge their flux-capacitors!

    Why not release criminal psychopaths from the asylums and give them hammers and chainsaws? I'm sure they'll use their newfound freedom and tools strictly to build houses for the homeless!

    Why not give Microsoft a tiny slap on the wrist and let it off the hook? I'm sure it'll use its world domination exclusively to promote Quality $oftware(TM)!

    Why not elect 535 random politicians to Congress and expect them to make smart decisions! I'm sure they won't use their power to... to... gee, what is it that they get done, anyway?

    Oh, that's right. They improve our viewing experience to ensure that C-SPAN comes in digital crystal-clarity. Can't have our elected representatives lookin' shabby in Lo-Rez, can we?

    God bless America®.

    #endif

    --
    Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
  120. Why HDTV Fails by ngaihua · · Score: 2

    From my observation most new technology which suceed depends on its 'leap' in technology which can be felt by normal consumers. I don't see why anyone would want HDTV when their Cable or Satelite works just perfect as they are. People are happy with TV just they way it is. The higher resolution offered by HDTV is just not enough of a 'leap' from conventional TVs - not enough for normal users to really appreciate it. Here are some major technological leaps (for consumers) which succeded in the market : Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed. Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventioal 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a sucess. - ISDN 128K...ho hum. HDTV vs. Conventional TV I don't see how normal consumers would really feel the 'significant' benefit in their daily viewing if they were to use HDTV instead of the conventional TV. Lesson to be learned here is that in order to gain wide acceptance of a new techology, it has to have some form of quantum leap over the previous technology. HDTV just don't have the edge that cable modem have over conventional modems. Gary Note : I am applying what I said to TYPICAL CONSUMERS.

  121. So what happens when HDTV does come out?? by SuperDuG · · Score: 2
    So what happens when HDTV does come out ... does IBlast just die. Then what do you do with those sill $300 boxes?

    My other question is ... why is this any different then wireless networking or advertised paid paging?

    Seems like a gimmick that costs too much to get off the ground and no one will really use anyways. Ohh well.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. Why HDTV? by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 3

    I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies.
    --

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  124. Re:White Paper on Haupage DTV cards by Cy+Guy · · Score: 3

    This paper (pdf format) gives some technical info on the WinTV-D card and also on DTV data casting in general.

    BTW, the Slashdot and ABC headlines are only helping to increase the confusion of DTV and HDTV. The spectrum is reserved for DTV which can include HDTV. If it were for HDTV only, then there shouldn't so much left over spectrum when broadcasting 1080i.

    --
    Work for Change & GET PAID!
  125. Here is the Digital TV Term Glossary from paper by Cy+Guy · · Score: 3

    In case people don't want to load the pdf file, here is the Glossary:

    GLOSSARY OF DTV TERMINOLOGY

    AC-3: Also known as Dolby Digital, a coding and compression method for surround audio capable
    of driving 5 speakers and a sub-woofer.

    Chroma, Chrominance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the color overlay information.

    DBS - Direct Broadcast Satellite: The generic term for the small-dish digital systems in popular
    use today.

    Downsampling: Reducing the information content (detail) in an image in order to allow rendering
    to a lower resolution display.

    DTV - Digital Television: The generic term for broadcasting of any of the approved digital
    formats.

    DVD - Digital Versatile Disk: A data encoding standard for CD-ROM-like disks, capable of storing
    data at the higher densities needed for recording movies.

    HDTV - High Definition Television: The term which refers to those approved digital formats with
    resolution higher than SDTV, namely those with 720 or 1,080 vertical lines of resolution.

    IEEE 1394: Also known as Firewire, a high-speed serial interconnect capable of transferring up to
    400 Megabits per second.

    Luma, Luminance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the black-and-white detail
    information.

    MPEG-2: A "compression" method for reducing the bit rate needed to transmit a series of images.

    MSO: Multiple Services Operator - a cable TV company.

    PSIP - Program and System Information Protocol: The data stream within a DTV broadcast that
    describes the various video, audio and data streams that are present.

    QAM - Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: A method of encoding bits using multiple analog levels
    to represent bit patterns - often used by the cable industry.

    SDTV - Standard Definition Television: The term which refers to those of the approved digital
    formats with resolution comparable to today' s DBS and DVD systems, namely those with 480
    vertical lines of resolution.

    Transcoding: Converting from one modulation method to another, for example, from VSB to
    QAM.

    USB - Universal Serial Bus: A medium-speed (12 Megabit per second) local communication bus.

    VSB - Vestigal Side-Band: A method of encoding bits used primarily by the television broadcast
    industry.

    --
    Work for Change & GET PAID!
  126. Re:a cheap alternative by ostiguy · · Score: 3

    The WinTV-d only support 480i, the lowest of the low HDTV resolutions, in fact, so low that that res it typically referred to as D(igital)TV, cuz the rez aint all that high. Hauppauge is going to have a full out, ahve you cake and eat it too, completely HDTV card within the year, but this sure aint it.

    matt

  127. Neither is movies? by rogerbo · · Score: 3

    Um, neither is movies? What sorry?

    Movies (and even most high budget TV shows) areshot on film. It's a relatively simple matter to run an edited film print through a high definition Telecine. Bang, all of a sudden you have a HDTV film master for broadcasting. The effective resolution of film is greater than 2048x1920 so there's plenty of detail there for HDTV.

    In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.

    And yes when you see HDTV you will know the difference, remember the first time you saw a DVD versus a VHS tape?

  128. Auctioning off spectrum by kenf · · Score: 3
    Our dear government should never have started the great spectrum auctions.


    Instead of selling it, they should have rented it out, and evect any renter who doesn't actually use it as indended.

  129. The hidden dangers of HDTV by Greyfox · · Score: 3
    Once they start broadcasting in digital, how long will it take them to insure that your VCR can't record anything? With the DMCA and the MPAA trying to encrypt everything, it won't surprise me when they start building something like CSS into the TV itself. Encrypt the signal right up to the point where it hits the TV and bang! The VCR suddenly becomes useless.

    On the plus side, assuming you can munge the digital signal based on your own parameters, filtering/editing out commercials should become a lot easier. I'm sure they'll figure out how to prevent that too...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  130. HDTV by DrEldarion · · Score: 3

    HDTV really isn't going to take off until it's affordable. I mean, come on, who is going to pay over $5000 just for a little better resolution. Only people with large sums of money to blow, really...

    Until a good portion of the population can afford them, it won't really go anywhere, most likely.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --
    It's not what it is, it's something else.

  131. 10^12 channels and nothing's on... by Alien+Perspective · · Score: 3
    So congress gives away all that HDTV bandwidth, a very valuable commodity, for free to the broadcasters, with the understanding that the broadcasters will convert to HDTV and release their old frequencies for other uses.

    Naturally, the broadcasters reneg...going for $$$ using the HDTV bandwidth for other stuff while continuing to hold the old bandwidth too.

    Does anyone else see this as a blatent spectrum theft? Of course, we can't expect our elected representitives to do anything about it; pissing off the broadcasters is electoral death.

    When one industry gets a veto on who gets to be our government, you should be worried.

    Personally, I was looking forward to everyone having to toss their old TVs...maybe it would wean people from sucking on the glass teat, and that would raise the collective IQ of the country.

  132. HD by sik+puppy · · Score: 5

    HD is wonderful - if you haven't seen it, its like a great flat 21" monitor with resolution set to 1280x1024. (only in 16x9 ratio)

    What little programming that is available so far really looks good. The superbowl was outstanding, except when the ntsc camerman walked right in front of the HD camera, so you got a really great picture of the back of the SD camera.

    Waiting for the set is a toss up. If you do have the bucks, even regular tv looks really good on the set. The two most important things are native resolution and the set top box.

    Do not get a set that is not native 1080. Otherwise, any 1080 signal will be downcoverted to whatever the native mode is - a cheap set might be 480 native, in which case you have a fancy regular tv.

    do NOT get a set with an integrated box. The linked article is a perfect reason why. Until there is enough HD programming, broadcasters are looking to fill their pipe with some source of revenue. The new broadcast pipe can carry 5 SD signals and change or one HD, so sending 1 SD leave about 14 mb/s of available pipe.

    There are a lot of revenue generating things you can do with 14mbs. Given the cost of going digital (1-1.5 Mil for a transmitter; a new antenna, tower space, microwave, etc can tack on another mil or so)(not to mention another 5-15k/month for electricity) broadcasters are in need of income asap.

    There is a great opportunity for someone to come up with new business models to take advantage to this distribution medium. Any ideas? Any Takers?

    --
    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2