Slashdot Mirror
FCC And More HDTV Rules
Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has a story (free reg req) on the latest twist in the battles over High Definition Television. The FCC has concluded that cable companies can not be compelled to carry both the digital and analog versions of a broadcast station's signal. This will definitely make the transition period to full digital even more turbulent, since in individual markets people who have or have not updated their viewing equipment may end up watching different channels." deebaine points also to this CNN story on same; all this HDTV is going to get worse before it gets better.
- Networks are moving from paying affiliates to carry programs, to having the affiliates pay them.
- Eventually, networks will avoid local broadcast affiliates completely and go direct to the consumer over cable, DSL, and satellite
- 70% of U.S. residents already get their TV from wire-based services, 10% from DBS satellites
So while DTV and HDTV will probably find use over digital wirelines services, the quagmire known as broadcast TV will only adopt any DTV services in the 10 largest metropolitan areas. Station owners are going to have to start paying TV networks for programming, and there is no coherent business plan for local broadcasters to recover the costs of switching to DTV (no viewers either due to expensive sets). I think that it is nuts that the FCC determines what modulation modes should be used. Technological change happens rapidly now. Broadcast stations wasting precious bandwidth with analog transmissions should not be catered to. Spectrum use (rental) should be auctioned, and the winner can do whatever he or she wants with it. Look at the unregulated 900 MHz spectrum, used by everything from baby monitors to Ricochet micro-cellular data networks. We could have G3 wireless technology now instead of channel 5.Ummm right now that should read $500-$1000 per unit. I think this is really an experiment to see how much the consumer will take.
Dude, this is cable TV were talking about, not the frigging electric company. Regulations needed for what? So people who bought HDTVs have the right to watch NOVA: The Mating Ritual of the East Indian Wallabi on the Discovery Channel with digital quality? If I owned a PRIVATE television channel that people don't have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to watch, and have to pay for it, then guess what, I get to do what ever I want. Christ, I could show Ween videos in reverse all day long on it if I wanted to. That's called free enterprise my friend.
------------------------
Hmmm. Certain markets of the 200 or so US television markets have been broadcasting analogue SDTV and digital HDTV before 2001. It's a rollout. We have a lot more broadcasters here in the US. Nobody could build the transmitters, antennas and studio gear fast enough to roll it out for 2001.
Also. The US developed it's own DTV standard. As Australia is a PAL country, they've probably adopted the european DTV system using the COFDM modulation. Not sure of the companies involved... probably Philips is a main one.
Part of the reason for a slower rollout here in the US is due to a debate over the modulation standard. COFDM vs. VSB8. Some broadcasters want receivers that can accept either thus adding delay to the designs and increasing the cost. To what end? My theory is that Sinclair Broadcasting wants COFDM for mobile applications (Data transmition anyone) That is probably worth more in revenue than the broadcasting of programs. Use a quarter of the bandwidth to broadcast a standard def program and use the other three quarters for some serious revenues for pagers and internet appliances.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
boggle
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Oh come on its really *that* informative?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The message being more important than the medium?!
Blasphemey!
That's the reason I hate all of those bullshit highschool projects that require powerpoint.
It doesn't matter how well you know your subject material. As long as you have some pretty pictures, it's ok.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Instead, the airwaves of television have turned into nothing more than a marketing tool for the corporations that plague them. And given their stranglehold on the broadcast content, we can be assured that nothing (not even the "news") that hits the airwaves is real.
Don't hate TV. Hate the people that control it. Because even if television were to die, those same people will just end up controlling the next mass communications medium that comes along.
I'm sorry sandwich! --Brak
If it's not the LAST POST to the FP thread, none at all...
Seriously, how many really good TV shows are there on TV now? CNN- and MSNBC-type info can all be gotten online. This leaves local news (read the paper) and fiction. OK, so you want to spend how much money to be able to watch Buffy, X-Files, Angel, StarCrap, et al.? I'm leaving asides sports games, but for me this is a total non-issue. Hmmm, movie playback... Unless you spend $100K on your home theater, it's better on the big screen (and if your memory is good it's pretty pointless to watch
something more than once).
From the advertising industry pov, there are only so many Lexus commercials that they can usefully air. They need to sell things like second mortages, Tide, PineSol, and Doritos on there too. They need to sell monster truck show ads. Point being, the market does not involve only those people who make enough money to spend $300 on a tv set.
A tv set is something that should be, like a radio, low threshhold of entry into the market. You should be able to get a shitty tv at the tag sale and be able to watch broadcast shows on it.
If everything is mediated through expensive digital cables, there will be an even greater media divide than there is right now. Broadcast tv does some useful stuff, like telling people where to vote, what the weather will be, and where the traffic jams are. Many of these people don't have the time or the resources to look anywhere else. Usually, even the poorest family has access to a tv set, not the internet or even the newspaper.
Advertisers, wanting to reach all markets, value the broadcast TV market and hopefully should resist any attempt to exclude poorer markets from watching television.
Goat sex free since 2001
The latest news just shows us that the cable companies already have enough of a foothold to stall indefinitely, and they have obvious motives to do so, since the ultimate goal would be to make it possible to get better-than-current-cable picture quality without purchasing anything, at least in urban areas. At least that's the way I understand the goal, correct me if I'm wrong.
The Cable companies in the UK (ntl, Telewest, C&W) have been carrying both anologue and digital channels since 1999, I'm not sure if it's a capacity issue since the average widescreen digital channel (mpeg encoded) uses about 6Mbps in bandwidth whilst an anologue channel uses the equivalent of 27Mbps of bandwidth, the digital bandwidth is variable though. If the cable system is carrying well over 100 anologue channels then bandwidth might become tight.
This is probably an excuse for the cable companies to drop anologue services as quickly as possible because it would free up huge amounts of bandwidth.
it's better on the big screen
That's fine, except most movies in the studio libraries will never be shown on the big screen again.
Movies that make 95% of what is available in theaters today look like junk.
Plus, speaking of MPEG artifacts, has anyone else notices how ugly DVD's get when you have a solid dark color. For instance, in dark scenes the whole background becomes a bunch of black squares.
Turn your brightness down, and/or get a better DVD player. This is a common symptom of poor calibration.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
...as usual, you can see the story by replacing "www" with "partners". ROSCO
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
Just because something is great as a book, doesn't mean that it's a trivial job to turn it into a great film.
2001 is perhaps one of the best serious Science Fiction movies ever made, and that can't be owed directly to Clarke's brlliant writing. If 2001 had been made by any other director it would've suffered, IMO, as Kubrick is the only director I know of that had the attention to detail and persistance to pull it off.
I mean, every single film Kubrick made is completely different from his others, and every one is extremely good, if not brilliant.
You said, "they should be able to do what is in the best interest of their own company, after all, this is America, right?"
Well, companies have to follow the rules just like everyone else, even though this is America (apple pie and streets of gold).
They don't have free reign to do whatever suits their budget and tolerance for stupidity.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Yeah, except unlike IPv6, HDTV has been in development since the early 80s. Seeing how it took them twenty years to get it all approved for sale and broadcast, I'm figuring another 40 years before the majority of people use it.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Besides, there's a new thing coming up quick, VOD. Sure, they're just going to stock your top ten PPV's at first, but you WILL see a day soon where if you're up at 4am and can't sleep and the mood strikes you, Enter the Dragon will be a few clicks away... Point being that HDTV isn't just for prime time television simulcasted shows...
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
Does Tivo work with HDTV? , If so I might just have to get one.
Who wants a VCR that has one tape (Hard Drive) installed that is not removable. Quick show of hands, Who has a VCR with less than 3 tapes? I personaly have over 300 in my private library. I rewatch the good stuff when "trash and infomercials" are on TV. People will want to pull out recordable media to throw into the vault for later. Anything less is an unaceptable limitation. A digital VCR is OK for an addition to a removable media VCR for time shifting the game or soaps, but it does not replace a VCR.
The truth shall set you free!
With my next computer, which hopefully isn't too far away, I am probably going to buy a Samsung SyncMaster 1200 22" monitor for around $750. Big resolution, big refresh rates etc. When HDTV comes to me I will already have something capable of its resolution and with a decoder card I'll be set. That is the way I see alot of people going, especially with DVD's being common on computers finally and what not, people are really starting to get used to using their comptuer for everything. And why not? its made to be versitile so the more things you use it for the more efficient you are.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
I feel no guilt about owning a good stereo or a decent TV.
You don't know what I do for a living, how I make my money, what charities I give time or money to, or anything else, yet you've decided that I'm evil. You have no ideas what steps I take to help the environment, the sick, the arts or anything, yet you've decided that you know exactly who I am.
How sad is that? That because I thought it amusing to defend the position that television can be fun, and entertaining, that you've declared that I'm a selfish, insecure, money-driven person, who dislikes strangers, and doesn't care about social issues. And by sad, I mean it's sad for you, not me.
I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong. I know exactly who I am. I'm not the kind of person who looks at some superficial information, like a person's TV viewing habits, and decides they know everything about them.
YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. and you never will. It's obvious, because I can't stand people like you. People who make judgments about a person without nearly enough information to understand them, or to know what they do.
Welcome to the real world, where a good stereo doesn't equal a lack of social responsibility. Get a fucking life, and stop judging people. Judging other people's lives won't make your, or anybody else's life any better.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
... HDTV will be totally obsolete by the time they actually have all their court troubles and everything straightened out...
and don't delude yourself into thinking you know anything about me. my soul is funky fresh.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
yikes, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed. What, pray tell, in the original post provoked you to spew such vitriol? It's not like the guy said he was better than you, he just professed his own opinions of television. You happen to disagree. Get over it.
If you see every differing opinion as a personal attack on yourself this is going to be one long and very difficult life for you.
-josh
Plus, speaking of MPEG artifacts, has anyone else notices how ugly DVD's get when you have a solid dark color. For instance, in dark scenes the whole background becomes a bunch of black squares.
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
....and bring prices down. Don't buy an HDTV. Build an HDTV to analog converter. The guy that makes this and provides the plans to the Cable companies will most likely go down in history! Nevermind the politics and such. Business wise, this could be a very good thing!
--SuperBug
I have a very nice collection of DVDs and VHS tapes. It's nice not because it's vast, because it's not. I consider it nice because it contains some rare movies which I really love but will never be reprinted on DVD. What are teh chances that those movies will be transferred to the new standard? Zero.
They will stop making traditional VCRs and DVD players. No big deal for the DVD, since I am reasonably sure they'll do them backwards compatible (or will they? Let's not forget that greed is powerful, maybe they will force the consumers to buy again all their titles), but not VCRs. And I have some of the best things on VHS tapes.
Just look at those poor bastards with laser discs. Noone makes LD players anymore. Who the hell cares? Once your last LD player breaks, you are fucked. Not to talk about the fact that some titles had much nicer features on LD than on DVD. Why? Because the movie industry doesn't give a shit about customer satisfaction. They are after the dough. All these bastards care about making money, not about high quality whatever. They shape your needs "you need HDTV because it's so much better, you need DD 6.1, because the sound is so much better, and btw. you need a new DVD player that can do HD, and a new VCR that can do HD..."
It's all screwed up.
Sigged!
That's what this is all about is making cable carry it right? I personally think that while the government has done some shitty shit, I want them to stick everyone with this. I want HDTV forced on myself and everyone else because it's so good. If I'm forced to adopt it and I lose alot of cash, it would be worth it if it was wide spread. You can bet that all the people in charge of regulating and pushing HDTV have actually seen it. Why do you think they are pushing so hard? They know that people will want it after seeing true digital from start to finish high definition video for 10 seconds.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
The people that care enough to upgrade are the ones that'll get screwed in the end because an even newer technology will come along!
I am !amused.
True that TV still sucks, but it'll certainly be nice for HD-DVDs to start coming out so at least we'll have nicer-looking movies! After all, movies are where the higher-resolution is more needed anyway..
MPEG 4 cannot go beyond DVD resolution as I understand it.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
This kinda reminds me of the airbag situation, the transportation agencies don't regulate whether or not a car has to have an airbag, yet if you make a car with an airbag, it has to expand at like 200 mph (thus decapitating younger people) or you can't install one in your car.
These people own private companies, they should be able to do what is in the best interest of their own company, after all, this is America, right?
------------------------
This is just fucking wonderful. I cant even wait for this to happen! How many people that read /. even have the motivation to upgrade to HDTV? I wonder if the dish network carry hdtv, anyone?
/. but hdtv sounds like shit to me.
I am currently listening to worlock by skinny puppy
I dont know about the rest of
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Quick question, how many of these shows can be recieved off the airwaves (not dish or cable)? Cable and broadcast frequencies have nothing in common.
The truth shall set you free!
125? When I was at my parents' house for the holidays they had something like 300+ channels for some reason. Can't imagine why, neither watches a great deal of tv. Myself, I don't watch anything other than stuff on disc and tape, and The Simpsons.
But I think you're wrong about stereo. For some weird reason, tv shows that people listen to in stereo, even despite the crappy ass speaker seperation on tvs, improves their perception of the overall picture quality. Even if there's no actual improvement, a percieved one isn't really bad - it makes your watching more enjoyable.
As for watching lots of content, that's great, but I'll be damned if I'll stand for the continued unconstitutional expansion of copyright law at the behest of media corporations.
-- 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.
In the '70s and '80s I worked in broadcasting and in high fidelity audio sales and service. A "broadcast quality" turntable isn't necessarily what broadcasters would have been using 50 or even 25 to 30 years ago. A lot of the machines that they did use weren't designed so much for the "golden-eared audiophile" as they were to run all day, every day, constantly being started and stopped, and to take a pounding from a very mixed bag of users.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The concept:
Someone brings out a tivo equivalent that's hooked up to your permanently on DSL and is sent a signal telling it when to start and stop recording to totally avoid advertising. You simply switch on fifteen minutes after the start of your program and you get it clean and ad free.
I've moved from London to San Diego a month ago and haven't even bothered hooking up cable as (from an English point of view) the Ad/Credit/Ad/Show/Ad/Show/Ad/Credit/Ad of American TV is unwatchable. Maybe it's tolerable for those who've grown up with it, but I for one would pay an extra hundred on my tivo or an extra $10 a month on the subscription to never have to watch an advert again.
Anyway, the question this leads to is: Does anyone have any thoughts on how this would effect the market? Would you cable contract specify that you could not use such units with it for fear of loss of advertising revenue? Would they just add product placement in to the main shows? Even if it were prhobited/made illegal, would that stop the boxes from being bought (think non-region specific DVD players)? Would subscriptions costs go up? Would program quality drop?
Just don't get HDTV, unless the laws have changed such that fair use comes back and we won't have to be subject to the controls on copying and playback of the digital signal. If they are dependent on a patented signal which must be licensed from a consortium of content providers, then all the builders of end user equipment will be beholden to them, and it will be DeCSS lawsuits all over again.
Only if enough people who realize this decide *not* to buy HDTV is there hope. Yes, it will be painful if you can't get an analog signal, but just do without. Otherwise, we will be gladly cedeing any freedoms we might have to the content providers.
-Rob
The networks would simply claim restraint of trade and lawsuit-bomb anyone who offered such a service. The suits probably wouldn't stand up in court over the long haul, but the legal costs would bankrupt the defendant and force him to sell his company...probably to the very networks suing him. Oh, sure, they'd call it a "partnership," but what it would mean in the final analysis is that the commercial-zapping technology would be buried, and buried deep.
Additionally, any service for editing out commercials would be DOA to begin with, as such a device would be difficult to sell without television advertising, and there's no way the networks are going to sell ad time for a service that attacks their revenue stream.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
Exactly the post I was going to make. What the hell is so *great* about HDTV anyway! Yay, I get to watch more mindless drivel with - *higher definition*. Joy! I watch TV basically for Fox Sundays and Tuesdays, and the Lehrer show on PBS, and if I can catch a Nova once in a while, but I never know when they're on. Everything else is pretty much a vast wasteland of utter rotting crap. The government should support a bill that makes normal TVs, as they are, MORE expensive so people watch them less.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Way to BRING it man! We're in pretty much a golden era of entertainment choices, at all levels of sensibilities, the total opposite of what TV and its three choices were in the 50s and 60s when TV was pronounced pathetic. There are no longer three channels that have to appeal to a third of the audience. Some channels are happy averaging 25000 viewers through the day. It's a different world.
Why do you think they are pushing so hard? They know that people will want it after seeing true digital from start to finish high definition video for 10 seconds.
I saw it for 10 seconds and realized that replacing my 61" television with what I saw, in addition to shelling out 3-4x as much dough was not worth it.
I watch TV... yes alot. That's why I have a 61" television. But after seeing HDTV, I'm still not sold. Looks like it's nothing more than a shakedown by the corporations to get thousands of my dollars before my old television wears out.
-m
We're already there. Over the christmas holiday, AT&T Broadband in Oak Park (and probably much of the rest of the Chicago metro area) disabled anything on analog that you had to have a set-top box to get. In order to get those channels, you now have to get digital cable, period. Lucky me, I've always hated set-top boxes, so I didn't have anything that required one to begin with. But many other people complained strongly enough about the minimal warning (yes, there was a warning buried in the previous months bill, amongst all the junk they always include) that it made the local paper.
When it comes time to choose between digital cable or no cable, I'm going with a dish, and AT&T can thank themselves for losing another customer.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Don't worry about it. They already have Dolby EX 6.1 :P
I wish TV would finally die the horrible death it deserves!
What is there on TV? 125 channels, and nothing good's on. And when there finally is something on, it's 3 different show, all on at the same time!
In the last 5 decades TV has barely changed. Sure, there's the 'interactive' stuff, which really add no value to the medium. Sure, you can have PayPerView, but I'm the last guy on earth that's gonna pay $20 for a 'special' I'll be able to rent for $3 in a month! The only real major innovation was color, and perhaps CC. Stuff like stereo and SAP are good, but barely used
What's more is the stupid idea of rating shows with a stupid logo in the corner. Sure the V-Chip (whatever happened to that anyways?) could solve this, but it's pointless now: a large percentage of TVs don't have it, so they *have* to put the rating anyways, and since TVs last for a while, we'll be stuck with that for another 10 years! arrrggg!
My vision of 'TV' is like that Quest commercial that ran a while back, where the girl said "We have every movie ever made in every language available, anytime" (or something like that), just like web surfing.
Imagine, being able to watch episode number X of show Y anytime you wish, and have it up within seconds. Just like web surfing.
*THAT* would be real TV
AC comments get piped to
This is more for the future than anything, before they disable the non HDTV content they will have to be sure that the majority of their viewers have capable HDTV's, which you can be assured won't happen until walmart is selling a $189.86 25" HDTV. Till then most of the broadcasts will have NTSC signals too. I personally don't really care anymore. I have decided that TV is BAD because its a huge waste of time. When was the last time you actually saw something on TV and were a better person for seeing it? I used to watch a lot of discovery, TLC, History channel. But now I think i've seen all their programs and its just reruns or stupid real life ER, forensics or other crap shows that they are producing now. Frankly the only reason I watch TV is because I don't want to go to bed and I don't have a light (computer manuals are the exact thing I would be trying to get away from, while pure fiction is just as bad as TV sometimes) enough book to read. If there is less and less available on TV then I will be less likely to watch it. I don't even have the history channel anymore because it requires a digital converter which I refuse to get. I may actually get one of those though as soon as I get my hands on a LM1881 which is the last part of a small electronics puzzle i'm working on (if you know what I mean :> ).
We have digital cable from TW in the Raleigh, NC area, and they don't seem to mind you splitting cable inside the house. They readily admit, however, that you won't be able to obtain a useful digital signal if you split the feed more than twice (for a total of three outlets). As a solution, they offer a "digital cable compatible" amp for about $50. My tech said you could get the same thing at radio shack, and that is exactly what I did.
The set-top box has a nice diagnositic mode (channel 999) where you can check out the signal strength of the forward and reverse data carriers. The color of the signal strength indicators changes when they reach recommended threshholds, and so it was easy (and rather interesting) to play with the amplifier and splitters.
Remember that you need to buy bi-dir splitters which are rated up to 1 Ghz (also available at radio shack).
That makes me wonder why there isn't a market for "old movies" in theaters.
They're saying that there are too many theaters for the amount of movies being released (and public willing to go see them) - so why wouldn't it be a great idea to retrieve copies of some older classics and replay them at some theaters. You could go back 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years, and play some awesome movies that people still want to see on the big screen. Why not digitize them (so the originals aren't destroyed in the copying process), and project them digitally?
I'm sure there are a lot of retired people with no kids to take care of that would LOVE to revisit these movies again.
The movie industry's zeal to saturate the market with new movies is preventing a lot of good things from happening.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not many, but the ones that are good seem to me to still be worth the effort. Let's see: Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars, Battlebots, Win Ben Stein's Money (ok, that's a stretch :-), Good Eats, Dexter's Laboratory, various informative things on HGTV for those of us with homes to maintain (though we could lose Martha).... I could get by with about 6 channels, but without them it is a colder place.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
It's been a while since I read 2001. Clarke explained the process in the preface, and IIRC, it was screenplay first, book second. Someone go find a library copy. :-)
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
that's a dope fucking troll! word, trollman!
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Well, yeah it's a minor point, but sometimes the complete feeling of a scene can be changed when the scene has to be cropped.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
HAHA I knew it.
--
I'd take a 50 year old broadcast quality turntable and the associated tube amp over any crappy digital source. Digital just means loss, something was lost during the 44.1 or 96khz sampling rate. Then we deal with jitter correction and the quality of the DAC, etc etc.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Man, just an FYI, I was laughing my ass off while posting that. As for your meta-complaint... that's even more hilarious! A complaint, about my complaint, both of which are put forth in a forum of no consequence.
It truly was a genius who noted 'If complaining could change the world, slashdot would've created world peace by now'.
Thanks for the comedy!
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
So you are talking about watching TV, playing pool, watchning more TV. How about changing the
world? Have you thought there are better things you can do to better yourself and improve the world around you. Think of the social problems in your country, not the pathetically retarted mental mastrubation marketoids inspire to produce, feed it down your throat! HDTV solves not problems, improves nobodys fucking life, just causes more problems, just like DVD. They have to extra nice to me, to get me to buy this stuff, because for 5000$ I can help alot of people rather than trying to impress my rotten spoiled friends by this popculture-buy-the-newest-thing trend. Being nice to me is will be increasingly difficult as I see all these legislations and whatnot coming thru telling me to work, for money to buy shit I don't need. Seriously how often have you considered that you really need that 3000$ system with whoopass subwoofer, and shiny large new TV? Or you want it because your friends say whoo! Or is it because you feel nice and fuzzy that sound wrapping all around you and there is no strangers around you.
You need to get out man and HDTV is not gonna help you to get your or anybody's life better.
What concerns me even more than this is as I understand it, the DTV that the FCC has mandated that we migrate to will be, by law, encoded in pay-to-license formats. (Dolby Digital and MPEG.) Currently, NTSC television is (to my knowledge) license free. This means all sorts of nasty private corporate interests between people who want to make stuff and the Evil Companies. ("No, it won't run Ogg or on Linux.")
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Anyone can see a difference. You probably just didn't look at correctly or you're confusing DTV with HDTV. HDTV can have resolutions up to 1920x1080 versus NTSC's 720x480. That's Nearly 6 times more pixels. After watching a 1080i broadcast and comparing to an NTSC broadcast, you'd cry. It's not like CD player A sounding better than CD player B. It's like comparing mono LPs on a 50 year old turntable to DVD-Audio 5.1. The difference is HUGE!
Ok, the cable companies cable is on my property. So whose stealing from whom?
SAP is used all the time here (Costa Rica). In fact, the thing that pisses me off the most about the VCR I bought is that the primary sound channel bleeds in when using SAP. My TV doesn't have that problem, so I can watch live TV just fine, but recording, say, The Simpsons, results in the very weird experience of hearing Homer speak in English while simultaneously whispering in Spanish.
...I just don't see any fucking difference...
...maybe they can hear some difference, but not me...
...it's just too good for my ears, I don't hear any difference...
...fuck that...
Man. Sucks to be you!
What color is the sky in your world?
Wohoo! Let's regulate the heck out of HDTV before anyone even sees a reason to buy into it! No way they're gonna make me buy a $1000 TV set to replace my 13" one that turns different colors, or the 18" one that weighs 300 pounds that the neighbor down the street left in his lawn (with "FREE" written on the front of the screen in permanent marker) because you have to hit it to make the picture take up more than half of the screen... Ah, nothing beats a cheap TV.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
what bothers me about cable is the fact that the signals suck. They don't want you splitting the cable unless you pay for it. The signal is weak, and the more you split, the worse it gets. My TV's get horrible reception (both at home and here at school). Do I really need to pay extra money (for Digital Cable or HDTV) when it is shit anyway and the signal is weak?
"and if your memory is good it's pretty pointless to watch something more than once"
/. crowd absolutely adore the Star Wars series.
I don't know about you, but I don't re-watch good films because I've forgotten what happened in them, or how good they were. I watch good films for the overall experience, for the same reason that we listen to good music, or eat good food more than once.
I can never get enough of Stanely Kubrick films, and I know a good portion of the
Personally, I am going to look at HDTV once it's been around for a while and the benefits have become a little more sought-after. But IMO the only quality it has going for it, in reality, is the additional number of channels available.
There is just simply no way that millions of people are going to turn in their old sets in favour of 'better quality', when the reality is that the majority of people are content in watching poor reception on tiny TV's.
and thx, which can do 7.1
--
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
'if I just had a 40 inch "monitor"'
hmm..... Ever think of a digital projector?
I know they're $5000+ but man are they schweet. I was using one for a presentation in English a while back and I showed up about 45 min early... played Red Alert 2 for a bit, then the 'Hallway Scene' from the Matrix (DivX rip)... The quality was absolutely amazing.
I don't think I will be willing to spend the money on the new tv's. I'd rather spend it on the latest hardware and wait till the tv's are "really" cheap. I mean c'mon, I just now bought a dvd player. That was only because it's the only way to download and see Batman Beyond:ROtJ "unedited". That raises a question: Do the current dvd players have any issues with hdtv?
It seems to me that the FCC is forcing buyers to buy new TVs. Why are they so eager to get the HDTV standard implemented? Why is the government even involved?
I disagree that movies are nessicarily better on the big screen. It's nice to see one there once in a while, but isn't it better to see a movie where YOU control the number of screaming kids, availiability of refreshment, color and sound balance? Even a cheap system can benefit tremendously from a cheap sound meter and copy of Video Essentials, which will tell you all you need to know about how to adjust video and sound parameters on your system - anyone can do it! And after fiddling with all the settings on your TV and seeing how screwed up your color balance is at best, you'll also see why you really want to buy a much nicer HDTV set...
My system is a simple (and cheap) 5.1 surround, but even that is good enough that I really don't go out to movies much anymore. As another poster pointed out you also are not going to be able to see 95% (really more like 99%) of the movies availiable on DVD in the theaters ever, so why not make home as theatre like as possible?
I agree with you about TV, I long ago discontinued my cable service and don't watch broadcast TV much at all. Mostly my TV is a pure monitor for games and movies.
The last statement I thought was on target as well - I think before too long someone is going to start offering some sort of cable cable over tcp/ip (with agreements to broadcast the shows they air). Then perhaps I could really get the shows I want to watch, and not have to pay for the crap. As soon as studios stop fearing the piracy bogeyman, they will actually be able to make some real money.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, they know people will still use their VCR & TV with these. Getting people to give up this to spend lots of money upgrading to a digital *cough*cable subscription*cough* TV that can't work with a $100 VCR is going to be rough. People will want the stuff out of the cable box to be compatible with what they already have. True they will market it as not needing a cable box as it is "Digital Cable Ready" but time shifters will soon find it won't work with the VCR. Most people will put on the brakes on a "DIGITAL CABLE READY VCR" due to the high cost.
The truth shall set you free!
all this crud was designed before the internet existed (as far as the general public was concerned).
it's gonna get superseded big time by streaming, high bandwidth internet access and video on demand.
the whole idea was improving TV -- which I don't even watch anymore. not even cable. just dvds and the internet for me.
this thing will rot.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
not when you have 10 illegal TV's connceted in your house...
it will also jack up the price of televisions by $200 to $300 per unit. Ouch!
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The more I read about all the bulshit going on with and around HDTV, the more I think I'm just going to not upgrade to it at all. When my regular set is no longer useful, I'll make it into a great big 35" aquarium.
Seriously, how many really good TV shows are there on TV now? CNN- and MSNBC-type info can all be gotten online. This leaves local news (read the paper) and fiction. OK, so you want to spend how much money to be able to watch Buffy, X-Files, Angel, StarCrap, et al.? I'm leaving asides sports games, but for me this is a total non-issue. Hmmm, movie playback... Unless you spend $100K on your home theater, it's better on the big screen (and if your memory is good it's pretty pointless to watch something more than once).
I suspect many people will hit this point of diminishing returns where the marginal utility realized from upgrading to HDTV is just too small (hastened by the prevalence of PCs and net appliances providing a roughly equivalent feed of information). If the broadcasters and manufacturers wish to avoid this fate they'd better begin acting intelligently real quick (interoperable standards, ease of use (including taping and reproduction) similar to prextant standards, etc.). If they don't I suspect that my as-yet unconceived child(ren) will ask me what this "TV" thing was that I and their grandparents blabber on about...
This is not to say that there won't be some form of intellectual cotton-candy available as an opiate to the anesthetised masses. It might just be tcp/ip based instead of TV-feeding-trough based.
--
Fuck Censorship.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I think you are preaching to a lost soul, like the majority of people out there.
Is it even worth trying to change people. I suppose so, but dont delude yourself into thinking that everybody is going to wake up one day.
This link works without requiring any registration.
--
Some clients left impressed, while others left scratching their heads, but I think the most interesting thing about HDTV, is that while we had some large screen $10,000 HDTV's to display some of the video, we were also using standard Dell monitors to display HDTV signals as well. The picture quality is great, though limited to the 21 inches or so of the monitors we had on hand. Now if I just had a 40 inch "monitor" I'd be all set for the HDTV "revolution" if and when it ever arrives.
High definition Penguins. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
Just bag TV altogether and work out, write free software, or do something otherwise active in that time.
huh, it was rated +2 interesting. guess noone else detected your subtle sarcasm either.
us damned literal americans...
-josh
I've seen HDTV and I have to admit that it was nothing short of stunning. The clarity and sharpness was simply out of this world. I went into a local high-end shop to buy some headphones and ended up staring at the HDTV display for 45 minutes. The closest thing I could think of as a comparison was that I was looking at the best, most realistic computer animation. The detail was so great it was hard to believe I wasn't looking at a computer display.
I will admit that the projection versions of HDTV don't do the same justice to it that glass tubes do. I have yet to see it on a large plasma or LCD display, that may give the tube a run for its money.
Turning that picture quality in a justification for spending $3-10k on a teevee, however, is another matter. I bought my present Sony 27" set nearly 10 years ago for $700 and it still looks as good as when I bought it. Without HDTV signals and programming from the vast majority of programming providers it seems like a waste of money.
Theoretically, with a digital signal there is enough redundancy built in that even if the signal is very weak you will still be able to get a very crisp, distortion-free image.
If your cable signal sucks, you should call your cable operator and complain. If they don't comply, call your states public utility commission.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Yes folks, I am an early adopter.
(Some might also say I paid $400 to beta test for Hauppauge, but that's another story)
HDTV is beautiful. Those who haven't seen it are the ones who think it's not worth the bother. I don't have a great setup either, basically just a 2nd hand Panasonic 30" 16:9 monitor I purchased over Ebay (with lots burn-in, sigh) my PC and the Hauppauge WinTV-HD. After seeing this I'd say it's definately worth it just to display on a larger PC monitor, say 19" or larger. I can only imagine what it will look like on a progressive RPTV.
I watched my first ever football game last week on CBS and was amazed at how sharp and clear things were. CBS clearly leads the way with original Hi-definition programing. You just have to see Football or a sitcom like Raymond in Hi-def to see what you've been missing.
The only thing is I live in an apartment. I use a plain old Rat-Shack UHF Double-Bowtie for reception. I can receive the 3 networks and Fox, that's it. I can't put up an antenna of any type. My cable company won't carry any HDTV, not even the local channels so the other 4 aren't available to me, not to mention the premium HBO-HD and SHO-HD channels.
Most folks are in the same situation as I am. Over 60% of the US population gets their TV reception exclusively from cable tv. If cable doesn't carry HDTV it will fail. Simple as that.
Yay! So now they can charge the same amount (or more) for using even LESS of their bandwidth on video that isn't going to be much higher quality than what they sell now.
I just love getting screwed!
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Depending on what's recorded on them, I already have 40 year old mono LPs that sound better than DVD-Audio 5.1.
You see, I listen to the content, instead of obsessing over the medium.
Hay thar.
I'll trade someone an HDTV for a hookup on some MDMA! No shit, it's all good.
Here's a simple test.
Do you see a big difference in quality between DVD and regular TV broadcast movies? Because HDTV is about twice as good as DVD (or more).
If you really can't see a difference, than you probably were not watching a properly adjusted HDTV, or it was not receiving a high quality HDTV signal.
"And like that
Lemme know when I can get them for $99 at K-Mart. And in 13 and 19 inch sizes too. Until then analog will rule. Forcible phasing out analog WITHOUT CHEAP AFFORDABLE SETS will just create riots among the public which will result in FCC people resigning or fired and analog reinstated anyway.
My digi box has a "VCR Comander" it works with almost and VCR and works like a universal remote. The cable box turs on the VCR sets the channel starts recording and when its done it powers down the VCR. With HDTV i think things like Tivo will become more popular since cable companies have a standard that they have to use for their digi systems making it easy for an open market on cable boxes.
I cant understand why people are so cynical about cable companies. I love Cox (works on more than one level) my cable modem has been up ever since I got it and if they want to get rid of analog channels to make more effecient use of their network let them go for it.
This is all just another step in that thing we call convergance. I am looking forwrd to the day where there is little difference between a tv, vcr, and telephone. I think video phones and video on demand wil be cool.
Travis
Being someone who works in broadcast television I can't tell you how depressing it is to put a lot of work into a project. See it in it's full 5+Mhz component bandwidth on a studio grade monitor and then see it later squished to around 2 or 3 Mhz of composite bandwidth. (Not to mention the multipath distortion) NTSC is an engineering marvel and I have great respect for the guys at RCA that were able to do it. But I can't wait for DTV and HDTV to finally make it into my market
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Movies are better on the big screen? Sure in theory, but in reality, BULL FUCKING SHIT. I love goin' to the movies, but at home I have about 50 movie channels, PLUS pay-per-view. I can sit on my couch, with a bunch of my friends, we can drink, we can smoke, we can eat cheesesteaks, you get the point. Not to mention that I can do this at 3am, if I want to.
Also, if the movie sucks, it's channel up or down, and we've got a new movie, or if we miss something, we hit rewind on the TiVo, and we watch it again, instead my friend pissing off half the theatre when they miss some scene for whatever reason.
As for the argument that a setup like this is way too expensive, no way. You can do something passable for $2k, something nice for $5k, or something fucking amazing for $10k. Save the earth by selling your car and buying a bike, and use the extra dough you'll pick up to get yourself a decent system.
Then sports, you completely discount sports because you don't watch sports. How the FUCK can you not watch sports? I mean, I can understand not liking some games... American football might have too many rules, or maybe Hockey is too violent for your refined sensitivities, or you're a racist mofo who can't stand to watch Basketball, but there's not a single sport you like? I'm not a huge sports fan, but there's something great about a mess of friends watching TV, drinking beers, cheering for some sports team, whether they care or not. Even if my girlfriend does choose her team based on the center's name, it's still damned fun.
It seems you don't understand the concept of passive entertainment... It's the kind you need when you got so caught up in the code last night that you slept under your desk for two hours, then you coded for another 20 hours before going home. That weekend comes, and you need passive entertainment.
As for the web being better than CNN and all, are you crazy? My TV turns itself on to CNN every weekday morning... I groggily wake up, and without sitting, pointing, clicking or concentrating, I get some rough idea of what's going on in the world. This while brushing my teeth.
As for good shows? If you can spend a month with a full DirecTV feed, and not find anything good on, then you're just a snob. I mean, you've got Discovery, TLC, National Geographic, History, Comedy Central (Battlebots! The Man Show! Win Ben Stein's Money), Food network (Iron Chef!), you can watch gov't proceedings on the CSPANs, watch the market on Bloomberg, watch sports on a shitload of different channels, then there's the occasionally good stuff on the major networks, and on Scifi, BBCa and such.
Claims that there's nothing interesting on television are today's 'holier than thou' declaration. It's a popular statement that you're better than me, because you don't watch TV. Well FUCK YOU, I watch TV. I also read books, watch movies, shoot pool, read journals/magazines, drink beers, explore subway tunnels, party, go see a concert, or do anything else that I think might entertain me for a while.
You follow that up with another lame comment that if your memory is good you only need to see something once. FUCK YOU you arrogant loser. For some reason the kids at school must not have beat you properly as a child. Ever watch a little show called the Simpson's? If you can honestly name, from memory, after one viewing, EVERY joke, EVERY cultural reference, then I'll concede that you're one smart-ass mofo. Until then, I have you in the category of arrogant dumbass. That's the beauty of that show, for me. I've probably seen every damned episode, most of them a couple times, but when you throw two years between each viewing of the same episode, you forget the amusing details. Even if you remember the plot, it's still damned funny, because the jokes are still solid.
Get a life, TV only sucks if you're too cheap to buy access to good TV. I used to balk at paying $100/mo for good TV, cuz I don't watch much TV. Turns out TV is pretty fucking cool, once there's enough choices. The only downside is that when you're in some god-awful country, and the only two english channels are CNN and National Geographic, you probably already saw the National Geographic special that's on.
Anyway, you probably have to go to the opera now or something. Not that I have a problem with opera, I actually kind of like it. You just seem like the kind of prick who claims he is *ONLY* entertained by the opera, since it's the only form of entertainment that is intelligent enough for you. (despite the fact that opera is pretty fuckin' dirty, in reality.... worse than most movies, really)
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Plus, what the hell am I going to do with the 13" black-and-white Magnetbox once HDTV rolls by? I guess I'll have to connect my NES to it (yes, the old-school, 8-bit NES).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
The cable industry and television in general (actually, any communications the FCC oversees) are some of the most corrupt institutions in America.
was that the lighter side of morons?
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
Well alot of people won't bother getting it, so the market pentration will be poor, especially if it is expensive.
For myself, if it comes to that, I won't get one. I do not have cable now, because for the cost. For the things I would watch, it is cheaper to go to the movies or a club once or twice a month.
If I really had a hankering I'll drop a tv tuner card into my system. That has to be cheaper.
If you add into it the utter and complete hassle of digital locking on HDTV with your HDTV VCR, then people will not but into it to begin with. People don't like getting scammed. or thoughts of the thought police in their bedroom
This will mean that alot of people will not have tv, and will be forced to do things like listen to the radio, or read a book. The TV media market cannot afford this, actually. They want market penetration.
I can recall an article some place talking about the market saturation levels of Computers vs other products, and how long it took to get there. Computers are reaching saturation after about 20 years, but are roughly 60% ofthe market. this compares to normal TV of 85% in a similar period of time. The market penetration seems to be much slower than computers, and due to cost it might take much longer to break 50%. Ity might not reach 50% after 20 years. People are used to the technology shuffle with computers, and won't by into it with HDTV.
Part of it is that if it gets too complex, the reaction will be, why should I do this? I have a computer that does that already.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The AMC Kabuki in SF has a DTS 9.1 system installed. (The only film I've seen that used it was "12 Monkeys" and that was few years ago.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It's in their best interest to make it affordable to switch over to HDTV. It might make someone who is 4 or 5 years away from buying a new TV decide to buy one now.
Instead of encouraging people to replace the TVs sooner they are actually pushing them to defer purchases due to high prices and all the FUD flying around.
I myself have an 11 year old TV and I would like to buy a new one but until the cost of an HDTV set drops to a resonable level I'll be putting it off indefinitely. At the rate things are going I may have a 20 year old TV by the time the prices are reasonable.
This is not to say that the FCC (or our Canadian equivalent, the CRTC), the broadcasters, the cable companies and everyone else involved aren't being total wankers as well. But lets make sure that Sony, RCA, Panasonic, et al get their fair share.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I guess I'll have to connect my NES to it (yes, the old-school, 8-bit NES).
NES games look just as good or better on a VGA monitor. Here are some Free (as in speech) NES-compatible ROMs to play on a Free (as in speech) NES emulator.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Seeing that the HDTV signal is supposedly going to be handled by the DirectTv service, I do not have to worry about the crap that the local cable companies try to pull off. Now what defines a moron? According to Merriam Webster, a moron is, "a very stupid person." I would have to reconsider this definition to include a person who is uninformed as well. Now to the other person that stated that I was "ninth" well, when I wrote the line I did, there were no posts. Obviously, these slashdot memebers are truly morons. As they have nothing to contribute to the community, but either goat sex links, or comments about being the first post. dave
If a single stream in a given format cannot go past a certain pixel count, break the image into quadrants, encode each as a separate stream, and have the decoder sort things out.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fuck you, you pinko commie bastard. I stand behind my man.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
Saddly it doesn't make sense for the broadcast companies including cable to switch to HDTV. When the broadcasters were negotiating with the FCC they were given extra broadcast range for a few years at no cost with which they are suppose to start broadcasting HDTV signals. In the final stages of the negotiation they were able to slip a clause into the regulations that allowed them to use this extra broadcast range for standard channels. They are going to make alot more money broadcasting (and selling) additional channels then they would if they were broadcasting the same channels in HDTV. Unless you've got at least a 36" TV your really not going to see the benefits of HDTV over a digital signal. So in a best case scenario you've got to consider the market as that group of people who will spend the money on a 36" or larger TV. This is assuming that the cost of the HDTVs would approach a standard TV once they increase in production and they are further along in the sales curve that is catching the people willing to pay the high prices now. Everyone is going to have to take the hit of up-front costs if were going to be in the era of HDTV anytime soon. Both the studios, broadcasters, and manufacturers. Japan pushed it to hard ten years ago and now they've got a system that is becoming obsolete and incompatible. The US has been battling over standards for 10 years which has put us on the other end, behind the times. What we really need to do (U.S.) is follow the success of the implementation of the wireless phones in Europe if its going to be a success. Anyway, it's all messed up but I can't wait to get mine!
there is no sound mix called "thx." thx is a certification of equipment. dolby ex 6.1 is currently (as far as i know) the most advanced sound in theaters. it was the system created specifically for and debuted with episode 1.
Regular or HDTV? Neither.
I am actually glad that pushing HDTV runs into so much obstacles. I have really no use for HDTV because I just don't see any fucking difference! No, really, and I believe there are people who do, but is it really that relevant? To me, this is like those freaks that shun CD players because the sound is "so unnatural", and prefere 100 times more expensive turntable players, with egzotic mechanisms, materials and pickups. Maybe they can hear some difference, but not me. Heck, I am even thinking of selling my Adcom GCA 510, because it's just too good for my ears, I don't hear any difference between this and some cheap Pioneer receiver.
If HDTV becomes a mandated product (because of FCC's decision) and more of them hit the market, in no time will current VCR and DVD players become obsolete. Oh sure, there is backwards compatibility... till when? The same which happens with home surround systems: my Yamaha DSP E1000 does only Dolby Surround 2.0, so it's obsolete, I should rather buy a AX1 which supports 5.1 and DTS. And what next? Some fucker will invent Dolby Shorpround 10.5, for a "really really realistic experience". Fuck that.
So, HDTV anyone? And why?
Sigged!
Cable companies are already switching to digital systems with digital set-top boxes. This will free up bandwidth insted of using a 6Mhz chunk for an analog channel they can broadcast 36 Mbps. Several HDTV channels can be sent down with that more if you use MPEG4 now most are MPEG2.
Travis