I STILL Want My HDTV

jhaberman writes: "Slate.com has an opinion piece talking about the horrific mess the HDTV rollout has been. It seems everyone's been to blame from the hardware manufacturers, to the cable/satellite companies, to the producers of the actual shows. I fell into the trap a year ago buying a top of the line Sony Wega digital TV and I STILL don't have ANY HDTV! Here's why..."

Comments

They have a point...

[NOT-2-QUICK]

From the article:

"Fox probably thought, 'Since widescreen at 480 is good enough for the millions who watch DVDs, why spend a lot more to please the few purists?'"

As much as I hate to admit it, from a purely business standpoint the network executives are probably being most prudent in not commencing with the conversion at this point.

Like any industry, television networks are in business to make money and their executives have an obligation to move forward with the best strategies possible to realize this goal. Unfortunately, what may make good business doesn't always equate to what promotes progress.

To use a simple metaphor, one need look only as far as the automobile industry. We have known for years that automobile emissions are bad for the environment. Additionally, we have much (if not all) of the technology available this very minute to switch to an alternative fuel source resulting in vehicles which would be much more 'environmentally freindly' - ethanol or electic power. Why don't we convert - because the automobile industry is just like the television industry, they are in it for the money. The obvious positive progress aside, such advances increase overhead and decrease corporate profit margins - aka 'bad business'...

I think it suck as much as anyone - I own a wide-screen, HDTV compatible set!!! However, putting myself in their position, I can't argue with their decisions at this point in time...

Re:They have a point...

[Zathrus]

"Fox probably thought, 'Since widescreen at 480 is good enough for the millions who watch DVDs, why spend a lot more to please the few purists?'"

As much as I hate to admit it, from a purely business standpoint the network executives are probably being most prudent in not commencing with the conversion at this point.

Uh... no.

The article was wrong here, as well as in some other points. Fox has done some of the conversion to HD already, although they're the slackest of the five broadcast networks (the leader is PBS, which probably surprises a lot of people). All the other networks are broadcasting in either 1080i or 720p at some point during the day.

The catch here is that the cost difference between broadcasting a high-def digital format vs a standard def digital format (both of which fall under the umbrella of DTV) is minimal. Really. Either way you have to buy a boatload of new equipment -- new digital cameras, digital editing equipment, encoders, decoders, a new antenna and all it's associated equipment, yadda yadda yadda. This is not cheap. By the time you've paid for all of that the difference between resolution costs is truely minimal.

So why doesn't Fox want to do HD? Because Rupert Murdoch would prefer to use the bandwidth, which was given to the broadcasters for free for digital interactive services, multiple channels, etc. Despite the minor nit that this was not what the spectrum giveaway was for.

Anyone who has actually seen HD on a decently setup monitor knows just how good it looks. And how shabby 480, even 480p, looks in comparison. The issues are rampant though, and I'm seriously doubting that HD will take off now.

The biggest issues, which were missed completely by the article, are the FCC and the content providers. The content providers (e.g. - hollywood) are once again wringing their hands over copyrights. A connection and encryption standard was finally set about a year ago, but there are still companies complaining that they want the right to reach into any recording device and delete, limit the viewings of, or otherwise invalidate a recording. The FCC has made all of the problems with HD even worse by doing absolutely nothing. They refused to beat the industry into a connection standard, a set-top box standard, or anything else beyond vague warnings that if the industry didn't set a standard then they would. Sometime. Really.

Probably the worst decision, and the one that is likely to doom HD to dieing, is the FCC's decision that HD does not fall under the "must carry" rules for cable. Under US law cable providers must carry local broadcast channels to their designated broadcast areas. When HD came about it was unclear if these new signals would fall under that law as well -- they were broadcast by the same channels, but it wasn't any "new" information, just higher bitrate. The cable companies don't want to touch HD because it eats too much of their bandwidth - which they'd rather use for another dozen or so low bitrate channels. The FCC ruled in favor of the cable companies. The problem is that 80% of the US receives ALL of its television over cable. And for HD, mere rabbit ears don't cut it. You have to have a full blown rooftop or attic antenna. Preferably directional. Because 8-VSB sucks.

If you really want to learn more about all of the crap that's gone on, I highly recommend Stereophile Guide to Home Theater. They've done a pretty good job of keeping on top of it, particularly on their website.

Problems...

[Loraque]

While I am happy to see some attention being bandied about concerning HDTV, I wish it were a little more accurate. It is a complicated subject though, so it is a comming thing in the articles that have been written to not be 100% factually correct.

For example, you do not NEED two dishes for DirecTV... only the one oval dish. Two would also work though. For Dish, you do need two.

Fox digital broadcasts are not simply "480 lines". They are 480p, like a progressive scan DVD player. While a FAR cry from CBS's 1080i, or from ABC's 720p, it is still much better than what most people see even on their DVD's. Fox has other problems in their presentation though. For example, they "zoom" the picture so it fills a 16x9 TV. This effectively cuts off an inch on the top and bottom of the picture. Why they don't just send it through standard, like ALL the other networks do, and leave it to the viewer to decide on how they want to view it (standard, stretched, zoomed, etc), is beyond me.

Another little known fact, is that the OTA (over the air) broadcasts that are available to most, comes in a better picture quality than analog cable, digital cable, or digital sattelite. It is a very noticeable difference too. The digital broadcasts done OTA are not compressed in any way... great 480i picture (usually better since many/most HDTV's use a line doubler of some sort). Broadcasts done over cable or satellite are all compressed to certain degrees, resulting in pixelation and downright nastiness. Some are better than others, but OTA is better than all of them.

If you like to watch TV, I think it is worth it. Check out www.antennaweb.org to see what digital channels are available in your area, and what antenna you would need to receive them... I guess there is a place to check.

Check out www.avsforum.com to learn all you could ever want to know about anything to do with Home Theater, HDTV, HTPC, and more.

The information is out there; the problem is that you have to go look for it. I agree... the sales people should know more about this stuff so consumers don't get screwed. But really, is sale person's lack of knowledge about a product they are selling something new?

Jeff

A brief history of HDTV:

[wunderhorn1]

(unfortunately I can't take credit for this one. It was written by a fellow slashdotter a while back, and I've lost the attribution. If the author is still out there, let me know and I'll send you a beer ;-) )

For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:

Here's how it went:

Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."

Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.

Re:No HDTV

[shut_up_man]

Let's see, HDTV's killer app that really takes advantage of increased screen definition, improved field of view, more vibrant colours and an overall enhanced sense of "being there"...

Ah yes, porn.

Well, we make HDTV....

[MikeP42]

Even though we're based in the UK, the company I work for has HDTV production facilities. This might seem crazy given that the UK has no intention of broadcasting HDTV, but there are other reasons to be involved.

For those of us who are used to PAL, the increase in quality that HD gives you is negligible in the home.

For those of you used to NTSC, it's huge. Progressive scan helps as well, but it's the stable colours and the resolution that make the difference.

However, the one thing we have been involved in has nothing to do with HDTV, it's to do with HD in the cinema. And the trend there is to cut the costs of making a movie by doing it all digitally. The nice people who make film stock rake in a small fortune every year on stock; in comparison, HD tapes are free! HD provides close to 2K resolution (a film industry term) and anything you see that has been into a computer for effects work will have been scanned in at 2K res.

So, HDTV is certainly not a technology looking for a market, it's just that in the US, the need to replace the awful quality of analog NTSC transmission with something better is much more pressing than in the PAL world. Hence the heartache.

Any transition is painful, but the real crime in the USA is that you're going to be saddled with an off-air transmission system that is not up to the job. The FCC, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that rather than fall in with the rest of the world - and the laws of physics - it will mandate the 8-VSB specification as the only modulation standard for the US Digital TV broadcast transition (rather than the more recent and just plain better COFDM standard). The FCC seems to have almost completely ignored the technical arguments - instead, it has followed the advice of various industry groups - like the ATSC - who's members control the 8VSB technology. So don't forget to blame the FCC is all this mess!

However, having spent some time in the US, I will also say that the thought of getting the crap that goes out on TV in sharper detail makes me shudder....

Why porn today sucks, and what to do about it

[cryptochrome]

Porn today sucks. It's boring. Like any other vicarious form of entertainment, it requires suspension of disbelief for it to be enjoyed. But with the lousy acting, directing, stories - and pretty much everything else - there's plenty of disbelief. Hell, with all the fake tits, formulaic scenes, and uninspired moaning they can't even make the sex believable. To say nothing of the offensive levels of sexism (contrary to popular belief porn is not inherently sexist), or numerous other factors. All it is is people screwing on camera for money.

All the more reason for the real networks and producers to get involved. Porn IS the killer app. Demand for porn is nearly universal among men, and if they bothered to work on the stories they could make it appealing to women too. One need look no further than the demand for Yaoi Doujinshi among women to see that this is true. There's money to be made, and Hollywood has more than enough of it. They certainly pay the actors enough. At an Indecent Proposal sum of one million dollars per episode each, I don't see why every episode of Friends DOESN'T have a different permutation of the cast members gettin' it on, culminating with an orgy in the series finale.

Can you imagine how much better porn could be with real acting, a hefty production budget, and a schedule based on weeks rather than days? I can. It's time to stop burying softcore smut on the premium channels, and bring porn to prime time.

HDTV- don't hold your breath.

[Ether]

A few points:
1. There is no static. You either get the channel or you don't.
2. Digital cable is not HD. In fact, for the most part, the quality of the signal decreases as Cable TV companies try to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth.
3. DVDs are not HDTV killer apps. they look better, but they're still 480p. True HDTV (1080i or 720p) is amazing, but HD-DVDs are held up for reasons related to the next point.
4. The real problem for studios is that there is no copy protection on HDTV hardware. They are afraid of giving out theatre-quality resolution video, and component outputs (95% of HDTVs) have no built-in copy protection. It's not enough that there is no commercially available HDTV signal recorders. Networks and studios are belatedly seeing HDTV as a chance to integrate copy controls to prevent unauthorized recording, copying, etc. to combat TiVO/Replay. There had been at least one HD-DVD player that was pulled from the market shortly after introduction. As part of this, the industry is moving to Firewire instead of component signals, because Firewire has copy protection built into the hardware, obsoleting 99% of existing hardware. A Firewire -> Component converter is unlikely, because that would defeat copy protection. This pisses the early adopters off and hardware manufacturers are not interested in producing cutting edge new hardware which may be obsolete under the new Firewire standard, and distributors and retailers don't want to be stuck with unsellable new hardware.
5. There are websites that have information about which channels are broadcasting around your area and antenna recommendations.

I am a broadcaster...

[El Camino SS]

Let me break it down for you... MONEY.

The natinal debt caused Bill Clinton's Administration to try to make the FCC become a profit center for the US Federal Govt. So why give the people their airwaves for free when you can sell the band and pay down the debt?

So they (the FCC) were going to sell the bandwidth to the telephone companies (where the money is in T-com) for cell usage, until high compression digital phones made the idea worthless several years into the plan. Every television engineer in the world saw this coming. They all said, "this whole plan will dry up when digital phones come along, because this is predicated on the idea that telecomm technology won't advance. Telecomm tech is one of the fastest advancing techs out there, if not the fastest." Of course, digital cells came out, and all of that HD band move for the sell off became useless. We (broadcasters) were stuck with the grandchild. Cable, of course, makes the highest profit in the industry, and hasn't had to do a fucking thing.

Now we (local television stations) are stuck with the idea of making millions of dollars of changes for a pittance of high end users... when most people watch TV for the shows, not the technical specifications. Many have never heard of HD.

Bill Clinton did this to us. He wanted ways to pay down the debt without slashing anything, so he hit the one industry that is one of the most regulated short of atomic energy, and wrapped it up in a bow that said, "progress." It was a big lie.

Why is is not here yet, even though it is regulated to be here RIGHT NOW?

Well, most of the broadcast quality digital equipment is made by single manufacturer overseas companies (like Sanyo or Toshiba), so they can charge literally whatever they want without worrying about anyone messing with them... why? They pushed the idea on the FCC, and they hold all the patents. Its literally the whole Rambus thing all over again. When the FCC says jump, local television stations are forced to say, "How high, Master?"

The current cost per HD user nationwide is several thousand dollars in the hole per user, if not tens of thousands, depending on the market.

I understand the reason for the FCC, but their power is absolute over private businesses that already give people what they want OR THEY FAIL MISERABLY. The truth is, the FCC lost touch along the way. Completely became a post for political insiders to sit on like being the Drug Czar, and now they just constantly muck up a system that is extremely market reactive. No one in the FCC knows shit about television. They have a late 70's Sesame Street NPR attitude about one of the most cutthroat businesses out there.

HDTV is not in your hometown market because they can't afford it. Period. The Gov't can say, "We need you to be HD NOW!" and they respond with, "We just got hit about as bad as the airlines, we just laid off workers... we don't have millions lying around for 15 A/V enthusiasts. Up yours. Pull our license. See what the people think about that when people can't get 'free' local TV all over the country."

That is where we stand. The TV stations try to look like their complying, because they like their license. The FCC wants a cool new standard, no matter what it costs to the common man and television stations.

And it was all over trying to sell off your public trust of the bandwidth to big rich phone companies, because politicians like big government programs and waste, and it was an idea that was fundamentally flawed because they thought the world was going to be analog forever. Way to go FCC. Are YOU EVEN AWAKE?