DirecTV Can Disable HDTV Reception Remotely

Marty writes: "Most of us are still waiting for HDTV to arrive. There have been some alternatives available to people who don't live in an area with a HDTV-broadcasting station, like DirecTV. However, it looks like DirecTV has chosen to go the content-control route with the MPAA. Their set top boxes now contain the CGMS, or Copy Generation Management System. Part of the scheme allows for the remote disablement of the HDTV (480p, 720p, and 1080i) analog outputs on the set-top box, allowing the user to only view the low-grade 480i picture, even though the programming is broadcast in HD. So, now that you've spent $2000+ on your HDTV, $1000 on your DirecTV HDTV box, and your DirecTV subscription, someone else decides whether or not you can actually take advantage of that investment. You can read the full details here at E-Town."

Comments

EEs - possible to bypass?

[AntiNorm]

Part of the scheme allows for the remote disablement of the HDTV (480p, 720p, and 1080i) analog outputs on the set-top box

As an EE student in college, that for some reason sounds like it would be possible to bypass in hardware. Solder the output pin(s) of this chip here, break this connection, etc. Can any real EEs comment on this?

---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[RoofusPennymore]

There is enough hacking of DirectTV that I am sure someone will try.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[mother_superius]

But, if DirectTV is the one sending it, why don't they just disable HDTV broadcasts? I don't get it.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea is they can send a 1080i signal, charge a higher "HD" rate to certain customers, and send 480i to everyone not paying that rate.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[atrowe]

It's a satellite dish! Everyone's getting the exact same signal. It's not like they can say "Okay, this guy paid for our premium service, so we need to beam 1080i to his house and 480i to everyone else's house. Everyone gets the same feed from the satellite, the receiver determines what to do with it.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[wolfgang_spangler]

Sure you can probably bypass it...but that's also probably illegal under the DMCA.

Sad...

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[elegant7x]

But, just like broacast ethernet, it is posible to send signals for certan users by having everyone else 'ignore' it.

Amber Yuan 2k A.D

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[tzanger]

As an EE student in college, that for some reason sounds like it would be possible to bypass in hardware. Solder the output pin(s) of this chip here, break this connection, etc. Can any real EEs comment on this?

Unfortunately the various signals you're looking for probably don't exist on any pins; the chip which does teh decode also does the conversion for various output formats. Flip a bit in a register and certain outputs are disabled from within the chip itself.

As a longtime hacker The proliferation of ASICs and FPGAs are disheartening. As a designer they're great. It's not easy being me.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[ddstreet]

Sure, anything's possible. However, I doubt if it would be obvious (even to an EE) and may require extensive modification, e.g. if a microcontroller is used for the control. It's not easy to reverse-engineer hardware (I didn't say it's not possible, just not easy).

Of course, there are people out there with enough time and knowledge to do it and spread the info, but I doubt if an inexperienced or unmotivated person could do it.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Wavicle]

If I read the article correctly, they don't turn off the 1080i signal, they turn off the 1080i signal being sent through the analog output. Their worry is that you could plug an HDTV analog signal into an HDTV analog recorder (which the article says is not yet available) and get a perfect copy of the movie.

I would assume this means there is also a "digital" output which would plug directly into your HDTV.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Trepalium]

Most of those satellite systems require a telephone connection for 'Premium' services, such as PayTV and such. They could also embed signatures in certain signals that dictate which decoders are allowed to decode the signal and which aren't.

I'd be more distressed by the fact that all of this is going to do nothing more than drive costs up, since anyone who wants to build a 'licensed' display will have to pay the royalties for that decryption technology. And I imagine they probably built-in a capacity for key revokation (like DVD CSS), so should someone break into the company that made your TV set and release details on how the system works based on that manufacturer's keys, all that manufacturer's customers get to suffer. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

I wish the MPAA would lose it's paranoia about copying and copyright infringement. It's not like a copying free-for-all has happened under the current system even without crappy MacroVision, so there's very little reason to tighten the noose. Maybe if they started charging reasonable rates for their product, people wouldn't feel the need to copy it without paying for it. I suppose the concept of 'fair use' has been a thorn in the side of organizations like the MPAA and RIAA in their neverending quest to gouge customers for every last dime, so I can see how removing that capability completely either via technology or via litigation would appeal to them.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[shepd]

No matter how stickily integrated the problem, there is always a solution. It's just that the solution sucks more than the problem as the problem becomes more integrated. :-)

But, ask yourself this, was it worth hacking VideoCipher II? Yup. No matter how many parts and how much cost was involved, it was worth it. An idea that lets you get something for free is always going to be worth big bucks.

Expect someone to desolder this chip from the board and recreate a non-integrated (and therefore fully hacked) replacement _someday_. Eventually. 'Till then the market will be waiting like a pack of dogs salivating over their next meal.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Tiroth]

You are right on the money with this. I've looked at a number of datasheets and they have all included on-chip decoding. Generally there is also no option at all to force CGMS off in consumer-destined ICs. If you can find an IC intended for professional use you could probably build an HDTV CGMS stripper, but with the complexity of these systems it is likely to be much more expensive (and difficult to build) than the current SPDIF strippers.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[StenD]

It's a satellite dish! Everyone's getting the exact same signal. It's not like they can say "Okay, this guy paid for our premium service, so we need to beam 1080i to his house and 480i to everyone else's house. Everyone gets the same feed from the satellite, the receiver determines what to do with it.

And, as I understand it, the receiver has to call in periodically and get its marching orders. Disabling 1080i for one customer and enabling it for another is really no different than disabling Showtime for one customer and enabling it for another. To be honest, I wouldn't have (as much of) an objection to it if they were to do something like that - charging customers for increased levels of service seems to me to be a legitimate business practice. Unfortunately, that isn't the way this article makes it sound like it will be. Instead, it's more along the lines of "Our customers are lousy stinking thieves who can't be trusted, so we're not going to permit them to view what we're charging them for, regardless of how much they're willing to pay.". That strikes me as not just bad karma, but bad business.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Aerolith_alpha]

It really depends on how the shutoff is implemented... if they actually shutoff the full bandwidth signal, then you are SOL, but if they are just broadcasting some shutoff bits, you can filter the signal input for those bits and block them out. Also, you may be able to do some sort of internal hacking to get it to not shut off, but from my perspective thats some pretty heavy stuff...namely because they probably aren't going to be throwing the schematics to these boxes around very freely just to prevent stuff like that from being done. It is possible to reverse engineer something like that, but the time involved is crazy... more than i would have to contribute to something like that...


mov ax, 13h
int 10h

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[mikethegeek]

"Maybe if they started charging reasonable rates for their product, people wouldn't feel the need to copy it without paying for it."

I think this is the rub. By locking down "protections" and control over digital technology that they didn't legally and technologically have with analog, they are setting the stage where they simple CAN charge out the wazoo.

And rates have been climbing towards unreasonable for quite some time. Basic cable rates of $40/month?!! DVD movies costing $25-30??!

While I do NOT advocate piracy, in some ways, the threat of piracy is a check on the power of cartel monopolies like the MPAA/RIAA. By knowing that their media CAN be pirated and that it WILL be widespread if given enough reason to, the MPAA/RIAA knows there is a limit to how much they can charge.

What they want is a world where there IS no threat of piracy at all. However, people like Valenti are babes in the woods when it comes to truly understanding how technology works. They simply do not understand that the more onerous, annoying and intrusive their "copy protection" becomes, the greater the chance that it WILL be broken. Also, the higher the price becomes, the greater likelyhood that a larger number of people WILL pirate.

Since consumer video and recording tecnology HAS to have a certain shelf-life (most peope will simply NOT put up with replacing their players, TV's etc as often as we upgrade computers), advancing technology will pretty much render ANY copy protection obsolete and crackable.

However, the existance of the DMCA does suggest that they have at least thought of this in some ways, by getting these circumvention devices declared illegal.

But, it's only a matter or time until at least some of the teeth are jarred from the DMCA. By striking first, the MPAA was able to handpick their man ("judge" Kaplan) and get the ruling they wanted. In the near future, DMCA cases are going to be heard in a lot of locales by a lot of different judges. I have to be optimistic and hope that Kaplan only represents an extreme minority. If he does represent the typical judge, then you might as well order your jackboots, and practice singing your Corporate Hymn.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Most HDTV sets are actually "HDTV ready". In other words, they have an analog RGB input that can be hooked up to a HDTV Tuner. If DirectTV were to disable this analog RGB input, they would deny access to the vast majority of "early adopters".

I have a feeling that an enterprising service providers will eventually use this technology to charge for the right to make copies.

"Want a copy of the "The Sopranos" in High-def? We'll turn off the copy-protection for $29.95 ."

I don't subscribe to a cable of sattelite service, but I have heard that some decoders use macrovison on selected programs-- mostly movies.

Most DVD players have no 75-Ohm attenna output. It would be possible to hook up an old TV using a VCR as a RF-Modulator, were it not for Macrovision. Most people have TV's that accept Composite, SVHS or Component Video (all considerably better than RF-Modulation), so macrovision is less irksome than requiring "encrypted HDTV" inputs-- inputs that arerare indeed.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Cramer]

• However, the existance of the DMCA does suggest that they have at least thought of this in some ways, by getting these circumvention devices declared illegal.

As the entire software industry will confirm, copy protection is almost worthless. They've been searching for this "holy grail" for decades. Even laser etched holes in floppies didn't work. Hollywood, having a much greater hold on Washington, simply makes it illegal to break their "copy protection". However, their system is flawed from the get-go; their system does not hinder the people they are most afraid of -- those being the bootleg CD pressing factories (de-compositing a DVD is harder, but I'm certain it's only a matter of time.)

For the record, Valenti is not an idiot. We may all classify him as an ass, but he does know what he's doing.

Anyway, as I've said repeatedly, this whole "digital thing" scares the hell out of Hollywood. Video tapes take time to duplicate and lose quality in the process. Digital is always the same series of ones and zeros. DVD's are fast and cheap to make (both content and fabrication) which screws up their economics -- 1000 VHS tapes takes a few hours to make, 1000 DVD disks can be pressed in a few minutes.

Face it, people are greedy little bastards. Technology allows them to screw you repeatedly so they do. And then they push through laws to make it illegal to try to prevent them from doing so. All they care about is their bank accounts. They have no evidence that DVD piracy is any worse than VHS tape piracy. They tout things like "billions of dollars" but fail to prove any of it -- and shouldn't they be enforcing the existing copyright laws these people are breaking?

[Personally, I think society is collapsing. There are just too many petty bullshit laws to ever enforce them all or even know your breaking many of them. I break a multitude of laws everyday -- I drive faster than the posted speed limit; I run red lights; I change lanes within 50ft of an intersection; I pass people on the right...]

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[ddstreet]

[Personally, I think society is collapsing. There are just too many petty bullshit laws to ever enforce them all or even know your breaking many of them. I break a multitude of laws everyday -- I drive faster than the posted speed limit; I run red lights; I change lanes within 50ft of an intersection; I pass people on the right...]

While I agree with your point, the examples you gave are actually just 'infractions'. They are illegal, but the punishment is very minor. I think they are actually a good thing, since without them people could run red lights (which is something I would not like to see happen). However, while the spirit of the laws is good, the letter is usually not. It's ok to run a red light if it's 4AM an there isn't a damn thing for miles; but it's not ok to run a red light at the peak of rush hour traffic. The only time cops usually enforce 'stupid' laws is when they're either bored (or trying to make quota) or using it as an excuse to stop you (and check you out).

However, there are plenty of truly moronic laws out there that should never be enforced, ever.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[Cramer]

Allow me to clarify... "run red lights" means not stopping at most yellow lights. It turns red before I've cleared the light. By definition, that's running the red light. Some areas have cameras to catch people doing that.

However, I don't drive through solid red lights. Even when noone is around -- you never know if there really is nothing coming.

Re:EEs - possible to bypass?

[PhilHibbs]

And rates have been climbing towards unreasonable for quite some time. Basic cable rates of $40/month?!! DVD movies costing $25-30??!

That's not entirely fair. If you go back to 1988, the cost of a VCR copy of Ghostbusters (4 years old at that point) was about £100, maybe £30 for an ex-rental copy. Now you can buy Gladiator for £20.

They'll quickly realize this won't fly...

[Gendou]

DirectTV may, as soon as customers realize that their investment of a large sum is in danger, reconsider. Now, they most likely put this in the fine print (a TOS perhaps?) that most people won't read, but there is no way that this is going to be quiet. Also consider the salesperson level of the deal. They'll be sure to point out the cons of a cheaper product (I think :).

I'm not sure on this, but I'd wager that this will seriously hurt their business and they'll change if they want to survive.

Re:They'll quickly realize this won't fly...

[Mike Hicks]

I hope you're right. I just worry that people won't understand what is going on. The general populace probably doesn't have any interest in thinking about technical issues like this, and they won't hear about it from their normal news source (What else? TV!)
--

Re:They'll quickly realize this won't fly...

[billcopc]

I'm always quick to say "screw them, let them die a slow and mediatized death", but in this case the product has such a wide potential audience that it's difficult to make a solid impact. People need to talk about this abuse of control, spread the word and make sure that idiot uncle of yours doesn't go buy one anyway (tying his shoelaces together should keep him put for a few days).

I kinda feel the same about our cable provider here, which has had a 6gb monthly bandwidth limit for years now. 6gb four years ago was something. 6gb today is peanuts. Many people try to speak out and hope management hears them to bump up the limit just a bit, but they usually get outvoiced by the hordes of senseless casual users saying we're just abusing the system since they never go above 1gb/month. Kinda makes me wonder why they even have broadband. Well my point is that there will be a truckload of DirecTV users who will bitch mindlessly at the boycotters saying "You're ruining it for the rest of us", because they just don't know the difference between 480p and 1080i because their primitive brains can't process the extra visual data... well no, not really, they're just lazy and would rather watch things get taken away from them than speak out and fight for what they want. They just don't see the big picture (no pun intended).

Re:They'll quickly realize this won't fly...

[CerebusUS]

I'm not sure on this, but I'd wager that this will seriously hurt their business and they'll change if they want to survive.

Especialy since their competitor doesn't build the protection into their devices.

Buy DISH ... screw DirecTV.

Pananoia?

[MacBoy]

Is it just me or does it really seem like the content providers (studios, networks, et all) are simply paranoid about piracy? It's not a non-existant issue, but compared to legit sales of product, piracy is an incredibly small issue.

Re:Pananoia?

[munson]

Would it be better for recorded digital programs to be watermarked with the recoder brand, date of recording and a not for resale at the top or bottom of the screen, and this would defeat most piracy.

I support watermarks on recordings so both sides can have their cake and eat it too.

Re:Pananoia?

[HorsePunchKid]

It does seem like they're just ridiculously paranoid sometimes, but my impression is that in a lot of cases the amount of money lost to piracy is significant relative to legitimate sales. I guess that impression is based on how much I hear about international piracy of M$ products (which is just hilarious, but that's another issue). But the more important point is that their whole god damn conception of how to make money is totally wrong in this era. There are too many people holding jobs that simply have no place in a market structure like this (with people being able to exchange content).

Re:Pananoia?

[Sabalon]

How MS determines piracy:

2,000,000 computers were shipped last year in the US.

1,500,000 Windows licenses were obtained.

1/4th of all people using computers are using pirated copies of windows.

Re:Pananoia?

[Bluesee]

Okay, I'm not 100% up on tech stuff. Can you explain please what a watermark is? Have I seen it on TV before? Is it like those little um, geez, they look like watermarks, they show on the lower right hand side of certain TV shows that has the logo of the network on it? Are you suggesting that the recorder itself displays it? Yah, that would be a Great solution, because it would disable the ability to re-sell the tape, but you could record a show and watch it in all its HighDef glory. Um, never mind, I think I answered my question [blush].

Notice that corporations are Not Democracies, especially when they are Monopolistic? As they agglomerate more and more, coalescing into larger megacorps (Time/Warner/AOL, out here we have Verizon and Adelphia, which seem pretty national), they are less beholden to what in a free market would be 'what is best for the consumer'? In this instance, we do have the choice of Echostar/Dish Thank God (as long as you are an informed consumer, they seem to be trying to slip stuff under the rug), but many other market areas are becoming sole-source. The argument that 'we have a choice as consumers' loses weight if our choice is 'take it or leave it'. It ain't the government that is going to be our advocate any more, either, folks. It wasn't under Clinton and it damn sure ain't gonna be under Shrub. What protections are being offered in other countries anyway?

On a side note, I still have about 150 phonograph records. heh... wonder where I can get my record player repaired... It's funny listening to an old crackly album anymore. Kind of like having a little fire going in the fireplace while you're listening to your music. A constant, repetitive, annoying little amplified fire...

Re:Pananoia?

[Valdrax]

Not really. Movie studios make their money from controlling the distribution of a product. Modern technological advances make cost-free distribution and duplication of materials a possibility. To justify selling something with potentially $0 manufacturing cost beyond the original movie production, they have to have absolute control over its distribution so that they are the only source. If they have competition who can offer their product for less than them, they won't make up the original cost of production, much less the rich profits they rake in beyond it.

If they can go further and make sure that they not only control the hard copy distribution but also the individual viewings of the material they own, as they are moving to do, they can force even greater profits out of the pay-per-use model that companies are working towards.

Modern companies realize that they have 3 choices:
1) Compete with people offering their own products for free.
2) Squelch that competition and go about business as usual.
3) Squelch that competition and take advantage of the copy control schemes to squeeze even more profits than they have now out of users of their products.

Guess which one any publicly-owned corporation, who has nothing to answer to except their stock owners and the pockets of their executives, would pick?

Re:Pananoia?

[MsGeek]

Obvious quesion: are all those computers counted x86-based computers?

Consider that the Apple share of computer sales have gone up again to around 7 to 10%, thanks to the iMac's popularity. That doesn't account for all of the 25%, but it knocks it down a bit.

Another obvious question: what if the remaining x86 computers were running alternative operating systems?

What if, indeed. There's Linux, of course. There's also the BSD derivatives. There's Solaris x86. There's BeOS. That won't account for everything else, but it probably narrows the real rate of piracy down to less than 5%, 10% at most.

MICROS~1, again, is clueless.

----
http://www.msgeek.org/ -- Because you can't keep a geek grrl down!

Re:Pananoia?

[Stephen Samuel]

... but my impression is that in a lot of cases the amount of money lost to piracy is significant relative to legitimate sales.

There are three kinds of untruths: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Statistics like what the MPAA put out are probably based on worst/best case assumptions. e.g. that the MP3 that I downloaded to figure out if I wanted to buy the album would have been paid for at full retail album price on top of my physical purchase. -- and even if It turns out to be a dud song/album, I would have bought the whole thing anyways.
`ø,,ø!

Re:Pananoia?

[Sabalon]

It's a joke sonny!

Does anyone else...?

[yourgodunix]

Does anyone else feel like driving a truck bomb right into the corporate office of these people?

Re:Does anyone else...?

[yourgodunix]

No, really.. i don't care. If I had 1 billion dollars, I'd raise a private army and kill every lobbyist in the nation.

Fuck it, I hate politics. The best reaction to control is a sharp knife. Call that ignorance, I don't care. I'd like to put a hole in the back of every person's head who pushes shit like DeCSS [being banned], copy protection, and other horseshit litigation.

Re:Does anyone else...?

[vanillicat]

If everyone did this society might very well degrade to the point where people were worrying about many more basic issues than this type of legislation-the sharp knife control you support isn't the most effective means of effecting change that can be used.

Re:Does anyone else...?

[James Foster]

Exactly. Apart from a knife being a very low and barbaric form of opposition, it is also not the most effective. One person with a knife will stab one person and then get thrown into jail. If that person instead fights with their voice, they can't be thrown into jail and will be able to fight long and hard like that.

Re:Does anyone else...?

[yourgodunix]

Our voice really got out during the Mitnick fiasco. Ooh, the media really pointed it out. Three wired articles, a few tidbits from ZDnet and 2600 magazine printing some crap about it in every issue. CNN really took it up; great human rights project for Jessie Jackson.

Re:Does anyone else...?

[A coward on a mouse]

Tell that to all the women in rural areas who are unable to get an abortion (even if their brother or father or uncle raped them) because the doctors who used to perform abortions are out of the business for fear of their lives. I hate to say it, but the anti-choice movement has found a very effective way to prevent access to abortion: threaten to kill the providers of abortions, and then actually kill a few of them. The same technique has worked in Colombia to prevent the conviction of drug lords by the courts. It's a well-known fact that most people don't want to die and are unwilling to do things that they think might get them killed.

Your belief in civil disobedience is quaint. Your unwillingness to see the value of more forceful methods is potentially dangerous. Such attitudes would have served the British well during the Revolutionary War, or for that matter, served the Axis powers well during WWII. The fact is that sometimes, words are not enough.

Re:Does anyone else...?

[BSOD Bitch]

Actually yes. I unplugged the line from my DirectTV dish a while back. They won't be able to apply anything without it. So THEY are fucked.

Die the death of 1,000 DIVX

[4/3PI*R^3]

Though I am not a big audio/video file (I still have a 2 head VCR), just the idea that a remote company can have control over how I use my personal equipment scares me. All I really have to say is that hopefully, once this stuff really starts to hit the market in full force, the mass market will soon figure out that they're being led like calf to slaughter and all of this content control management crap will die a death of 1,000 DIVX's.

Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[evilned]

With all of these content restrictions, wont HDTV pretty much be dead? I mean really, are you gonna tell me what I cant video tape? It really sounds like the big corporate giants want to kill it, from the bitching about broadcasting at 1080i, the content controls, the slowness with which it is being rolled out, I get the distinct feeling that the broadcast industry just created this HDTV thing to get the free bandwidth, and not to actually improve TV. My thoughts? Take back the spectrum, and auction it. These jokers dont seem to be in any hurry to use it.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[Bluesee]

It really sounds like the big corporate giants want to kill it

Yes! That is a very distinct possibility! I seem to recall that when the government (FCC) was handing out HDTV bands to the broadcasters they were about four times as large as current LDTV bands, and an option to transmitting one HDTV show - when there was no HDTV show scheduled - would be to xmit Four LD shows. I read somewhere that the broadcasters were perfectly willing to quadruple their revenue-generating schedules and ditch HDTV in the process. This seems underhanded to me. Does anyone have any more info on this topic? I don't even know where to look to get it.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[scottgfx]

The broadcasters have to give the spectrum back anyway! In 2006 we are to stop analogue broadcasting of NTSC. That is provided that a certain percentage of people have upgraded to digital. And I think that is done on a market by market basis.

Broadcasting is a free service... A public trust. The unused spectrum WILL BE auctioned off. Then you can have two cell phones. Wheeeeeeeee.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[Tino]

I don't think that the whole thing was a scheme to get additional bandwidth, but I do agree that HDTV is DOA -- though the patient may be revived in surgery later.

Not only are there technical challenges (mainly involving money, ultimately) and the wailing of copyright holders (which effectively killed DAT as a consumer platform -- and TV, at least in America, is a horrible spaghetti mess of copyright compared to music), there's the artistic problem.

When color first came to TV in a large way, a lot of programs didn't make the switch immediately because it meant new sets, costumes, makeup, etc. -- and new techniques to make use of all these in color.

The impact of the switch to color was quite minor, compared to the changes that HDTV requires -- even if you ignore the enormous cost for new equipment. All of a sudden, the lighting, sets, costumes, actors, and anything else that appears on screen on TV has to be designed/built/made up/etc. to the same standard as used in motion pictures.

This is expensive and everyone has to start working differently. From the producers to the scriptwriters to the gaffers, everyone is now doing a slightly different job.

Pile the cost on top of the copyright fear-mongers on top of the artistic challenges, and nobody's left itching for HDTV except a relatively small group of people who are willing to cough up thousands of dollars for a TV. Everyone else is more than willing to wait, all for their own reasons.

When any one group -- consumers, artists, network business honchos, or copyright profiteers -- reaches a critical mass of demand for HDTV, we'll see meaningful broadcasts. Not before.

Who knows? The copyrightistas might wind up being the driving force, if they decide that it's too risky for them to continue to allow their precious content to go out over unencrypted-to-your-eyeball analog TV.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[mikegross]

I think the major problem with HDTV is the cable companies. They don't want to shell out the dough to bring fiber to the curb, so HD over cable is still not feasable. I just got Adelphia Digital Cable, and while it's a nice image, almost DVD quality, my $5000 Mitusbishi HD1080 is going to waste. People don't want to put up ugly antennae on their roofs just to see Leno's chin in glorious 1080i, nor do they really want to shell out the outrageous cash needed for DirectHD. If cable companies were bringing HD into the home over cable people already have, then we'll definitely see a lot more people buying TVs they know they'll get good use out of without a whole lot of extra costs (I still haven't bought an HD decoder, because, why do I need it?). When people have the TVs, then we'll see full broadcast schedules in HD. Maybe even with some interactive features!

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[Robert S Gormley]

It's interesting, but in Australia, though we still have the same issue of availability of HDTV sets, receivers, etc. But as of 1 Jan this year, all of our television stations *are* broadcasting HDTV signals...

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[jfk3]

"When people have the TVs, then we'll see full broadcast schedules in HD."

And when we see full broadcast schedules in HD, people will buy the TVs.

And the cable companies will switch...

It's a stalemate at this point.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[Chris Pruett]

From the broadcaster's point of view that's exactly what HDTV was. Way back in the 80's there was a push for "land mobile" uses (ambulances and fire trucks, for example) to get some needed spectrum from all those unused UHF channels. The broadcasters, to counter this threat, supported HDTV because it was kind of a neet-o gizmo that (1) sucked up tons of bandwith, or at least people thought it would back then, and (2) was far enough into the future that they wouldn't have to spend much money on it. So they started lobbying congress. It backfired, from their point of view, since Congress jumped on the bandwagon. So, with the threat to their bandwidth eliminated, the broadcasters did a 180 and mounted a defense against actually having to deploy it.

Check out "Defining Vision" by uhm somebody. Fascinating story.

Re:Is it just me or is HDTV DOA?

[linuxlover]

- go to nearest electronic shop (target / circuit city / best buys / )
- find a TV that has a decent size (32" maybe) and decent flatness.
- pay $400 - 500 @ cashier & have them delivered.
- call cable company and buy cable for $40/month.

Given the quality of TV shows (even primier channels like HBO & Starz), I am not going to spend more than $500 on TV. (Bought mine @ TARGET for $250 :-).

If I want to see a movie in DTS & high quality video I go to a theater and spend $8.75! Thankyou.

$3000 for a (hd)TV? Are you nuts? And you are giving up your rights to watch stuff and whine? Please stop buying them, and let the prices come to $300 range. Then even if they turn down the quality, I wouldn't care.

Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the article

[alexhmit01]

Okay, I love hysteria, but this is silly. DirecTV can cut off HDTV... They can also cut off your service in general. That is how it works, you pay them for service, they give you service. Remote stoppage is useful. They aren't rendering your TV dead, they are rendering your DSS system for them dead.

If they were to use stuff like this randomly, they'd lose customers. Come on people. DirecTV isn't a necessity, it's a luxury and a monthly service that they can end (barring a contract).

Alex

So?

[Mark of THE CITY]

"Now that the TV reception is okay, the programs are lousy."

-- Charles M. Schulz, via Lucy Van Pelt

I still don't get it

[kreyg]

How much money does the MPAA lose from average people taping stuff that's being freely transmitted? ZERO? How much are they going to lose if people get fed up with these sorts of restrictions and find something better to do with their time?

I see two possibilities for such absurdity:
1. Somebody's getting paid a lot of money to LIE to the management of these companies (paid by the company as consultants I would imagine). This person would cease to be paid if there were no problems, so they get created artificially.
2. These companies are consciously trying to monopolize content distribution by making all distibution methods under their sole control.

There are probably more, these just popped into my conspiratorital (that's not a word, is it?) little mind the most quickly.

&LTsigh&GT

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Sure they lose money if a home viewer copies it. See, if that viewer copies it, then that viewer isn't likely to buy it. Have you seen the ads on places like the History Channel offering to sell you a tape of the show you just saw for $20? Have you then thought to yourself, "I don't need to spend $20 for their tape. I'll just tape the show the next time it airs." Now do you see their angle? With copy controls on digital broadcasts, they can put an end to your taping session before it even begins. As for your speculation about why they're doing things like this, I'd say your second choice is closest to the truth. My guess is that the content owners see the situation this way: 1. We own the content.
2. Consumers want the content.
3. We have the technology to make consumers pay us in various ways for the content.
4. We will therefore charge whatever the market will bear and impose whatever restrictions are necessary to ensure that we are paid the price we have set.
5. Piracy shall not be viewed as a protest of these charges. It is a criminal act that we will stop in whatever ways necessary. If we can eliminate piracy, consumers who may have pirated content will have two choices: pay for the content or do without. People here have often commented on the failure of the DiVX format as an example of how consumers will reject such intrusive content restrictions. This may be a valid point, but another lesson can be learned from it: If you're going to impose a system such as DiVX on the marketplace, then you'd better make damn sure that a less restrictive alternative, i.e. DVD, is not available. In other words, if the entertainment industry had it to do all over again, my guess is that they would still roll out DiVX, but they'd never allow standard DVDs to see the light of day. In such a scenario, DiVX might just succeed, since the consumer has no alternative. They'd probably even make the argument that if a consumer wants unlimited viewing rights, he can stick with VHS. If, however, he wants better quality, he's going to have to pay the higher price of DiVX. If enough consumers buy into this view and start using DiVX, then the content owners turn a profit. For those who don't see this as fair, well, they'll just have to find something else to do to pass the time. My point here is this: If you feel that content restrictions such as the ones discussed daily on Slashdot are harsh/unfair/immoral/whatever, then you'd better either figure out a way to organize one hell of a boycott and make it stick, or you'd better lobby for legislation to prevent or regulate these practices because, if you don't, the content owners are going to push these things as far as they can. If they could find some economical and legal way to have a guy looking over your shoulder 24/7 to make sure you comply with whatever content restrictions they devise, they'll do it and feel completely justified in doing so. From their point of view, they're protecting their property, and if that's somehow inconvenient for you, that's just tough--unless, of course, that inconvenience has a negative effect on their corporate well-being.

Re:I still don't get it

[kreyg]

Wow, a thoughful response to my random pondering. :-)

Have you seen the ads on places like the History Channel offering to sell you a tape of the show you just saw for $20? Have you then thought to yourself, "I don't need to spend $20 for their tape. I'll just tape the show the next time it airs."

You wouldn't happen to have any stats on the number of people who actually purchase such things? I have to suspect that the numbers are pretty low and the profit less than impressive. The only thing I've ever been tempted to buy was the Babylon 5 series, but fortunately I can do math and discovered just how expensive 5 seasons was going to be (ow).

All told, I really don't care too much about the RIAA or MPAA or HDTV. I've watched about 2 hours of live TV in the last 4 months. I have about 20 hours of Voyager, Stargate and South Park taped that I just haven't been motivated to watch. :-) Haven't been to a movie in ages (part boycott, mostly apathy). I'm much more interested in my computer - probably had more fun playing The Longest Journey than I would have at any recent movie anyway.

I did have a realization some time ago: if you really don't care about what these &LTreplace by expletive of choice&GT are producing, they don't have any power over you. I don't want their crap, basically. I can create my own music and computer games and entertainment... or at least I can until all methods of creation are "potential pirating/copyright infringement devices" and declared illegal. That part bothers me. Fortunately (or unfortunately, take your pick) I'm not in the States... so the effect on me is lessened, but also my ability to do anything about it and keep the poison from seeping up here into Canada.

Prepare to disengage random ranting...

Re:I still don't get it

[kreyg]

One further thought:

My goal is not to boycott the MPAA or RIAA until they change their ways. My goal is to stop caring about anything they produce AND NEVER, EVER GO BACK.

If we demand to be entertained and are willing to sell our freedoms for it, we have little imagination or soul left to save.

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

This post is a reply to things said in all three replies to my last post. Rather than be repetitive, I'll just post once. Yes, the entertainment companies lose power as more indie content surfaces and as more folks simply tune out. But, and this is a really big "but", technologically-savvy Net users do not represent the vast majority of Americans. Yes, indie content is beginning to flourish online, but Joe Sixpack doesn't know this, nor does he know how to access it. He's satisfied to sit in front of his TV, which is hooked up to AOL-TWX-AT&T-Cox-Comcast Amalgomated Cable and watch whatever comes down that little wire. His average teenage kids aren't boldly experimenting with listening to unsigned bands they find online; they're down at the mall buying Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys CDs. Until alternative content is as accessible to the masses as traditional media, the big corps will have the advantage. In short, there may be a revolution taking place, but most of the public doesn't even know about it. I realize that this is a bit of a generalization, but the fact remains that the big entertainment companies couldn't make this much money if they decided to print it themselves. They're literally raking it in. As a previous poster points out, sales of videos that you see on places like the History Channel are probably very low. Yep, they probably are, but if flipping a single bit can stop folks from taping those shows and force them to spend real money on buying them, then the content owners just made a profit. So what if most folks who would have taped the show can't. As long as sales were generated and other revenues didn't decline by an offsetting amount, the endeavor was a success.

Re:I still don't get it

[AndyChrist]

>>>They'd probably even make the argument that if a consumer wants unlimited viewing rights, he can stick with VHS.

Am I mixed up here, or didn't we actually hear this suggested in the DeCSS case? (By the judge)

Re:I still don't get it

[kreyg]

...force them to spend...

Interesting concept... I think that is the fatally flawed argument that comes up around all copyright issues - that every copy is a lost sale. It isn't. This is a luxory item, and if people can't get it for free, they will go without and not lose a second of sleep over it. The largest effect controlling distribution has is reducing the size your fan base, not recouping imaginary "lost sales."

And I'm aware 90%+ of the population isn't interested in anything but the stuff force-fed to them. It's my opinion that copy controls are MORE DAMAGING to the entertainment industry than ALL individual copying (organized, large scale piracy is something else entirely, but is not addressed at ALL by ANY of the current "copy control" mechanisms) by limiting interest in their product.

So, either there's something else going on, or the people in charge are incomprehensibly stupid.

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

I agree that most folks wouldn't buy tapes of the programming, but a few might. More importantly, would anyone pay, say, a nickel to be able to time-shift their favorite soap opera or prime time drama? I bet they would, if they had no other choice. Another use might be to prevent viewers from taping PPV movies. This would allow the release date for PPV to be moved up, since it'd have less impact on video sales and rentals. Some may argue that the entertainment industry would be incredibly stupid to piss off viewers by doing things like this. That may be true, but as I've said in other posts, they'll charge whatever the market will bear. If this scheme creates more negatives than positives, then they won't use it, but they will if they can make a profit. My guess is they want the ability to do things like this, even if they don't necessarily use that ability.

Re:I still don't get it

[Richy_T]

Have you seen the ads on places like the History Channel offering to sell you a tape of the show you just saw for $20? Have you then thought to yourself, "I don't need to spend $20 for their tape. I'll just tape the show the next time it airs." Now do you see their angle?

And because noone would bother to buy them, they bother advertising why?

Do you see how your argument falls down? Clearly someone is buying them or they wouldn't advertiser them. Walk into a video store in the UK and you can see tapes of Red Dwarf, Babylon 5, Star Trek etc etc. These videos are often on sale at the same time that the shows are being made on TV.

Logical conclusion: People are wiling to pay fair dues for a decent product. We are not all thieves and copyright infringers and don't deserve to be treated as such.

As much as the MPAA and RIAA like to rant and rave, most people know right from wrong and most people try to do "the right thing"(tm)

People use Napster because, although copyright infingement is illegal, they know that the current system is "wrong". Massive coporations soaking up sackfuls of money, using their strangleholds to force manufactured drivel down our throats, artists getting paid a tiny fraction of proceeds. The days when we all though popstars were automatically multimillionaires (They sold a million copies at $15 a piece, they must have made at least $7million right?) are gone. This is the information age and the information is that when you buy a CD, you are giving your money to liars and scoundrels.

The funny thing is that the more draconian measures the RIAA and MPAA introduce, the more they will revile people and the less willing people will be to give them their money. I used to want a huge CD collection and when DVDs came out, I fancied a huge collection of them. I now only buy second hand CDs (no, I don't have Gigabytes of mp3, I just listen to the old ones more) and one(1) DVD (The Matrix of course). I considered buying another recently but just couldn't morally bring myself to.

To paraphrase someone a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.". See which way the wind is blowing, there are the seeds of rebelion in it's infancy here.

Rich

Re:I still don't get it

[The_Rook]

there's even more to it than lost sales of videotapes or dvds.

a few years ago, a guy i worked with asked me why ratings companies don't take it into account when viewers tape tv programs off the air for later viewing. well, when you watch a taped tv program, you usually skip past the commercials. since the whole point of broadcast tv is to sell commercials, it doesn't count toward a program's rating when viewers tape a program and skip the commercials.

suprisingly, a lot of people forget this little fact. when it comes to broadcast tv and basic cable, the programs are not the product and the viewers are not the customers. in reality, the viewers are the product and the advertisers are the customers. broadcasters don't like vcrs because they let their products, you, me, and the rest of the viewers get away.

so, if a broadcaster can somehow prevent you from taping a program and skipping the commercials, they can better insure that you will watch their programs live and with the commercials intact. this increases their ratings and the amount of money they can get from the advertisers.

incidentally, this attitude about viewers is one of the pissiest things about dvds and why i feel hollywood is on shaky moral ground with regards to their dvd protection. when i buy a dvd, i expect to get the movie and not to be turned into a tv viewer. if hollywood insists on putting commercials on dvds, then they ought to give the things away for free and make money off the advertising. but as long as they insist on their $20, $25, or more for a movie, they had better get rid of the commercials. otherwise, the consumers are completely justified in cracking the copy protection on dvds and make commercial free copies for private use.

Re:I still don't get it

[kreyg]

PPV I can perhaps understand to some extent... except, you still have to pay for it at least ONCE, how many repeat shoppers do you get on something like that?

It still boggles the mind though... if the video and sound can reach my eyes and ears, it can be recorded. How many millions are they pissing away on unscrupulous lawyers, faulty statistics and bad technical advice? To achieve what? There can't be any long term benefit as long as we have any sort of ability (not even necessarily freedom) to break their protections, because they will keep going through the same money-losing cycle of R&D and litigation. Have they recouped a single dollar of their investment?

Just seems like bad business, but it all sounds really good to the inverstors, I imagine...

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Do you see how your argument falls down? Clearly someone is buying them or they wouldn't advertiser them. Walk into a video store in the UK and you can see tapes of Red Dwarf, Babylon 5, Star Trek etc etc. These videos are often on sale at the same time that the shows are being made on TV. Logical conclusion: People are wiling to pay fair dues for a decent product. We are not all thieves and copyright infringers and don't deserve to be treated as such. Of course some folks are buying them, but some are not. There's no legal restriction against taping them for private use, either, so folks can legally tape them. However, if the shows are copy-protected, then taping is suddenly out of the question, and all the folks who would have taped now must buy the tapes if they want a copy. Perhaps most will simply do without, but some will buy, and therein lies the extra profit. To paraphrase someone a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.". See which way the wind is blowing, there are the seeds of rebelion in it's infancy here. Depends on what kind of rebellion you refer to. You must remember that content owners see piracy as a criminal act, nothing more, and they're going to try as hard to stop it as you'd try to kill a cockroach scurrying across your kitchen floor. Likewise, not a single law will ever pass any legislature to curtail copy controls because of the rampant piracy of content. Someone might make the argument that piracy is simply the result of frustrated consumers who want freer access to content and therefore demonstrates a need for less restrictive controls, but the entertainment industry will counter that piracy is a criminal act, not a legitimate form of protest, and tougher restrictions--mandated by law--are necessary. On the other hand, if you're saying that as controls get more restrictive, then consumers will simply turn away from the entertainment companies, then you have a legitimate argument, assuming it really happens. And I don't mean that the readers of this board turn away; I mean that many tens of millions of people in the United States alone stop buying. Only then will these companies see enough damage to their bottom lines--damage that laws can't repair--, that they'll reevaluate their position.

Re:I still don't get it

[Richy_T]

Of course some folks are buying them, but some are not.

That is true of course. But I think you clearly understand why that is no reason to penalise honest people. And the original implication was that noone would buy them since they could copy them from the TV

However, if the shows are copy-protected, then taping is suddenly out of the question, and all the folks who would have taped now must buy the tapes if they want a copy. Perhaps most will simply do without, but some will buy, and therein lies the extra profit.

But by restricting the content, you are reducing the utility of the service provided. This directly affects the balance of the cost/benefit equation. If we have PPV miniseries X with runs Monday through Thursday and I know I am going out Tuesday (or even might be going out) and I can't copy that episode then I won't buy it. Yes, I know this argument can be refuted by content-on-demand but it is merely illustrative.

On the other hand, if you're saying that as controls get more restrictive, then consumers will simply turn away from the entertainment companies, then you have a legitimate argument, assuming it really happens.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's an army of people out there who want the convenience of "content now" at low to no cost. Now, that's a group of potential consumers. At the moment, their needs are not being met by the traditional cartels but are being supplied by *copyright infringers (and some small independents) which for some (most) people, pushes the cost too far above "low-to-no" (moral cost to high). Hopefully while the old dinosaurs are sleeping someone will jump in and find a way to meet these consumers demands and kill the dinosaurs dead. It's just waiting to happen. The dinosaurs have nothing to offer anymore. They provide poor quality content at high prices and rely on their stranglehold and the law to do it because they have nothing real to offer anymore.

Of course, nothing is certain, it may not happen, the dinosars may change and adapt to the new market but hopefully whatever happens, it will come sooner rather than later.

Rich

*I had originally used the word "pirate" but I think it is important that we get out of the habit of playing to their rules

Re:I still don't get it

[kreyg]

suprisingly, a lot of people forget this little fact. when it comes to broadcast tv and basic cable, the programs are not the product and the viewers are not the customers. in reality, the viewers are the product and the advertisers are the customers. broadcasters don't like vcrs because they let their products, you, me, and the rest of the viewers get away.

Erm... so, the solution is to not let people view things AT ALL, lose their fan base and generally become a technological nightmare to people who can't make their VCR stop flashing 12:00? That might be an extreme situation, but I still have this sneaking feeling that a) their plans aren't viable and b) they're going to find themselves without a market eventually.

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Agreed on all counts. As a matter of fact, I remember that NBC (I think) explored the possibility of using Macrovision on the NFL games they broadcast during the mid 1980s. I don't know if it was the loss of advertising they feared or if it was due to pressure from the NFL to stop viewers from taping its games. In any event, it never came to pass. I also seem to remember that SkyPix, a failed DBS venture in the early 1990s, planned to use Macrovision on its PPV movies. If you paid a lower price, you could watch but not record. If you paid more, the Macrovision would be switched off so you could tape the movie. In response to your last comment, that people will feel justified in cracking DVDs if the studios want to make them pay, then force them to sit through commercials, you must not forget the underlying theme that seems to be at work here: Content providers seem to have the attitude that they'll push this as far as they can. If enough people would pay for a DVD with the movie interrupted by commercials every 15 minutes, they'll make you sit there and watch those commercials. These companies are out for maximum profits, and they'll do whatever their customers will let them get away with. It's all about making as much money as possible, and what's morally right has nothing to do with it. As for things like tradition, which has held that when you buy something like a book, it's yours to keep, lend, or sell, that will go right out the window if we let it. The technology is allowing all the rules to be rewritten, and the corporations want to monopolize the pen.

Re:I still don't get it

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

With PPV, they're trying to keep people from taping the movie as they watch it. That way, if you want to see it again, then you have to pay again...and again...and again. Or you can go out and buy the video. If you'd taped the PPV broadcast, you're less likely to buy the video later. I agree that they're spending lots of money on this, but I suspect they're trying to lay long-term groundwork here. They're in the process of building an infrastructure that will give them control of how you use content. For the last 25 years or so, we've come to see video as something we can freely record off TV broadcasts and watch as often as we like. I suspect that the entertainment industry would like to reverse that attitude. They don't have to activate all their copy controls at once. In fact, I suspect they won't. They'll do it gradually, possibly beginning with things like live PPV events such as boxing, then move out from there. BTW, does anyone remember the concept of self-destructing videotapes the movie industry experimented with in the 1980s? The idea was that you could buy a tape of a movie that you could then watch for a set number of times. A counter would keep track, and at the beginning of the last viewing, a magnet would be brought in contact with the tape. As the tape passed under the magnet, it would be erased. This idea never took off, but it demonstrates that content providers have always wanted to place controls on how you use their content. It's just that the technology is finally catching up with what they've wanted to do for years.

hdtv not all it's cracked up to be

[Mr.Coffee]

i've had an hdtv set for almost a year now, and i have to say, im significantly less than impressed, there is an extremely poor programming choice available (in my area anyway)

it seems to me that the users of hdtv may make this another one of the pay-per-view options, and make the higher resolutions available at a special higher price (watch this movie in high-resolution, click

• Here

) of course, with the rate of hdtv's inception, i feel it's going to be awhile before this is an extremely pertinent issue.

Re:hdtv not all it's cracked up to be

[glrotate]

Mr.Coffee said: "i've had an hdtv set for almost a year now, and i have to say, im significantly less than impressed, there is an extremely poor programming choice available (in my area anyway)"

I don't get it. Have stations stoped broadcasting HDTV, or did they never start? If they never started than how could you have been impressed enough to buy one of the turds? Dork.

Scary

[mother_superius]

One poster has said that people will never buy it then. But, I am afraid they still will. That's what people said about bad TOS, DVDs, etc. But most people don't care, and make up enough of their market. I saw some Slashdotter say in a post a day or two ago that: "If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump right out. But if you put it in cold water and heat it, the frog will say there until it dies." That is so true about the general American public. Anyone who complains, boycotts, or dislikes something like this is branded as "crazy" or "paranoid", and most people will just ignore them. It's sad but I'm afraid it is true.

Re:Scary

[SlippyToad]

But in this case the price for this stuff is just so ridiculously high, and the disadvantages so huge, that most people won't go for it. It's got all the scuzzy charm of Divx, and Divx died a horrible, grisly death at the hands of pissed-off consumers.

Content Providers controlling their revenue

[dvNull]

It is all about revenue.

Once the providers decide on more ways to make money (i.e charging viewers $9.99 to watch a game 2 hours after it is over instead of $19.99 Live) There *ARE* people who record a game and dont watch any news shows or read the paper till they have watched the recorded show. This would be an excellent way for them to capitalise on people who work during the show time.

Piracy is the lowest item on the list. Piracy is possible for Pay-Per-View movies, but by then the video is already in your corner video rental.

IMHO this is all about controlling and adding a revenue stream.
But for the life of me I dont understand why they would want to reduce the grade on the picture? Is this the "Go stand in the corner" punishment from them?


The number of the beast ...

investments?

[eudas]

ok, i haven't read the articles so [flame suit="on"], but seriously...

1. tv sets and video playback equipment is not an 'investment'. you don't sell it years later and make money on it (as always there are exceptions that prove the rule.)

2. this is just my (somewhat (un?)informed) opinion, but hdtv doesn't seem like it's really ready. i'm sure i'll get flamed for that, but i just don't know alot of people who have them, and they don't seem to be selling like hotcakes.

3. i'm just a poor college student, so it's not like i have the cash to buy one (hdtv set) anyway, but i wouldn't (won't?) even consider it while all these arguments over control are going on. RIAA, MPAA, DVD's, HDTV, blah blah blah... there is a lot of fighting over control which will translate into money vs freedom, and who wants to get caught in the crossfire? i dunno 'bout you, but i'm waiting to see who wins and THEN i'll worry about to buy.

4. lots of freedom issues... why give them money to take more of your money AND your freedom away from you, etc. important things to consider.

anyway, i've really wandered off the beaten track here, so here i finish. flame away.

eudas

Re:investments?

[Fjord]

1. tv sets and video playback equipment is not an 'investment'. you don't sell it years later and make money on it (as always there are exceptions that prove the rule.)

True, a TV set is not part of an "investment portfolio," but the above is a very limited view on what an investment is. A TV is an investment because you lay out a large amount of cash with the expectation that it will eventually pay back in utility (that's the economic term, I prefer "happiness"). If you pay extra for the utility of a higher definition screen, and you cannot get that content, then the money you've invested (over the cost of a normal TV) is lost, because you can never get that utility.

Re:investments?

[Lonewolf666]

I agree - if something is fucked, don't buy it.
That stupid control mania is one of the reasons I don't have a DVD-ROM in my computer yet - without the region code/content scrambling crap I might buy one. I don't even have a TV set and rarely miss it- the programs (in Germany) are not that good.

Eh?

[microbob]

Hmm, I need to do some more investigation. Currently I get two channels in HD (1080i) from DirectTV, one HBO and a demo channel that shows other stuff (the Discovery-HD rules!!).

But, I can get three local channels too: CBS and local weather (oh boy!).

Having experienced full 1080i I'll never go back to regular TV.

Even the digital channels on DirecTV blow away a regular TV tube on my 62" HTDV.

Down with analog TV.

Unless you have tried it, don't bitch or you'll be a fool.

Micro

Re:Eh?

[eclectro]

There is a problem with my set where when the picture turns red half of it goes fuzzy beyond recognition.

I'll never go back to regular TV.

Re:Eh?

[Shotgun]

Having experienced full 1080i I'll never go back to regular TV.

Down with analog TV.

Unless you have tried it, don't bitch or you'll be a fool.

I haven't tried it, but I'll bitch about it anyway and not be a fool. I've got DTV (mainly so that I don't have to worry about returning tapes on time when I want to rent a movie), but I switch over to regular broadcast every Tuesday to get my fill of Buffy and Angel, since DTV doesn't broadcast the WB.

Guess what. HDTV and all the other new, expensive, 'better' display technologies can kiss my ass. There I am, with my snowy reception through a pair of rabbit ears, completely engrossed in the story line, plot, and character development of the only show that makes TV worth the electricity. I'm totally oblivious to the snowy picture.

Why is that? For the same reason that my kids enjoy me reading them "The Chronicles of Narnia" more than they like the Cartoon Network. A movie/show that is about telling a good story will always beat out 2 hours of eye candy. HDTV does nothing to improve the situation of the good script writers and actors. It just make the execs think that all a movie needs is something blowing up or a clearer picture of some singer's half exposed buttocks.

I go back a forth between the digital DTV and regular broadcast on a regular basis, and I can say with a straight face that I don't give a damn which I have. Just put something worth watching on the signal. At that point, the technology really won't matter.

Lower Definition = More Content

[IceHunter]

Seems to me that DirecTV is taking the stance that more is better. Since more channels can be broadcast at a lower definition, they might theorize that they could cram more channels in their service and thus entice more users with obscure channels (Competitive Icky Poo TV anyone?).

However, they could also use this in a beneficial way. I am not really sure on how their system works but if the system can affect how a single decoder receives the channels it could allow the user to have more control over their content. More channels at a lower definition, or less at a higer definition; or maybe a mix, pick the few you want in HDTV and leave the rest at standard definition.

What all comes out of it really depends on how they use this system as it could be either benificial or harmful to the viewer's experience. Having the choice to customize HDTV viewing options would be great if more stations actually broadcast in HDTV.

Like everything else in technology, the tech itself isn't inherently evil, just the way you might use it.

George Orwell was close

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman]

Big Brother isn't watching you. He just doesn't want you to watch.

Re:George Orwell was close

[valintin]

Big Brother is you watching.

Then what?

[raju1kabir]

Looks like people will have to go inside their TVs to get the signal they need to exercise their legally-granted rights to time-displace content.

Then what, the TV sets will be manufactured with an explosive charge which will destroy the insides unless a smart card is used to open it?

So people will have to use TEMPEST-like tactics to construct the signal from leakage and feed it to their recorders.

Then what, HDTV sets will be constructed with Faraday cages, adding a few dozen kg to the weight and several cm all around to the dimensions, requiring substantial extra power to make up for the intensity lost by viewing through a steel screen?

So people will use cameras to record the image displayed on the screen, together with software that counters the distortion created by the glass shape and pixel fuzziness.

Then what, TVs will display encrypted content directly on their screens and people who want to watch PPV wrestling events will have to have a chip mounted along their optic nerve to decrypt the signal en route to the brain?

I for one can't wait. I am sick and tired of all these morally bankrupt thieves thinking they can just watch shows they've paid for and listen to music they bought. I mean, where do they get off? Actually, "thieves" is too weak a word. I will henceforth refer to these foul malefactors as Intellectual Property Rights Murderers, for their offenses against the most hallowed recording and motion picture industries are tantamount to murder and should be punished as such. Until the State wises up and handles these heinous crimes accordingly, we can thank God that technology will provide suitable interim measures.

Re:Then what?

[Felinoid]

Forget tampering with the insides...
Create a simple external disabler..
This box filters out the signial for disabling the higher quality...
Such a box would be cheap.. maybe $5 a unit.. simple.. easy to build in any home.. sold illegally at flee markets and on-line outside the united states (where they are legal).. to those inside the united states (where it is illegal)..

Re:Then what?

[Rande]

Then what, TVs will display encrypted content directly on their screens and people who want to watch PPV wrestling events will have to have a chip mounted along their optic nerve to decrypt the signal en route to the brain?

Then what, they put a chip in your brain to erase your memory so that you can't even replay it in your head without paying them for it again.

The lawyer in the back of my head wrote...

[elrick_the_brave]

Lawyer says "Failure to disclose limiting hardware and software" is bad. Can you say.. freedom to enjoy a hockey fight in all the thousands of pixels available gone... no way. I say that the distributors of media signals should have to pay for the hardware to limit signals.. let people purchase what they want.. and watch those wasted dollars go away.

Creating Content Pirates

[stinkydog]

What the industry does not grasp is by placing all these restrictions on devices, they create the pirate market. If I want to watch the HDTV broadcast of a superbowl at 2am I will find a way to do it. Be it a hardware hack/dongle or a software solution, this industry will FORCE me to violate the law. And for those of you you say "I don't see them twisting your arm", anything the prevents me from viewing content, whether ad supported or pay per view, can only have one of two results, me changing the channel or me fixing the problem.

I aplogize for not being a good lemming and accepting the crap the RIA/MPAA dish out. And remember, all these steps are being taken to represent the corporate interests in the distribution channel and not necessarily the interests of the content creaters.

EchoStar Advertisement

[tokra]

Although the article is quite informative, I find it to be advertisement for EchoStar. How convenient is it to point out that DishNet offers equipment without the circuit. Hmm! I have the RCA DTC100 with DirecTV and have NEVER had them switch HDTV OFF. HD HBO is awesome if you have ever seen it on a real good HDTV Set. If they choke the chicken with this circuit they will cook their goose in regards to my being a customer. I don't think they will do that personally. At least I hope not :-)

merci

[kreyg]

Apparently I can't type (conspiratorital?) even though I can make up real words. :-)

Maybe this is why HDTV is not growing

[mother_superius]

I know, there are other reasons, but this might be another reason why no one is buying these. So many restrictions on the HDTVs... it seems almost pointless. Can't watch broadcast... can't watch cable now... DVDs are about the only thing they're good for, and I bet the MPAA is going to lobby for some wacky restriction (have they not already... actually, I'd bet they have). More and more, every day, I want to live in Holland... too bad I don't speak Dutch. I hope most speak English. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

typical /. overreaction

[BlueLines]

So you just dropped $2k on your brand new HDTV.

You then dropped $1k (or whatever)for a HDTV box.

You're probably dropping more than $100 / month for service.

And you're using the analog outputs on your HDTV reviever?

You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the different resolutions anyway. Digital connections (s-video, for instance) are the only way to go with HDTV.

This is just as bad as the people who drop $1k for a nice 5.1 reciever and plug it up with RCA cables.

-BlueLines

Re:typical /. overreaction

[ooPo]

> Digital connections (s-video, for instance) are > the only way to go with HDTV.

Svideo is analog, and NTSC. Svga is analog. Its ALL still analog. There are no TVs out there that support digital in, and no receivers that support digital out. NONE. That's the whole problem.

*EVERYTHING* has to be scrapped. Thanks a buttload and all that cruft...

Re:typical /. overreaction

[bmetz]

s-video is NOT digital. It simply splits the analog signals in a different way to help minimize distortion compared with RCA or coax.

Re:typical /. overreaction

[Anonymous Coward]

> Digital connections (s-video, for instance) are the only way to go with HDTV.

I can't speak for every HDTV out there, but mine only has analog inputs for everything from 480i to 1080i.

S-video is not digital. Neither are composite or component (PYbYr) connections. If you're using a typical computer monitor (not an LCD panel with DVI connector), it is also analog.

Analog is not a synonym for low resolution. This is just another good example of how rapidly changing technology and irresponsible marketing and salesmanship can quickly spread misunderstanding.

Re:typical /. overreaction

[CArnesen]

Digital connections (s-video, for instance) are the only way to go with HDTV.

I don't know what CRACK you are smokin' but S-Video is actually WORSE quality than a component or RGB analog connection! Also, unless your monitor/television/VCR/DVD supports Firewire, it's analog... All the way...

--Chris ^^

Re:typical /. overreaction

[shepd]

S-video is digital?

Cool, my C64 DID have a digital TV out after all then! ;-)

All that s-video does is split luminosity (brightness) from chrominance (colour). This is a major improvement to composite NTSC because getting it compatible with both B/W (which was the original design) and colour was a big hack. Not cool at all. You pay for it in bleeding reds and various other problems in composite signals (which I don't fully understand, since I don't repair TVs for a living).

By separating them, the two the bandwidths don't interfere, and a clean colour component is avaliable to your TV. Notice that if one of the two cables in your S-Video is bad (which ever is chroma) you only lose colour. But the signal is still a totally crisp B/W.

Just FYI. :-)

Re:typical /. overreaction

[Jeffrey Baker]

You are misinformed. No consumer television display technoloy uses digital transmission between the video source and the video display. This is certainly true of television. Today's most advanced telelvision sets use either YPbPr component inputs, or RGBHV component inputs. The latter is likely the technology you use to connect your computer and your computer monitor.

Analog does not equate to poor quality. Given the bandwidth required for a video component, and the distance needed between the source and the display, it is easy to make that connection in the analog domain with everyday cables. 1080i and 720p look stupendous using analog connections.

The only people that have digital video technology today are those that are playing DVDs on their computer and running the signal out via a DVI connector to a digital LCD flat panel like this Apple Studio Display. These people have spent significantly more than $3000 just to watch movies on a digital display that can't even display a proper black.

Last point: any CRT-type television with digital inputs will not have any significantly better performance than an analog model. All the digital model will do is move the video DACs closer to the guns, and allow a longer run between the source and the display. Big deal.

Re:typical /. overreaction

[no_such_user]

They're not talking about S-video outputs here - they're talking about the Hi-def RGB output (HD15, for this DTC100 box). In fact, the S-video output would continue to work just fine if they decided to blank the HD outs.

Re:typical /. overreaction

[echo]

High Def RGB (or VGA or the five BNC plugs)
is ANALOG

it's a lost cause.

[The_Messenger]

I mean this whole fucking country. For every possible aspect of control we could possibly have over our own lives, there's a corporation, government agency, or corporately-controlled government agency plotting to take it away. It's time to leave. Maybe go to the UK? Nah, they're moving in the asme direction as the US; just look at the crypto policies. It looks like my only two options are Canada and Japan. I don't know Japanese... but it's probably easier to get used to than Canadian, "eh?" Bye bye, I'm heading over to Priceline.com, where I can name my own price to expatriate myself via one of a dozen international airlines.

All generalizations are false.

Re:it's a lost cause.

[The_Messenger]

How is it "cowardly?" If you don't like a restaurant's service, you stop going. Why should I live in a country where I'm forced, at gunpoint, to give people money who will turn around and use it to fuck up my life?

All generalizations are false.

Re:it's a lost cause.

[rvalle]

We're waiting for you, here in Brazil... See ya,

Re:it's a lost cause.

[The_Messenger]

Perhaps most tragic is your lack of keyboards with functional 'CAPS lock' keys.

All generalizations are false.

Content / value / pay

[elrick_the_brave]

Understandabily, we're frustrated... but let's look at it this way.. let's make them enforce a pay rate based on the resolution you can view... as a factor of 10.. $1.00 for highest.. $.01 for lowest.... hmm?

Boycott DirecTV

[EQ]

Dish Net has NO restrictions for mode shut downs on their boxes, and has nearly identical content. I used to work at DirecTV in Castle Rock Colorado (actually back in the woods behind there) at their uplink facility - and you must remember that GM and Hughes pull the strings there.

DirecTV must compeate...

[Felinoid]

They really can't use this as DirecTV must compeate with Cable...

I can't think up a good anolog... :)
But theres a flawed one..

If Ford were to design a car that could disable the heater when ever they felt like it.. You'd buy a diffrent car wouldn't you?

Admittedly this switch is in the HDTV not in DirecTV however.. If say Ford built such a switch and then never used it... you'd never know...

Re:DirecTV must compeate...

[Pakaran2]

I think I might well use DirecTV, even knowing about this 'feature'. Just because the company can disable their own service doesn't mean they're fundamentally evil.

The electric company can come to my parents' house and turn off their electricity if they fail to pay the bill; if I abuse the campus network, I can be expelled from it. If DirecTV finds that they are falling victim to piracy through their own partners' products, they will naturally act to stop that violation.

Metallica sued Napster; as a regular user of Napster I dislike that behavior, since I do not view Napster to be fundamentally different from recording music off the radio. However, what eventually happens will be determined, naturally enough, not from my own preferences, but from the court's interpretation of the laws of our society.

Given that I rather doubt that companies selling these TV sets sign a contract guaranteeing eternal access to programming of the highest quality, it is difficult to see what cause the consumers have to complain.

Re:DirecTV must compeate...

[Technician]

If Ford built a car with a heater that they could disable at anytime.... But if no other cars had heat, then you would take it. Right? The PPV HDTV game will not be in other formats for you to choose another.

Re:Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the artic

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a combination of the Karma Whore's Rules 2 & 3. Clever.

The Karma Whore's Rules:

1. "I'll be modded down for this"
2. "don't you read the article?"
3. "cool down people, this isn't that bad"

Write to this address NOW!

[Kagato]

The Committee on Energy and Commerce which is handling FCC issues is meeting on the 30th to set their agenda for the 107th congress. The committee is lead by Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La. Now Billy's second largest compain donation was from Disney, so I think a lot of presure will be needed.

I recommend writing the committee directly about how your right to timeshift if being taken away.

Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Also, you can go to http://www.house.gov/commerce/ to get the names of the memebers.

Re:Write to this address NOW!

[Electric Jesus]

I live in Antartica, so should I also join your merry band of alarmists by writing yet another Slashdot-fuelled letter to a governmental representative, thus giving him yet another coaster to use under his complimentary morning coffee (which, of course, you payed for)?

Really, is there any situation where you don't get your own way and it's not a violation of your rights? Isn't that a black helicopter hovering above your house? Head for the cellar!

we should stop bitching and do something...

[nothng]

Of all the people on Slashdot who bitch about what the MPAA and RIAA are doing to consumers and how horrible the DMCA is, how many have actually written law makers, MPAA, RIAA and associates there-of about how you feel?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL CHANGE WITHOUT YOU! period, don't expect the rest of the world to fight your battles. It's time we start pushing congress to balance the laws. Copyright laws need to be revised. It's time lawmakers start asking if such laws infringe on the rights of consumers. For those of you who have written these people don't stop. This is the first step to changing something and nothing changed without action.

Once the letters start coming in Officials will have to pay more attention to the issue. Once we can show them that many americans do feel that XYandZ are wrong they will have to take such things into consideration. If they choose to ignore it we will just have to be louder.

need to know how to contact your senator or rep? House of Representatives
Senate

Now don't give me any of that crap that this is off topic because this is Direct TV's decision. It's obvious that the MPAA's anticopying tatics are to blame. This is what happens when we stay quite. It's all been trickling down from the DMCA.

Re:we should stop bitching and do something...

[cc_pirate]

I don't think our thieves/politicians care. I SNAIL mailed my Representative and two Senators regarding the DMCA and what an evil piece of S*$% it is, and I didn't get a "Thank You", "Go to Hell".... nothing...

This is after reading here that they ALWAYS respond to SNAIL mail. Paaagh! And before you ask, I was the epitome of politeness.

Re:we should stop bitching and do something...

[A coward on a mouse]

Bullshit. All of the whining and writing and such like will have exactly zero effect on our legislature, which is now effectively a massive Chamber of Commerce for the US, dedicated to rigging the system for the advancement of business interests.

The same is true of the voting public; the fact is that most of them (_who_vote_) are stockholders and vote for what they think will make their stocks rise in value. Unless you can argue persuasively that policy X will be bad for business, you might as well be talking to yourself. That is, unless you have revenues in excess of 10 or so billion dollars a year to spread around as bribe money.

To think that lawmakers give a shit about things like "the rights of consumers" is incredibly naive. They may say they care, but look at Al Gore's real record on the environment for an example of how far you can trust what a politician says. The only difference between the two parties is their choice of lies. The Republican lie usually goes something like, "These policies will not hurt you." The Democrats prefer, "I'm fighting these harmful policies."

People who talk about how all we need to do to fight creeping corporatism is to lobby Congress are totally unclear on the rules of the game. It's like saying to your Little League team, "Yeah, we're gonna go down there to Yankee stadium and kick us some Major League butt." The only way we'll have any effect on these issues is if we mobilize civil (or less-than-civil) disobedience on such a massive scale that society grinds to a halt. Considering the government reaction to the protests in Seattle last year, even that is probably a non-starter.

Otherwise, we should just quietly ignore any medium that is overly restricted, and let the sheep be herded into whatever slaughterhouse the powers-that-be choose. At the same time, we should tend the garden of the public domain to ensure that there is _something_ to read/watch/listen to that isn't controlled by corporate interests.

Re:we should stop bitching and do something...

[nothng]

This is EXACTLY WHY NOTHING CHANGES. oh, poor us, all the politians are crooks and we can do nothing. We should just go sit in our living room and bitch and wine everytime we watch the news. BULLSHIT

YES most politicians are corrupt. NO we don't have to take it. YES we can do something. If you really feel that way then you should be in the steets carrying signs protesting. You should be mailing government agencies complaining. Everyone should. By god we should be sending them so much mail that the Unemployment drops another 2% because it should take that many postal workers to process the mail. We should be sending so much email that their servers Crash.

I'm very glad the civil rights leaders didn't say that in the 60's. "oh those politicians just want us to dissappear, they'll never change anything" Instead they got pissed off and did something about it. Eventually the politians couldn't ignore it anymore and had to start making changes. No it won't change overnight, but we can change things. It's up to us though. Writing politicians is but a small step.

If we want our rights back as consumers we have to fight for them. If we want the free speech and expression that we were gauranteed in the constitution then we have to fight for it. It is too important to let it just slip away.

Re:we should stop bitching and do something...

[nothng]

damn, i forgot to close the BOLD tag... guess i shoulda previewed it eh? :/

Re:we should stop bitching and do something...

[A coward on a mouse]

It is a Good Thing that the civil rights leaders in the sixties did something, true. However, the something that they did was not launching a letter-writing campaign or lobbying Congress. You were on the right track when you said "in the streets carrying signs protesting." That is what it takes. Something outside the political arena, something in the streets, in the homes, minds, and lives of society.

The government represents the powers-that-be and until the powers-that-be are convinced that they will not be able to retain their power without sharing it somewhat, be it with the consumer of HDTV or with non-whites, women, etc., they will not give any part of that power up. The situation with the elected government is that they are not taking orders from their old bosses, the people, but from their new bosses, Big Business. Even if we do vote legislators out for the evil things they do for their superiors, they just get replaced with more drones who do the same thing.

All I'm saying is that I don't think writing your legislator is a worthwhile thing to do. If it makes you feel better that's fine, but don't hold your breath waiting for results. I also admit I don't really have the energy right now for the in the streets thing. So I'm trying to figure out how best to contribute to an increase in the store of public domain books, music, etc. I guess it makes me feel better to try to do something positive that affects everyday people in their homes, minds, and lives than it does to chastise a corrupt politician for doing his or her corrupt little job.

A napster for video has them wetting their pants

[eclectro]

It's quite interesting really. When CDs were first invented, napster was nowhere in anyones imagination. Not to say that it couldn't have been done through a dialup BBS, just that it never crossed anybody's mind. However, the RIAA was in the fray with demanding all sorts of copy protection on DAT and successfully killed that format (except for hi-end audio yadda yadda yadda).

The thing about movies is that unlike a song, once you see it, you're not gonna play it over and over.

So, if their is ANY way that a consumer can trade a copy with somebody else, they want to stomp it out before it is ever invented. If history is any indication, HDTV is a form of visual DAT.

I really don't see HDTV off the ground by 2006 when the FCC is suppose to shut off regular TV. I'm not gonna spend $2000 on a TV set. maybe $300, but any higher and I start reading more books.

Who knows, maybe this will usher in an era of literary renaissance. :-)

Re:Give it to Air Traffic Control

[nothng]

"Take back the spectrum, and auction it. These jokers dont seem to be in any hurry to use it."

Give it to Air Traffic Control. Due to increased flights (and increased wireless devices ie. cell phones) they are quickly running out of frequencies to broadcast on causeing delays and setbacks. If anyone can use it they can!

Generate your own video signal (or don't)

[Kris_J]

I'm getting to the point where I don't know that I can trust any of the new media sources (HDTV, DVD) enough, with regard to playback control, to invest in any technology just for them.

However, I do have a PSX, a SNES, two PCs, a video camera and a still camera that can output to video. As far as I'm concerned, my TV is for them. If it so happens that I feel that FoxTel (Oz PayTV) can provide an incoming signal that's worth subscribing to (I do), then so be it. If it doesn't work with whatever I've chosen to purchase for my own projects, then I'll stop paying for it.

I hardly ever watch Free-to-Air TV anymore. Just Stargate, Buffy, Dilbert & the SBS world news. I'm not going to be buying an A$8,000 TV for four programs, one of which isn't currently on and another is currently showing repeats.

You want control over content? Go out and create some of your own.

Boiling Frog urban legend.

[Vermifax]

It's an urban legend. The frog will hop out anyway. It's a nice analogy, but it is also a false one.

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/frog.html

Vermifax

Re:Boiling Frog urban legend.

[Barbarian]

Well, if you drop it onto freezing cold water, you'll stun it into shock, and then if you heat the water fast enough, you can boil it indeed. But it has nothing to do with complacency on the part of the frog.

Re:Boiling Frog urban legend.

[mindVapour]

Just proves that frogs are smarter than Americans.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/headli ne s.htm

Re:Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the artic

[jayhawk88]

Heh. Like most things in life, this has a relevant Simpson's quote:

"It's funny because it's true." - Fat Tony

Re:Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the artic

[tono]

This just in, your phone company can disconnect your service remotely!

Did *you* read the article?

[Tino]

This is not like DirecTV turning off your service because you haven't paid. It's more analogous to MTV being able to instruct DirecTV to degrade your audio signal to mono because you've got the wrong kind of stereo -- and you can't currently buy a TV reciever that will ever be able to plug into the right kind of stereo.

It also has to do with terms of service that are not published (yet), and that are imposed by an entity (movie studios, presumably) with whom you do not have a direct relationship.

In other words, you are purchasing hardware that may, at a later date, be largely useless not because of actual technical obsolescence, but because copyright holders are developing a philosophy of guilty-until-proven-innocent -- and, further, believing that there is no acceptable proof of innocence.

There's always a penalty for early adopters, but it usually arises out of circumstance, not as deliberate policy.

Re:Did *you* read the article?

[Robert S Gormley]

It's more like turning your service off not because of your stereo, but because you might wanna use it in a way that you *can*, but isn't liked by the "owner".

Re:Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the artic

[StenD]

They can also cut off your service in general. That is how it works, you pay them for service, they give you service.

Except this is "You pay them for service, and they still cut off your service.". I wish that we could look forward to the day where Hollywood would cry wolf too many times, but they have practically the perfect division of politics there - the executives are predominantly Republicans, while the producers, directors, and actors are predominantly Democrats, so no matter who is holding the reigns of power, there are like-minded Hollywood types with money to claim that the masses are only a recorder away from rampant illegal copying which will End Western Civilization As We Know It, if not for the valiant anti-piracy efforts of Hollywood.

NO!!!!

[Cinematique]

Man! This reminds me... I'm gonna call DirectTV up tomorrow and cry that I don't think it's fair that they have the ability to ECM-zap my shady hacked access card to get all of the channels for free!! How dare they! It's almost as if they are trying to get rid of DirectTV pirates or something... what gives???! While I'm at it, I'm gonna call MaBell tomorrow too, and ask why my red-box stopped working a few years ago.

OTOH

[/dev/zero]

I've had a regular TV set for quite some time, and I have to say I'm significantly less than impressed with the extremely poor programming choices available.

There are a few good programs, but even they aren't worth the coming hassle. When it gets so that I can't time-shift, I'll give TV up altogether.

Frankly, though, the only real "advantage" that I see to HDTV is that it provides a pretense for converting the signal path to all-digital and requiring the replacement of existing hardware with new, controlled-access hardware.

Bah. 'Bye Hollywood, it was fun while you were sane.

Gordon.

Re:OTOH

[Stephen Samuel]

Bah. 'Bye Hollywood, it was fun while you were sane.

They never were sane. They've been trying to get control of our enterainment habits since the inception of the phonograph & radio "threatened the whole industry". It's just that, until now, the courts have held their control complex at bay.

Now, however, they've got control of congress, and the courts are going to be hard pressed to stop this 500Kg gorilla.
`ø,,ø!

so don't buy it

[Dr. Tom]

We've had HDTV in Japan for a long time (it was invented here, after all, and only politics has kept it that way). It isn't so great. They want you to BUY it, sure, just like they try to convince you that every little technical innovation must be instantly bought before it becomes obsolete. But let's face it, it's still TV we're talking about here. Do you think TV programming will improve if you buy a more expensive receiver? Think again. Also, think about stretch mode which is what happens to your regular TV signal when you try to display it on the HDTV screen. Sure, it's an option. An option that renders the people you're watching just a little bit fatter. If you don't like that, then enjoy the big blank spaces on the sides, which will no doubt be full of banner ads once there's a market base of HDTV viewers.

Re:Degraded Picture for the stray sheeple.

[Technician]

But for the life of me I dont understand why they would want to reduce the grade on the picture? Is this the "Go stand in the corner" punishment from them?

They only degrade or disable the output on the non scrambled outputs so it can't be recorded and herd the sheeple to the protected content enabled TV's. To see the big game in HDTV (which is avaliable) it must be watched on a scrambled content enabled display.

As I said before, this will not be sold to the sheeple as a limitation in a set but as an added feature. It is able to display the PPV fight in HDTV. The VCR or TVIO on the RGBHV output is SOL on this broadcast. You will have to buy both the reciever to recieve HDTV and a scrambled content enabled TV. Expect the cable box to eventualy be built right into the TV as a PPV appliance. Hooking up your old 19 inch computer monitor to the RGBHV output will not show the PPV event. It will get the nag screen instead. (you need to upgrade again) Sheeple will follow the content to the new medium as the unprotected medium goes to infomercials only. (kinda like C-band tv did and people followed the content to DSS subscriptions)

"Most of us" waiting for HDTV?

[hyacinthus]

Speak for yourself! I love movies, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay thousands for a modest increase in television resolution. And I'll have to say...my home video setup is mediocre at best (20" TV with composite inputs, DVD player, and an old Fisher vacuum-tube amplifier) and in the middle of a good movie...it just doesn't matter. THE SEARCHERS is a good movie whether it's shown on a screen fifty feet across, or a black-and-white twelve-inch television. But then, my idea of a "good movie" is a little different, and doesn't include films which stand or fall by their special effects such as THE MATRIX.

And I don't think people like my lover, who makes half the money I do and works ten times as hard to get it, care either. And I daresay there are a lot more people like him than like me. HDTV is a luxury item for the geek with more money than common sense, and (the gods willing) will remain such for a good long while.

hyacinthus.

Re:"Most of us" waiting for HDTV?

[Kagato]

Prices are falling dude. Adding Over the Air HDTV reception to my turner was $99. The displays are now under 2K. Even watching the content downconverted to 480i is great. The local reception is cystal clear with nothing more than some rabit ears.

Two years ago 32 inch TV's were floating around $1000-$1200, now they are in the $500 range. Same thing is happening with HD.

From a consumer standpoint content really makes this work. PBS does such a great job with HD content I can't believe how bad the big three are.
The PBS station delivers 4 subchannels, One has weather, one does the normal PBS content, a third does PBS kids, and the last does PBS-U.

Re:Lower Definition WRONG!!

[Technician]

The PPV event will be broadcast (scrambled full bandwidth) but only the non-scrambled outputs from the receiver will be in low quality mode, shut off, or display a nag screen saying use the other output to see the show (the scrambled unrecordable output) in HDTV format. To use this output you do need a monitor with a descrambler built in. This is how the sheeple will be convinced to spend the money on the content protected TV's. It will be required (as a feature, not a restriction) to watch the show.

werd to that

[t3553r4ct]

yeah i have to agree that until the prices fall, the fish won't bite.

Re:Let's all scream and yell, DON'T READ the artic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the issue. A full HDTV stream is being transmitted to your DirectTV box. The box processes the full HDTV stream. And then for no legitimate reason, the box suddenly downgrades the output. It actually cost them (and thus you the consumer) more money to force this downgrade (additional circuitry) and yields DirectTV no additional income or profit at all. So why do they do something which makes their service less valuable to their customer (and without telling the customer explicitly) which costs them more money to do? Collusion with the media industry and illegal government regulation (DMCA).

This is a very important example of a very important issue. What you have said about the market is mostly correct and should mean people won't use their service, except it seems every company is doing the same thing and any company which doesn't gets sued (under the DMCA, etc) or else, it is apparent, there is widespread industry collusion. This is very troubling. I wish it were a free market as you envision, but it really is not. Disparate things are being forcefully tied together by powers that seem to be way outside the reach of the normal consumer and demand.

What's Wrong With Content Protection

Not so.

[jcr]

The movie distributor does not have to be the one and only source in order to make money. Their control of their copyright is enough to make them the only LEGAL source, which means they're the only source that can advertise and reach the general public.

Right now, I *could* get a friend of mine to burn a CD that I want, but it's a whole lot easier to go and get it at the music store, since I don't know what all of my friends have on their shelves.

What all of these content providers can do in an era of easy error-free file sharing, is to be the most convenient place to get their material.

When it comes to audio, hell, I'd ante up for a subscription to the Sony or Bertelsman libraries, if I know that I can get anything in their catalog, anytime, so that I don't even need to use my own disk space to keep it around. How can they be better than napster? Trivially! When you D/L a song with napster, you never know if it's corrupted by somebody trying to piss in the punchbowl, or whether the guy whose host you're connected to is going to log off when you have fifteen seconds left to get.

It's incredibly stupid, not to mention evil, of the movie industry to keep trying to fight the technology instead of putting any effort at all into figuring out how to make money by doing the best job they can.

-jcr

A good book...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this sounds stupid, but if the shit gets too deep, just purchase a book, or borrow it from the Library, and read the story. It costs a hell of a lot less than an HDTV and all the other crap.

Damn, I'm starting to sound like my grandfather (may God rest his soul)... Maybe the old guy had an idea after all.

But, I'm sure they'll may an ink that fades after you read the book or pages that curlup and fall apart... *grin*

My grandfather once said that he could remmember when they got their first radio, and then their first TV... But, he allways thought that T.V. was just a fad, a long running fad mind you... But people would find their way back to a more mentally challaging way of wasting ones time. With a movie or TV you always wish it would have played or looked different, at least with a book, it can be the way you want it, the journy is yours to take, the writer is just a guide... Beside, you can start and stop a book and time you want, and you can even give the book to another after your done.

Jason
Dayton, Ohio

Re:A good book...

[Rande]

I know this sounds stupid, but if the shit gets too deep, just purchase a book, or borrow it from the Library, and read the story. It costs a hell of a lot less than an HDTV and all the other crap.

If only. My local library seems to have thrown out most of the books and replaced them with newspapers, magazines and videos.

Amazon still has books...for how much longer? <conspiracy>

hack it

[Maskirovka]

There are numerous plans for hacking those boxes out there. just thought I'd note that.

Re:hack it

[threaded]

So, now that you've spent $2000+ on your HDTV, $1000 on your DirecTV HDTV box, and your DirecTV subscription

And $20 to that kid down the street to disable the disablement.

copy protection doesn't necessarily kill

[burris]

Why does everyone think it was the copy protection and copyright holders that killed DAT? I think DAT failed because it had all the disadvantages of tape: no instant random track access, delicate media that geats eaten by complicated expensive transports, little high speed duplication capability, etc... That made DAT pretty lousy compared to the CD's that people wanted to duplicate and make mixes of. Note that MiniDisc is much more sucessful than DAT in the consumer market even though it has all the same copy protection AND serial generation degredation from the lossy compression (i.e. it's even worse for copying from a consumer wanting to pirate things perspective). CD-R will eventually win out because it plays in many/most of the bazillion CD players already out there, it works in harmony with a computer, the blanks are closing in on dirt cheap, and you can burn at 8X. Yeah, it sure doesn't hurt CD-R that copy protection is non existent on the computer burners, but it isn't the only factor.

Burris

Re:A napster for video has them wetting their pant

[Apotsy]

I don't think it was copy-protection which killed DAT as a consumer platform. Sure, it's bad ("What do you mean I have to pay them a 'tax', even when I make my own recording?!"), but the problem is it didn't offer any significant advantage over CDs in the consumers' minds, while offering the disadvantage of having no random access like CDs. Most consumers were willing to put up with playback-only, until CD-R became popular, and now we can do everything DAT could do, and more, without having to pay a "tax".

If and when HDTV takes off, it won't be because of broadcasts. It will be due to home video playback formats. Once some sort of HD-DVD format becomes available, and people can watch movies at high resolution, that will drive the adoption of HDTV. Until that happens, HDTV is going to progress slowly. So, once again, it's in the MPAA's hands. Who knows how long it will be before and HD-DVD format is available, and what sorts of draconian restrictions there will be on it...

Off-topic My Ass

[Kagato]

Okay, I normally don't flame, but whoever lowered that down as "off-topic" was the bigest gaylord focher I've ever seen. The Committee on Energy and Commerce specifically deals with this. I even said so in the message. They already have several HDTV issues on the docket relating to fee based Datacasting over free air bandwidth. The FCC has already rubber stamped these content control systems. This is the last chance for oversight. This is how things like the DMCA get passed!

If we don't make the stand here it's "Game Over Man!" This isn't a market acceptence issue since the turn over to HD is not optional. Prices will go down and consumers will be lead into virtual slaughter house we know as Content Control.

Write a letter and get it there before the 30th:

Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Also go here: http://www.house.gov/commerce/ and see if any of the goonies on the list are your bitch!

Who needs a TV?

[__aakpxi9117]

Well, if you want to watch HD-TV I suggest you buy the PC Card right now or it'll be illegial for you to make a screen capture... That's what capitolism is all about, you don't buy the one that has a feature you don't want?

Besides, what would a person need a TV for? That primitive little box that doesn't even know you're there. With the popularization of broadband, video on demand, free Quicktime Streaming Server and no worries about missing something during your bathroom break, who needs a TV and what for?

So're we

[Galvatron]

Just nobody's watching them. HDTV signals have been broadcasting for a couple years now, actually. In theory, in a couple more years, we'll stop broadcasting analog, but given the fact that prices on the sets haven't dropped, that may not be happening.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

[LordOfYourPants]

I haven't heard of a topic this controversial since the argument whether or not Linux should be pronounced "Line Ucks" or "Lynn Ucks"

Simple Solution

[tbo]

Don't watch TV. I don't. Once you break the addiction, you'll be amazed how much more time you have, how much more you get done, and how much happier you are. Read or play on the internet or get some exercise instead.

If you're feeling like you really need to do something, write to your local cable provider/broadcasters and everyone else behind Digital TV, and tell them why you decided to stop watching TV.

Writing your Congressman about important issues like copyright, 'net censorship, etc, is a good thing, but don't waste their time on TV. Not being able to tape Star Trek is not and should not be a Federal concern.

Worst case--only you and a few other people stop watching, and you discover how much more time you have. Best case--consumers start leaving TV en mass (already happening), and companies change their tune. Capitalism will work for you if people actually give two shits.

I agree that this is part of a larger, worrisome trend, but if TV is the issue that finally gets us off our collective asses, what does that say about us? Does it mean that we don't care about our basic liberties, but not being able tape Simpsons is a crisis? What a sad social commentary that would be.

Re:Simple Solution

[mikethegeek]

"Don't watch TV. I don't. Once you break the addiction, you'll be amazed how much more time you have"

I haven't watched TV regularly for some time. When I do, it's only for sports or news. Most of my entertainment comes from reading and the Internet, though I do buy a lot of movies. Which I will definately STOP doing if prices rise or else they start annoying me with commercials, etc.

In fact, the main reason why I do NOT watch broadcast or cable TV channels is that it's mostly commercials and marketing with a little bit of idiotic programming jammed in.

Same reason why I don't listen much anymore to popular music, it's become lowest common denominator stuff that is marketer driven.

Clearly, I think we are heading towards the point where the dividing line between the intelligent and the ignorant can be discovered by finding out how much mass media is consumed.

Re:Simple Solution

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Hey, the History Channel is pretty good. So is the Discovery Channel. Fuck, if I could pay $8 a month to get just those and maybe the Cartoon Network, I would. The net gain for the satellite company would be $8 a month, because currently they're down to $0 from a high of $40 when my satellite dish was actually turned on.

Oh well.

--Perianwyr Stormcrow

Re:Simple Solution

[mikethegeek]

"Hey, the History Channel is pretty good. So is the Discovery Channel. Fuck, if I could pay $8 a month to get just those"

Ever wonder why you can't do that? Because they don't have to. They want your $40 for "basic" service and it's a "take it or leave it" deal. Why do you think that the lower and middle satellite plans leave out "just one or two" channels that you would want, which ends up costing you $10 more a month despite the fact you don't want ANY of those other 25 channels extra.

If cable and satellite were sold "a la carte" they'd not generate revenue from most of the crap channels.

We're missing the real issue...

[LordOfYourPants]

Take your little HDTV.. Make sure it's unplugged. Put the Directv system on top of it. Make sure it's on securely. Polish up the screen really nice.. Turn that HDTV sideways and..

Nationalise the entertainment industry!

[Arkleseizure]

Hope this isn't considered OT
Silly idea, but with the movie and music industry scrabbling to control technologies which could prevent them from making their zillions and meanwhile pumping the most apalling crap into our brains because they know it will make bucks, wouldn't it be nice if we could nationalise the entertainment industry.
Music and films would be free at the point of delivery, and those who make them would be obliged to justify themselves to someone with higher motives that cash.

Re:Nationalise the entertainment industry!

[Yer Mom]

Music and films would be free at the point of delivery, and those who make them would be obliged to justify themselves to someone with higher motives that cash.

What, the government? Heh.
--

Re:A napster for video has them wetting their pant

[Zarquon]

I don't think it was copy-protection which killed DAT as a consumer platform. Sure, it's bad ("What do you mean I have to pay them a 'tax', even when I make my own recording?!"), but the problem is it didn't offer any significant advantage over CDs in the consumers' minds, while offering the disadvantage of having no random access like CDs. Most consumers were willing to put up with playback-only, until CD-R became popular, and now we can do everything DAT could do, and more, without having to pay a "tax". Except to record. Recordable CDs have only become a viable technology in the past few years. DAT was out for much longer than that. And is much better suited to general consumer use (Hit record, it works. Need to pause it, go ahead. Stop and record more later? Sure. No need for multisession, and playable in any DAT machine. Made a mistake? Rewind and try again.) What killed DAT was the high-cost and low-available of media, players and pre-recorded content, combined with SCMS.

Way to go DISH!

[baptiste]

Nice to see Ergen not bow to pressure (yet) My friend just got a 65" Toshiba widescreen HDTV and the DISH 6000 receiver with HDTV off air tuner. I was less than impressed with the differnece when watching a DVD, but he doesn't have a progressive scan DVD player yet which improves the picture markedly. However, our local CBS affiliate here was one of the first to start sendign HDTV. While the primetime shows look better, you can't really tell the difference until you see a show shot entirely in HDTV with HD quality gear. They show a NASCAR short on a sunny day, clear sky, and all the color of a NASCAR race. It blows you away the clarity and vibrance of colors. Sure, me pal plunked down a cool $5K for his complete setup (new TV, DISH rcvr, and DVD player), but it is impressive. Needless to say, I think this decision could significantly hurt DirectTV is DISH manages to hold off putting CGMS in their boxes. The reason is the folks that would jump ship to DISH are the videophiles who don't want DirectTV to control their outputs and those customers are the ones paying $50 to $100/month in programming. This issue won't mean squat to your average DirectTV user, but they only pay $25 or $35/month usually. So it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Needless to say I better get my DISH 6000 quick before the MPAA pummels DISH into submission!

OT: Kenny on Casualty

[maroberts]

Yes, I was expecting this line from the moment we were told what the gerbils name was...

Re:OT: Kenny on Casualty

[maroberts]

OK, I confess, I laughed like a drain when Kenny got flattened.
Reply to email address.

Scream and Yell, but at DirecTV directly!

[dschuetz]

DirecTV has a feedback form right on their main page. I just went there and posted this complaint and request for information.

Your comment or question:

I currently have Cable TV, but plan to move to Satellite when our new house is completed early next year. However, an article at E-Town ( http://www.e-town.com/news/article.jhtml;$sessioni d$H1OHSLYAABGNNTYPVYXSFEQ?articleID=3944 ) says that DirecTV is now requiring installation of devices that can allow for remote disabling of HDTV-quality analog output. This, to me, is totally unacceptable -- anyone who pays for a signal, especially for an HD-quality signal via DirecTV, should be able to view that signal at full resolution with no restrictions. Discussion is raging about this issue at Slashdot ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01%2F01%2F23%2 F2032213&cid=&pid=0&startat=&threshold=1&mode=nest ed&commentsort=3&op=Change), and it may behoove your company to read and contribute to the discussion there, especially if people are misinformed. However, if we are NOT misinformed, and Hughes/DirecTV feels it is their right to restrict how your customers view contenty they've already paid for, then I can promise you that your company will no longer be my choice for a satellite provider. Thank you for your time.

I don't expect to hear anything, but if they get /.ed through this kind of customer feedback chain, then maybe they'll say something publicly or set the record straight. It's worth a shot.

set top set top

[scharkalvin]

What do you think will happen when all the current owners of HDTV capable tv sets find they can't watch because their sets lack the required digital input? They scream at the makers of the tv sets and DEMAND a refund on their $10k-25k sets or a free upgrade to the new models that have the inputs! I guess after facing a class action suit the tv makers will come out with a black box to go between the set and the satilite/cable box. We all know what this box will do! To make the mpaa happy, they will only sell these boxes to those that already own the tv sets.

If I ever get a tv with a digital hdtv input I'll order the service manual to see where to install analog output taps, after the waranty expires. (There has to be an analog signal some where, at least if you have picture tube(s)!)

Re:It's temporary

[Lumpy]

It will only be a matter of time before there are hacks to circumvent this. Heck there was a retailer (small) near hear wthat was selling directv boxes that were a one-time purchase and recieved ALL programming for free. Hacked boxes are common and will exist forever. as long as someone has their hands on the end hardware anything they can do to stop something can be overridden. Now I think stealing directv service is wrong, but unless it is a pay for better picture service, I have no qualms in overriding their "we control you -- power trip -- George Lucas doesn't want you to watch Starwars XVXXI in HDTV" moments. espically if I bought the service based on the HDTV sales pitch. The sales ethic in this country has really turned to crap. We as consumers need to start grabbing the nuts of these companies and twisting while repeating "I get what you sold me, NOT what you think I get. Capiche? " I'm sick of buying broadband and not getting what I was sold, buying an Mp3 player and not getting what I was sold, buying anything and then finding that the ad/salesperson was outright lying. And they wonder why we start hacking everything electronic that hit's the shelves... it's to get what we were promised in the origional sale.

480p is standard def video deinterlaced...

[tenzig_112]

for sports or high-camera-movement applications, it looks like cheesy early 80's mtv.

I heard someone the other say say that he was shooting his indie "film" on 480p. MPeg-I movies are also de-interlaced, but usually 320x240 and blown up.

we're only as cool as those we mock

Ridiculopathy.com Superbowl spot is in HD! 240p!

www.callmeaconsumerandillkickyourduff.com

[SubtleNuance]

Please, write your representatives, but for God sakes dont call yourself a fucking "CONSUMER" when you write your members. Calling yourself a consumer only reenforces the image that every person's sole purpose for existance is to function some way economically. Conceiding that you are a 'CONSUMER' is fucking absurd.

Try calling yourself a 'citizen' or 'person' or 'individual' or 'constituent' or anything else.

While your writing these notes; why not add that you feel the USA should remove itself from the WIPO and WTO also.

Re:www.callmeaconsumerandillkickyourduff.com

[undertoad]

Amen, brother! Consumer is such a demeaning way to refer to a person. You hit the nail right on the head. As if we are powerless slaves. We not only have a conscience, but we can act on it as free humans, larger than the issues that affect us. Our role is not to make others money.

My english teacher in college once commented that he heard us (the class) refered to as "consumers" and that this made him afraid, because he thought that meant we were going to eat him!

What a silly word, consumer.

But I can disable their bank accounts remotely...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by not paying for their service.

Thank you MPAA for improving my mind

[Phaid]

My wife and I are at the point in our lives where we're starting to think seriously about having children. And we're the sort who, while we read a lot, do tend to watch a fair amount of television (not mindlessly mind you, and not more than a couple of hours a day -- Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars, X-Files, Farscape, Voyager, Sunday morning cartoons, stuff on Discovery/A&E, the news, etc).

The point is, we don't want to raise kids who are glued to the set all day. So we've been planning to wean ourselves off television, set time limits, etc, so that when we do have children we won't reflexively turn on the tube. But now it seems that the MPAA is kindly helping me to make that transition a lot easier. I no longer feel any desire to buy a big bad TV with HDTV and 1024 lines of resolution and such, just to pay $60 per month for channels chock-full of commercials whose content I can't timeshift or record at one set and watch on another. On the practical side, it's just much more inconvenient than TV is currently ; on the moral side, I don't want to be made to feel like I can't be trusted with the valuable "content" that these media companies are kindly providing me out of the goodness of their heart.

I refuse to spend money on hardware that is deliberately crippled just so that I'm forced to watch these shows when and how someone else says I have to. At least with books -- paper books, thank you very much -- I can start reading in the living room and finish in the bedroom without asking the publisher's permission.

Re:typical /. overreaction (shafted)

[Stephen Samuel]

Almost everything HD sold to date is analog only. The ability to turn off analog output means the ability to shut down everybody who has bought HDTV so far.

So you thought you'd get special treatment for the early investment in HD equipment didn't you??? Well it's a special shaft through your least-preferred orifice! (more specifically, it's requiring an orifice that you don't currently have -- on yourself or your TV). You paid the extra money early on to find out that the really good content isn't going to be available to you unless you buy an entirely new box (that isn't available yet).
`ø,,ø!

missing the point

[gridsleep]

The point is, all that money for high definition...what? All the pointless mediocre shit that gets shoveled over the airwaves? High definition crap is still crap so why bother?

Timothy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Timothy might have checked his facts this time. Good Job!

Citizens for the Firing of Timothy

Wrong: Echostar Announced Copy Protection

[TM22721]

In the past week Echostar announced support for the DVI/HDCP copy protection chips. The fact that these chips are not in their current model 6000 HDTV receiver just means that Echostar will be forced by the MPAA to disable the HDTV portion of this receiver (down the road) when HDCP comes on line. I would guess that 6000 owners would be offered an upgrade or trade-in before this occurs...

Shades of Compuserve...

[rnturn]

...where you paid a higher rate in order to connect at a higher speed. (Oh, and since I'm 19,200 feet from the CO don't even mention ADSL ans its pricing scheme to me.)

What's next? Art museums where you can pay a lower admission fee but you're forced to wear a pair of glasses that blur your vision during the visit?

This is the kind of crap that will kill HDTV for a lot of people. Frankly, news like this makes it easier and easier for me to justify renting movies or spending even more time just sitting in an easy chair and reading a good book.
--

Re:Shades of Compuserve...

[nekid_singularity]

Well, I live 34000 feet from my CO. But in a nearby town I saw a house that was literally a few feet from the CO. What kind of bandwitdth can ADSL get when the computer is only 20 feet from the CO? As my friend would say, ALL OF IT! (I really hate it when he does that)

Does HDTV even matter if your eyes aren't perfect?

[EllisDees]

My vision is about 20/30. Not exactly perfect, but not really bad enough to require glasses or contacts. What I'm wondering is will I even be able to tell the difference between regular and HDTV if I'm sitting more than 10 feet away?

Digital TV

[DaBB]

this is insane - in the UK I pay £13 a month to get something like 30 DIGITAL channels (some of it's crap but alot of it is great) - which I watch on my nice and shiny widescreen - the quality is around the same as DVD! - our basic UK channels are also now broadcast in digital so you can watch them like as well. Set top box and tiny 1 foot wide satellite free - £40 to have it installed. I can pay per view movies and special events if I like - however, I can tape what I want, when I want, to watch it when I like. You guys are really getting shafted.

Re:A napster for video has them wetting their pant

[Fizzlewhiff]

I already spent my $2500 on an HDTV and nothing looks better on it than a VHS copy of something I taped off Cinemax for later viewing. But even if I could make a high quality recording, there's only so many times you can watch quality movies like Space Truckers and Ice Pirates. I don't even see that big a market for good copies of blockbusters. I think the only movies that people are going to want to pirate are those that have not been released yet. Check out the IRC and see what I mean. Those movies are the ones people are after. Once something is released for cable or rental who needs it. If I can rent it for 1-2 bucks why spend money on disk storage.

It's an opportunity!

[hawk]

Ever since I realized that I could watch my football games at a sports bar, I've favored removing the television, but my wife won't go for it. But there's that faint glimmer of hope that analog broadcasts will end entirely and that I can just refuse to buy a new one . . .

Re:A napster for video has them wetting their pant

[SlippyToad]

I'm with you. I have no intention of buying this shit. I have better things to do than fight with the cable company through my TV. Fuck them all running.

Re:A napster for video has them wetting their pant

[dfay]

Yeah, it would suck if the MPAA were forced to endure the _increase_ in revenue that was recently forced upon the RIAA. (10% or something, as I recall.) Sure, there's no direct proof that the increase was caused by the advent of Napster, but, on the other hand, what else could be responsible for it? I don't remember anything revolutionary happening in music in the recent past that could account for it. Let's face it, 10% is a *lot* given those volumes. Plus, there's lots of anecdotal evidence. I know I downloaded some MP3s of some new bands (the kind that are unlikely to ever get radio time) and liked them so much I went out to get CDs. That can't be an isolated incident.

I know the pattern of use for music is different than movies, but not as different as you might think. I really only buy DVDs of movies that I know I'll want to watch more than once, because otherwise I'd rent. Several of those DVDs I've seen more than once now. If I were in the MPAA, I would say, "Bring on the MPAApster!"

I think the MPAA is just whining about the possibility that they might lose some control over their intellectual property. I think they don't like the feeling that they can't control their destiny, and will hurt the consumer badly to try to regain control. What they've forgotten is that their control is an illusion, because we (the consumers) define the value of their intellectual property anyway through our demand. So, they may be forced (like they were with VHS) to realize that making the customer happy is actually a good thing, and that we don't have to be adversarial just because of our producer-consumer relationship.

D

The future should have been so sweet.

[kobotronic]

I don't understand at all why the megalithic media corporations (MMCs) do all these stupid things. It presumably sounds so reasonable when they convince themselves that they need to "Protect" their precious Content against piracy, and that's why they absolutely feel they need to ship the precious Content with so much "Protection" regardless of what that means to the end users. They're just mere Consumers, after all. Consumers.

It appears that the media industry sees the ideal and most loyal consumers as immobile slabs of credit card enabled lard in la-z-boys, watching all the prepaid piped-in garbage (including the noxious advertisements) exactly on schedule when it's being broadcast, happily or meekly dealing with any and all obstacles the MMC throws in their way. The mere consumer should not be permitted to record or timeshift a show he already paid for; nor should the mere consumer be permitted to somehow access the precious Content outside the Proper Region. Imagine if those heathens in Europe or Asia got to see precious Content on DVD before their mandatory 8-month waiting period was up.

The future should have been so sweet. All the amazing technological media advancements over the past couple of decades have led to this point where affordable super high quality digital precision reproduction of sound and picture is available, often with greater fidelity than what was available in the recording studios just a few years back. The technology exists.

So what does Hollywood and MMCs do? They FUCK IT UP. About 1993 or so I saw an analog demo of HDTV. It was running off a special laserdisc, using a high resolution RGB projector to display the picture. It looked gorgeous, and the picture quality was stunning. I couldn't wait for HDTV broadcasts to begin and sets becoming available. Now, 8 years later ... I'm not so sure it was worth the wait.

Oh, those demo HD sets showing Barney in vivid purple and gree down at Circuit City look ... vivid ... sure enough, but where's the signal? From satellite. HBO. Pay per view channels. Schedules. You can't choose what movies you want to watch. You can just see Todays Movie. Content Packages and Crap. Barney the fucking dinosaur.

Where's the recording and playback devices? Oh, you can't have any. We the MMC don't want you to record our programming, that's PIRACY! We're not ashamed to spit our expressed contempt of your kind in your face. So no you can't record. Or playback. Or do anything. HD content will never be available as prerecorded DVD-like media, even though the technology exist, and it would be incredibly cool and convenient, because you'd just PIRATE it. So you'll just have to be content with watching precious Content and Barney the fucking dinosaur when we tell you to watch it.

Really, who'd PIRATE a HD movie? Someone with smarts, motivation and access to expensive equipment. Someone who'd have the skills to eventually hack and bypass whatever digital encryption measures you throw in their way. These people will find a way to make their HD set top boxes playback analog signals and they'll tell everybody how to do it. Sooner or later they'll find a way to build devices to record the encrypted signal and use it with a recorder to allow timeshifting or whatever. It's the way things work. Progress moves around obstacles, and eventually erodes them.

A particularly hated and obnoxious obstacle will not be bypassed, it will be demolished. The technically able will have the stuff no matter what. But "average" users of the digital media systems (who pay as much as everyone else) will suffer and have nothing but crippled useless technology.

So who benefits? MMC think they're doing the Right Thing to Protect their IP and the mere Consumers should understand and appreciate this. And Hollywood cheers. But the future is not very bright, it's littered with useless roadblocks, barbed wire and legalese. Any new Thing that comes out will have DRM and all kinds of copy protection shit and the whole culture of taking a music tape on the road in someone else's car or bringing over some old MST tapes to watch, will be illegalized and made impossible if MMC and Hollywood has their way. The only way to stop them is to not fall for the hypocrisy and bullshit, never EVER feel sorry for them, and do try to get the technical smarts - use the net, look around, you'll find ways to bypass all this crap they throw at you, like zonehacked and macromedia hacked DVD players or DAT tapedecks or whatever. You still pay for the content, but you can get to use it on your terms, which is the same right you always had with the old VHS and cassette tape systems. So in fighting the good fight you're just maintaining status quo; by letting the MMCs get their way they gain territory and they shouldn't be permitted to control more than they already do.

That is, if you still care to get the Latest and Newest thing, and use all this New Fancy Tech, because if you ask me, it's getting harder and harder to appreciate any of the precious Content. I can't watch TV anymore, it's too full of Stupid Rays and Junk. I sometimes turn on TLC for Junkyard Wars or something, but that's it. And I can only get TLC if I buy a PACKAGE with 200 otehr channels I don't watch. I'm disgusted and fed up with MMC. Yet I like movies. Old movies. Not necessarily the Box Office shit HBO plays on HDTV subscription service.

DVD is probably the Last New Thing I am going to subscribe to for a while ... ever since I got a Technical Solution to the MMC roadblocks on DVD, I've been able to watch any time I want and as many times I want any of the old movies I've collected (and paid for) from several Regions (zones 1,2 and 3), in nice quality on analog component video and I can make S-video duplicates if I -want-. It's too bad that it's still in the resolution of the Old 1940s TV standard, but the Fancy New High Definition Tech is too utterly fucked up right now for me to even consider getting into that market.

Maybe someday I can get a cheap HD set where I can playback my DVDs digitally and watch timeshifted or pre-recorded HD programming on a presumably illegal TiVo equivalent box.

Or whatever.

Why would DirectTV do this?

[Jordy]

I'm somewhat confused.

Why would DirecTV do this at the customer side when they control the broadcasting side?

DirecTV has to encode all stations via MPEG themselves; it seems perfectly sane to think that if they wanted the same functionality, they'd simply encode everything at a lower quality themselves and transmit the lower quality content.

This has the added benefit of saving bandwidth for other channels.

DirecTV already controls quality of the encoding based on the type of show. Sports broadcasts get significantly more bandwidth than the average movie due to the rapid camera movement.

It seems to me that the only reason they'd want to do it at the customer's end is if they wanted to shut off individuals. This would make sense if they wanted to charge different rates for quality.

Maybe I haven't had enough caffiene yet.

The death of media as we know it...

[nick_danger]

<preach href="choir">

Let's take a look at history: Popular media is full of images of pre-television people huddled around their radios listening to favorite radio shows. The public was conditioned to plan their lives around radio. Then came TV. This was a great leap forward as people could actually now SEE their favorite personalities. And since radio had conditioned people to plan their lives around a broadcast schedule, they had a large and obedient audience. Then came the VCR. And suddenly, people didn't have to plan their lives around broadcast schedules. Can't watch your favorite soap opera because work gets in the way? No problem! Can't watch your favorite sit-com because little Kimmy has a piano recital that night? No problem! Want to watch your favorite movie anytime you want? No problem!

Each of these technologies succeeded because they offered something truly revolutionary. Radio brought visitors into our home who would entertain us. TV added a second sensory input, enriching the entertainment experience. VCRs gave us the power to decide what we wanted to watch, when we wanted to watch it. We as a society became accustomed to being able to decide for ourselves how we spent our time. At the same time, television's all pervasive nature has somehow made it less important in our lives. How many of us live in an area where the local broadcast TV station doesn't broadcast 24x7?

And now, with the advent of digital copy controls, the content producers are once again in a position to dictate when we can watch what they produce, and even how or where we watch it.

I think we as a society have reached the point where it no longer matters; that TV has become a convenience, not a necessity. And if we are no longer able to time shift, most of us will never miss it. We'll move on to other activities. We'll find other things to occupy our free time. TV will become just another media form trying to grab our attention. The signal will devolve into so much noise, much in the same way as Usenet has reached max entropy. And we won't miss it.

In the big scheme of things, it's the media companies that will lose.

</preach>

Mod this UP

[linuxlover]

and go to the page and ./ it (just sent them a Q:-). Atleaset let them know they are not going to sing along by us.

no conspiracy, just marketing.

[jonbrewer]

Who wrote this article? Why does it so prominently feature information about the services and prices of the competition?

"According to Marc Lumpkin, communications manager for Echostar, the parent company of Dish Network, their Model 6000 HDTV set-top box does not contain CGMS, or any other system that can restrict which content you will be permitted to view in full 1080i or 720p via the 6000's high-definition analog outputs."

"The Model 6000 sells for $650 list, including the 8 VSB module for terrestrial HDTV broadcasts. Currently Dish Network has three HDTV channels: Showtime HD, HBO HD and HD pay-per-view, which is available 24 hours a day."

Taking into consideration the last two paragraphs of the article, I'd say the whole thing smacks of FUD being spread by Echostar - a perfectly normal thing for a competitor to do. Hell, I learned how to write press releases in the form of news while studying Advertising at a certain well-respected school of Journalism and Mass Communications. We talked frequently about how easy it was to get PR by writing articles for journalists who would then publish them as their own. :-)

I wonder if the article's stated author, Gary Merson, would comment on this? It would be interesting to know if EchoStar provided some or all of the content he claims is his own. Hmm...

big mistake

[Wansu]

Why don't they just design this box with a shovel on one end so it can dig it's own grave. I suppose they don't remember laser discs. The ability to record and time-shift is more important to people than video/audio quality. The people voted with their pocketbooks, much to RCA's dismay.

As in Computer Hacking

[undertoad]

"Of course, there are people out there with enough time and knowledge to do it and spread the info, but I doubt if an inexperienced or unmotivated person could do it."

This is the same situation with computer hacking: one person creates the exploit, many use it. It happens all the time. The only difference is that chipping requires money whereas the money required to use exploits (ISP connection fees, time) is largely invisable.