Slashdot Mirror
FCC Pushes Digital TV and Digital Restrictions
Mansing writes "The Washingington Post has an article describing the FCC's new push to move digital TV more into the homes of consumers. While this sounds like a good thing, read on. The Congressmen who are "helping" this to happen are none other than Senator Fritz "Disney" Hollings and Representative Billy "Baby Bell" Tauzin. And why do you think they want digital TV rolled out faster? Can you say Pay to View?"
forgive me, but why would a baby bell (i assume you mean phone) want you to have digital tvs in my home?
One day in the not-so-distant-future..... Everything will be a vending machine: Television, Roads, Your own computer, printers, car radio, your car.
Everything will be a pay-per-use thing and it is disgusting. Full of greed and corruption.
You can thank your corrupt (puppet) senators for providing us with this wonderful new system.
-s
This page left intentionally blank.
Great, like I want to pay for something that I have less capabilities with. I pay to watch the shows, then pay to record the shows, then probably pay to play back the recording. Screw HDTV. I'll stick with my standard set.
They're trying to push digital in the UK too but the cost to consumers to convert is pretty steep considering how close the deadline is.
This is true, unless value is added.
Not too many years ago, all television was free (as in beer). Then along came cable. The added value was the additional choices in programming, and people bought it. If a "pay to view" model develops from digital television, people will buy it adds value.
You don't get it. If it's all digital, and TVs are digital, it'll be just like you have it. Each TV will be capable of receiving an independant channel. Right now you have to have an analog tuner with every CRT you own. It's just that there's a tuner built into each tv (some have two or more). When and if HDTV takes off, you'll see the convergence of the "set-top box" and the "HD Ready Monitor" into HDTVs that feel just like the sets you already have.
Now...cable and satellite - that's another fight.
THe problem is, that means all us early adoptors of HDTV are basically being told to go fuck ourselves. My set has three connectors (Component) which are basically Hi-Def analog inputs. It requires a box to tune the HDTV (or even just DTV) signals in (so in 2006, I'll *need* to have a box).
Well if some have there way, then basically no box can ever be made that decrpyts HI-def signals and outputs analog. Since it would be outlawed. They want a DVI port on the back of DTV sets, and thats it. Encrpyted stuff goes in, nothing comes out.
THe situation with OTA (over the air) is worse. Since you can't encrypt a broadcast, they won't likely show movies OTA in Hi-Def (the FCC mandate is for DIGITAL tv, and does not say anything about High-Definition), and so what will happen is whenever someone isn't comfortable with the signal being unencrypted OTA, then can choose to downconvert it back to DTV resolutions (so you don't have such a high quality to pirate).
This all makes me sick. I don't know where this will all end, but there's going to be some serious backlash if this keeps up. Consumers will NOT tolerate this kind of abuse. Fair use rights are being destroyed. HDTV will never catch on light this.
Ahh well, at least my DVDs look REALLY nice now, thats all I really wanted. Hopefully the dust will settle on this mess within the next 2 years (when my TV's warranty expires and it blows up). ;)
Consider these two statements:
Additionally, he wrote: "The plan is purely voluntary but, as you can see, contemplates that each relevant industry will play a significant role. I intend to seek commitments along these lines in the near future."
The FCC said the chairman does not have specific enforcement measures in mind if the participants do not meet his goals.
Reminds me of Compulsory Voluntary Service (CVS), a term I learned in high-school (Hurlstone Agricultural). The boarding students would "volunteer" for 5AM dairy duty or suffer the consequences.
I'd really like to utilize my HDTV -- heck, I'd settle for DT only, but I'm not willing to fork out $500-600 for a tuner, especially with the lack of content today. Tuner prices won't come down until the demand goes up, and---sing along with me---there won't be any demand until there's content, which won't happen until demand goes up.
One wonders what would have happened if these guys treated TV and radio in their infancy the same way they treat P2P or any other digital alternatives today. We'd probably still be going to small black and white movies, and there'd be no TV, radio, cassettes, CDs, blah blah. Oh, and the entertainment industry wouldn't be as big as it is today.
Idiots.
Yeah, right.
Its ironic that Milton Berle died last week, yet the TV broadcast standard is still the same as when he started in the late 1940s, with the exception of a color overlay. When I look at NTT six megapixel or IBMs nine megapixel computer displays and compare them to broadcast TVs quater megapixel resolution, I am sadly disappointed in TV's lack of progress.
You know the thing I really hate about digital cable and satallite...You have to have to rent the converter boxes/pay per box. I am one of those types of people that has a television in every room. I want to have cable on all of those televisions, but I don't want to pay for every single hookup. I would buy the boxes, but as soon as I buy them, the cable company would probably require me to buy new ones.
The other problem happens when I want to tape one show on the VCR and watch another. You just can't do that with one cable box.
It would be nice if there was some kind of standard built into all new televisions/VCRs that could descramble the digital signal so you wouldn't need a box.
Has anyone found a cheap solution for this problem?
Foondawgy
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Lets see 50 channels all at once over analogue or one channel at a time over digital.
WTF? I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Digital Cable is *not* the same thing as Digital TV (ATSC standard). Digital cable does compress several normal NTSC and send them over a a single channel. But...
Why do people think digital is an *improvement*? I mean I have 5 devices capable of watching cable in my house. Had I switched to digital I would only be able to watch on one. [basically every member of my family has a set in their room].
Um... I would imagine, no matter what, you just stick a box there and you can tune in any channel you want... ?? Why can you only watch one channel at a time?
Until they make it so you can watch on multiple sets from the same feed I can't reason why Digital cable would be better.
See above... wtf?
as indicated by the multi-cast of the NCAA. Four standard definition broadcasts squeezed into one 6MHz channel is no better than DirectTV or Dish, which already broadcast "digital" TV.
The lack of discussion about High Definition in favor of digital is dissappointing. Digital looks only marginally better than properly transmitted and received analog - worse in some cases. Talk about being duped. Joe Sixpack is gonna plunk down $2000 just to find a picture that's just 480 lines - not much better than he had. It's missing the entire opportunity to maximize the clarity of the picture.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Pushing Digital into homes is even more bad news. Will they force people to use even more Disney channels to pay more premiums on? This sucks.
As much as I also hate hollings and tauzin, neither of them are listed as supporting this FCC initiative. it merely states that powell wrote to hollings and tauzin. so i think this might be a little inflamatory at this point.
Digital TV
Pushed by politicians seems
Like a bad idea
Can I say, I wont watch?
If we are forced into a "pay to view" regime, Americans will watch less television. Perhaps they will talk to their neighbors, take up a hobby, read a book, exercise (gasp!)...perhaps this is not a bad thing at all.
cleetus
no.
Commercials like those stupid "it's the static" cell phone commericals? I hate digital cell phones. At least with an analog I can here the person or somewhat watch the program. With digital I won't see anything under marginal signal conditions just like I can't here who I'm talking to with marginal digital cell phone connections.
I already see problems while watching "Enterprise" on the local UPN station and there digital feed unsyncs.
Soon HDTV copy protection will be built into the display, not some external box. This will severely limit the ability to decode signals before they disappear into your set.
The really bad news is that once this takes place, the current HDTV sets will be worthless. Yes... your $3k set will be need to be replaced again.
Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1493&a=24658 , 0.asp
First off, the sets are still over $900. To get people to buy these, they *NEED* to replace existing ones for the same cost. Meaning, a good 30" HDTV should run around $200. This isn't going to happen. Another thing, HDTV, as far as I know, isnt recordable by a TIVO .. The best invention ever made in the past 10 years. NO WAY is it worth giving that up, even if picture quality is 200 times better. If i can't watch programs when I *want*, then I wont watch anything at all. Too many people are now in control that they need to bend to *Our* rules, or we just unsubscribe. Cable is expensive enough as it is, any more price hikes and we'll see the companies start to collapse from everyone going Satellite.
The bandwidth the FCC is giving away used to be used for radio astronomy. Now not only can't it be used for that, but leaks from the broadcast towers (TV towers are among the most notoriously leaking broadcasters) are going to corrupt other vital bands as well.
Please, write to your congresscritter and ask them to consider the scientific ramifications of pushing HDTV down our throats.
I'm not buying a TV like this.
I want all my fair rights use of anything sent into my home as I do today with analog.
If not, I'm not interested. I'm not going to buy a new TV, a decoder, a new VCR, a new *everything else* and then be saddled with a restriction that I can't tape what the Networks don't want me to.
I mean, welcome to 1969.
Vote with your wallets folks. That will kill all this nonsense faster than any government decree.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Just maybe when people realize they have to pay real money to see [insert your least favorite show here] they'll think twice about watching it. They might even notice that shelf of books decorating their wall.
It's easy enough to watch drech when it's free. I suspect most people won't pay for it though. This might improve the quality of programming overall and get people to only spend time on worthwhile TV (pick your definition).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
All your NTSC DVDs oughta look good on HDTV's. I realize HDTV is different than Digital TV, but you get the point.
I tell people they are so stupid to build a collection with current DVDs.
TiVo 3:16
no, you're wrong about that - every digital TV system that I've seen working or proposed includes some kind of card-based conditional access. So that means multiple decoding boxes (like the 2 boxes / one dish set ups that many of us UK Sky Digital users have). With the collapse of ITV Digital in the UK, we may yet see a change to this policy just to make sure that the investment in DTT hasn't been wasted - I'm counting on a govt + BBC stitch up for this one...
That was classic intercourse!
This is the perfect time to consider furthering *analog* technologies.
The way things are headed, all media will soon be distributed in digital form, and include the inevitable DRM and DMCA hooks. We need to stop fighting a losing battle, and start working on analog technologies.
We should be working on making the highest quality analog copies of music and video. Studies have shown that human ears can't detect the differences between (for example) CD quality digital audio, and a high quality analog copy. Many people even prefer the "warmth" of analog recordings. On the other hand, I doubt that the anamolies that are considered "wamth" on an audio recording would be considered the same on a video recording, but that's just another reason to further analog research and development.
Since so many so-called "pirates" like to point out that they are only making "backup copies" for their own use, the quality loss due to an analog format would be negligable, even with today's mainstream technology.
This is definitely pushing the world towards a retro, Mad Max type of existance.
A lot of people don't seem to realize that if you can see it on your TV, it can be copied. If you can hear it on your speakers, it can be copied.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
It's called the OFF switch. Once we start using it, the Disney droids will go into full retreat.
Article says:
Finally, Powell suggested rollout dates over the next four years for television manufacturers to step up production of sets that include digital tuners, as well as set-top boxes for older TVs that process the digital signal.
So I guess you'd have to buy one of those boxes for each group os TVs you want to tune independently. At most one for each.
But wait a minute! Wouldn't such a box be illegal under the CBDTPA??? Ha! They want to restrict so much it's starting to mess even their own plans!
Can anyone explain to me why reading a book is better than watching TV?
I can think of hundreds of books which are worse than (above) average TV and lots of programs which are better than an average paperback.
Let me guess. You have one cable box and you're splitting the signal to all of your sets. Maybe you should consider paying for a separate box per TV set.
Let me get this straight. "Consumers" aren't buying HDTV gear, advertisers aren't supporting HDTV broadcasts, and networks aren't putting all their shows on HDTV. It seems that nobody cares enough about HDTV to pay for the change from analog.
I'm really to see the compelling state interest here. Hasn't the market spoken? How did this become a federal issue? What exactly is the problem the FCC is trying to solve?
Maybe the US Goverment, Congress, and the FCC can give each citizen $1,700 to buy one of these damn things. Because, until digital TV's cost around $300, I'm not buying one. Why? So I can watch Southpark in HDTV? Screw that.
From the article: "...pay to view..."
..Excuse me, but don't I already "pay to view" television?
With cable, you only need the box for the so-called premium channels.
Some people buy one box and put it on their main tv just to watch movie and PPV channels.
With the rest of them, they just plug the cable right into the coax port on the back of the tv and watch all the standard channels.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?
For example, advertisers tend to like shows that are non-controversial (unless it's sensationally controversial, like Temptation Island or The Bachelor) and inoffensive. Regardless of their precise preferences, their preferences tend to more directly impact on what shows make it on the air than our own preferences.
Aside from that, wouldn't it be more efficient for me as a consumer to directly pay the producer of the content?
Anyway, I'm just curious about what people think about this. Is it really better to have an advertising driven TV industry or not?
Sujal
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
Nope, they don't want the boxes, they want you to replace every tv in the house with TVs with the boxes built in..... Why should the government only make consumers pay a couple of hundred to TV manufacturers when they can force consumers to pay thousands? I mean, after all the government is out to maximize profit for companies at the cost of the people. That is why the U.S. war for independence was fought, right?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yeah, my cable (TV) company was bought out by Adelphia. Now, my family never paid for HBO, Cinemax, etc. - too expensive, my parents wouldn't pay for it - but now we can't get it unless we get digital cable. That just pisses me the fuck off. I mean seriously, they are forcing me to get a bullshit service that I never wanted and never will want - and worse yet, how many "alternative" cable companies do you see? *looks around* That's right. None.
And oh yeah, they promised me my Tech TV so I could laugh at the assholes on The Screensavers. And they still haven't given it to me.
~grumbly face~ I hate Adelphia.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
"Um... I would imagine, no matter what, you just stick a box there and you can tune in any channel you want... ?? Why can you only watch one channel at a time?"
Cause he needs five boxes. One for each device. One box per feed. His devices don't have digital tuners.
He probably wasn't around for when cable boxes/converters were the only way to watch tv cause TV's were not cable ready.
"Until they make it so you can watch on multiple sets from the same feed I can't reason why Digital cable would be better. "
I do see this point being an issue though because right now my cable co loves the idea of charging customers per outlet and enforcing it.
...."accidentally" letting free-to-air smut broadcast, but only on digital.....that will instantly sell a few million more sets. Humankind is nothing if not predictable.
Digital broadcast signals paired with digital televisions would allow viewers to watch high-definition programs, see more channels and use their sets in interactive ways, such as clicking their remote control to buy products shown on the screen.
... what!.... aw... $#!^... sis, you sit on the remote again?"
Consumer: "Lookit, who'd by that $8,000 cubic zirconia lawn chair/bowling ball washer/cooler/hibachi thing. It ain't got no cup holder!"
TV: "Thank you for purchasing the slothmaster 8000 lawn bowling chair"
Consumer: "What?
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Possible a warning to the US FCC if they try and get a bit carried away with the whole "wow its
digital it must be good" marketing BS. The truth is that your average Joe doesn't give a damn
whether his TV signal is analogue , digital or gets send via carrier pidgeon , as long as he can
watch football / soaps etc and the picture isn't too crap (in fact in a lot of cases an analogue
signal gives a superior picture but thats another
argument)
U.S. consumers hurt from the FCC's restrictions on Digital TV.
...Korean engineers released a report that should be of substantial concern to American television viewers. The test compared two broadcast standards for digital TV - the standard adopted by the U.S. versus a competing standard chosen by just about every other country on the planet. The result: the U.S. standard was found to be inferior to the so-called COFDM standard.
- John Merline
HDTV's Blury Future
85% of Americans think this signature sucks
In New Orleans, LA, amongst other places, the "Baby Bells" have already tried this out- isn't likely they will put any digital tv systems in place any time soon.....
Am I the only one that has thought of how this may be the way to wrangle society away from their dependency on television? I for one would watch less TV if I were paying per-view. Which is not to say I'm for PPV television, but their might be at least a silver lining should it become a reality.
The ability to monopolize an industry is insignificant, next to the power of the source.
Check out www.benton.org for all kinds of nifty broadcasting issues.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
I hope Mr Hollings gets his way and people, reluctant to be owned, suddently discover a whole new world out there, one they can be part of instead of watch.
Once availability or inconvenience reaches a threshold people change behaviour.
If pay per view and STUPID content control takes over, people will just play more golf, more football or karting, or take to amateur dramatics, or evening coding in pascal.
Forget interactive TV, interact! In the real world you can contribute!
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Many cable companies offer digital servies (with a set top box) along with analog services. Is there not a standard for this? It would seem to me that the most obvious path to pushing digital TV would be to require cable companies to either charge for the digital set-top box or offer a discount if the set was already 'digital-ready'. (Assuming there is a standard, and it would be up to the FCC to set one--like they did for AM stereo) I would certainly pay $150 more for a set that saved a $10/month set-top box fee. Since the cable-company digital set-top boxes are everywhere, why should an OTA box still cost $700-$1000?
This is bascially the same path that lead to cable-ready TVs 20 years ago, and that was a fairly quick and painless transition. Is there a completely different standard for digital cable and digital OTA? Or is the real problem the encryption and the pay-per-view that seems to dominate digital cable channels?
Let's see.
I make a book..... 500 people buy the book. some copy it in a photocopier ( maybe even a good copy ) and give the copy to somebody. I just lost 1 sale for each person that made a copy and possibly more.
my solution?
I create a book that can't be opened without a special key, can't be read without a special set of glasses ( which is now government mandated ) can't decode the text without a special apparatus. Now those 500 I would have had are disgusted and stop reading my books.. But Hey, I won. I stopped the few that were copying my books.
I understand the fear of how easy it is that digital copies can be made but those are the same fears that were expressed over VCR's.
Ultimately, the reason HDTV isn't happening isn't the fault of the manufacturers or the broadcasters - it's because consumers don't really want it. What pisses me off is that it's being forced down my throat like forced bussing to desegregate schools! (And all of you in the Cleveland area in the 80s know how that went...)
Why is this necessary? Why am I not being allowed to vote for this with my wallet? How does entertainment (especially idiotic entertainment like TV) get to be this stinkin' important?
The Facts:
1) The quality isn't nearly as earth-shattering as I was led to expect, at least not on the demo TVs at Best Buy. (I suspect they aren't really showing a real HDTV signal, but some kind of enhanced analog simulation)
2) With the possible exception of sports, the improved quality certainly doesn't make the shows any better.
3) The set/tuner will cost >$1000.
4) Programming will include DRM and will be PPV.
Which item in this list makes me want to run out and buy one of these beauties? THIS SUCKS! It's my money, I want the control and I'd rather do without than pay my hard earned dough for this cheese.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - new stuff do not replace old stuff because it's better, but because it's cheaper. The market does a great job of figuring that out on its own without the government intrusion, thank you.
The esteemed senators can go to h-e-doublehockeysticks.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I wouldn't mind it (paying for TV)...
As long as I only paid for what I watched: it would be alright by me... Right now my cable company offers 50-100 channels for $40 a month. The problem: I only watch 5 channels. $40 for 5 channels watched by 1 person (maybe an hour a night) seems a bit steep to me.
It may also reduce the number of commercials they have to cram into each show (although cable seems to have just as many as regular TV).
They'll more likely than not pass a law requiring viewing of the damn things in your spare time. After all, they're more than happy to pass other stupid laws to ensure the bottom line of the Media Industries' business model (never mind the fact that new tech broke the damn thing...).
What really rankles is US protectionism though. For instance, their digital terrestrial trials were rigged to come out in favour of VS8 (I think that was the name) over COFDM which is what the UK and most of Europe use (they are both ways of encoding digital data on radio waves). They repeated the trials in face of massive international criticism and found that COFDM was superior, but decided to go with VS8 anyway because the American electronics manufacturers wanted protection from European companies that already had established bases in the technology.
The UK basically kicks the ass of every other country in the world when it comes to digital TV, with 3 different platforms all highly technically capable. The recent ruckus over ITV Digital doesn't change that - by all rights the US should be at an equal level with us or further ahead, but they are still bitchfighting over what standards to use.
I'd much rather pay than have to watch commercials. Let's face it, tv without commercials is definitely worth it (ie. HBO makes better shows than ABC).
These devices would then need DVI in's to accept the encoded signals, then decode them, record them, then re-encode them and send them to a DVI out - still encrypted??? Is that right? I'm not sure, but I do know that if a VCR/PVR has to decrypt the video stream to record it, we'll soon find someone who has hacked their VCR/PVR device to direct unencrypted video streams somewhere other than where the broadcasters intend.
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
Of course books will all be regulated digital devices too, with equal pay-per-read pricing.
I am about to cancel my cable anyway, mainly because it sucks so bad I don't even bother watching TV anymore. So why the eff do I want to pay more for something that I won't even be using?
People, if you really want to stop the corporate infringement upon your lives and what you percieve to be your rights, DON'T BUY THEIR STUFF.
This is good for our rights because up till now the encroachment into fair use and the increase in pay per use type delivery systems has mainly affected geeks and tech people. With this move to push digital media with DRM into the everyday lives of consumers, the loss of fair use rights is going to be much more apparent to the general public.
This is good because, up to this point, there has been only a relatively small group trying to prevent these schemes from taking root. Legislation like the DCMA doesn't really affect the majority of people in a tangeable way. They may break the law without knowing it, but it doesn't interfere with their lives much. But with things like this and the SSSCA or whatever it is called now, DRM and the like will be intrusive on the lives of people.
People will be much more aware of the usurpation of their rights at the hands of the government and corporations, and I don't think they will like it too much. The good Sen. Hollings may change his tune when he feels the wrath of stay at home soccer moms when they find out they can't watch their favorite soap opera because of his actions.
From Richard Stallman "Copyright Vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks" (PDF)
Copyright today no longer has the effect of an industrial regulation. It's now a restriction imposed on the public at large. As a consequence of this it is no longer painless. It is also no longer easy to enforce; in fact, you see increasingly draconian measures being proposed in the name of copyright enforcement. Prison sentences of years threaten for those who make copies and hand them out to their friends in order to be helpful.
In fact the US today is more or less imitating the Soviet Union in its effort to stamp out forbidden copying and distributing of information. The Soviet Union made great efforts to stamp out a practice that was known as samizdat--people making some copies of a work and passing them on to their friends, who would then make more copies and pass them on again, an underground activity in the Soviet Union. To stamp it out, they used a series of different measures.
One was every piece of copying equipment had to have a guard to watch what was being copied, and make sure that it wasn't used for forbidden copying. (This is why people had to do it using typewriters and multiple carbons.)
The second part was punishment for people caught doing forbidden copying. They would put you in prison and send you to Siberia.
Third, to help catch people, asking for informers: asking people to rat on their neighbours and co-workers, to the information police, which I suppose was the militia and rather than the KGB.
Fourth, also to help catch people, collective responsibility: "You, you're going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison -- so watch them carefully!"
Fifth, propaganda starting in childhood, teaching everyone that only a nasty enemy of the people would do this forbidden copying.
These same methods are now in use in the US.
First, guards watching copiers -- well, in copy shops, there are human guards watching for this very reason. But, because it costs too much to have humans watching all the computers, instead they are installing robot guards -- that's the idea of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that software goes into your computer to restrict what you can copy, and it is a crime to by-pass that software or even tell people how. This information is being treated as even more dangerous than how to make an atomic bomb, and that is perfectly understandable, because an atomic bomb could only be used to kill people, whereas this might endanger the profits of the corporations which the US Government exists to serve.
And then, harsh punishments. Well, a few years ago, if you made copies of something and handed them out to your friends, just to be nice, this was not a crime and this had never been a crime. Then they made it a felony -- you could be put in prison for years now in the US for doing this; even, I think, 10 copies of some popular software packages is enough to put you in prison for years.
And, third, to help catch people in the US, there have been ads on the television asking people to rat on their co-workers to the information police, which there is known as the software publishers association. And then, collective responsibility. In the US, this has been done through Internet Service Providers, who have been conscripted into watching their customers and enforcing these rules on them. In fact, the only way the ISP can avoid being held legally responsible for whatever its customers publish, is to have a uniform and invariable policy of always taking down any material within 2 weeks of the first complaint, so that today, if someone objects to your site, claiming copyright infringement -- you don't even get your day in Court, you just get unplugged.
Then, finally, propaganda starting in childhood -- that's what the word "pirate" is all about. It is a way of saying that copying something to share it with your neighbours is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.
Nope !!!!
Digital cable already require a set top box & a subscription to go with each TV. On the analog cable, you can have as many TV tuned to as many channels as you want all on the same cable charge.
Last time I counted I have 2 VCR, 1 TV with 2 tuners, 1 TV card in my PC and that's for a single person.
Each digital TV would require a subscription (similar to a software license) to watch. So if you have 5 TV, you would have to get 5 of these receivers (may come with TV) with 5 smardcards and pay 5X on your cable bill.
Which part do you NOT understand.
TV's future is going to be like those DVD disks where you can't fast-forward past the copyright notices/trailers, and your DVD player brings up a "stop" sign, or (in the case of the PS2) states "This operation is not permitted on this disk".
Change channel? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
Turn off television ? "This operation is not permitted on this channel".
And don't forget the truly digital wired house. When you try to leave the living room while a commercial is on, the door shuts fast, locks itself, while the TV bleeps "This operation is not permited on this channel"
:o)
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
I am getting truely tired of Large Corps creating things that they say are "Good for honest Consumers"
Give me a break, When Napster was around the Music industry was doing more business not less
Now they want to encrypt CD's..
Tax CD-R Sales
Attempted to tax Email/Internet Usage
Prevent Analog Output
Force new technology to have to occure
Create Standard that make what should be brand new technology useless
ALL I can say is that this is retarted!!
Sure I copy CD's and rip MP3's...Hey Sony did you ever think I was ripping them for the SONY MP3 Player in my car?
When is enough, enough. Large corporations (Microsoft, Soft, The US Government) are selling out on our freedoms under the argument that they are protecting there copyright.
Okay lets go line by line...
Encrpt CDs...Sony Sold the CD and the MP3 Play (not that I would buy Ceilen) are they going to refund my money on one or the other since they are preventing me from using it for the propose they sold it for.
Tax CD-Rs..Okay then while we are at it can we please tax Film, Tapes, Paper, and Mud? I am sure I can copy things on all of these types media.
Tax the internet and EMAIL..To my knowledge this died but I am sure it will get suggested again so here I go. The post office feels that the internet stole its business with email...It did and it is called a better product, does this mean that if I make a computer then someone makes a better computer I can sue for the lost profit?
Analog Output..So if I want to record movies of my sisters kids I have to encrypt them? Or have totally different technology to display them, The thing that made this how age great was that things were portable and replicatable, if that goes away I think the love for the industry will to.
Making Technology useless..The companies would be selling out on the very people that supported a new techonolgy, if no one buys it when it is cool new technology it never becomes cheap household technology, this cycle of pissing off the supports can't last long.
Finally yes the US government is a Corperation.. They are in it for the profit, maybe not at the funumental level but at the person checking the box to approve these laws, they don't get the votes to run again in office without the money from large backers, so they support larger backers not the working classes that put them in office. Lets get a limit on the years someone can spend in senate. Then at least the last few years can be honest (hehehe like that will happen). Sorry for the rant.
The last thing I want is an interactive tv which I can buy things with the remote controll. Sure, I'm all over having a better picture for watching movies, but don't force feed me please. I know, I am a consummer, and my job is to consume, but please, let me choose if I want to have an interactive TV. All I really want is a hidef tv monitor (not computer monitor, the TV's with no speakers). Leave the consumer choice as to when and how to consume, we all need personal interaction, or we will go crazy.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
Not to troll, but it's not like the majority of content out there is actually worth protecting. Soap operas? Censored, cut , full of commercial movies? Sitcoms (although the simpsons might be worth it)? Tampon commericals?
Stuff that is worth watching (like the sopranos, other hbo stuff) has normally been encrypted in the past, so it not like that is much of a change, but when you can buy a season on dvd for $60, its not that big of a deal)
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I have been looking into getting Digital Cable (Time Warner in NYC) since I saw how vastly improved the picture quality is on my brother-in-law's 60" TV. He pays $130 (including Road Runner) and supposedly gets 630 channels digitally, which sounds like a great deal. The box has a ton of handy features, like a guide channel that lets you select what to watch while the current channel is displayed in a box in the top-right corner of the screen.
However, after being stuck at his house for a few hours the other day, my opinion of digital cable has changed significantly. There was lots of artifacting on several channels. The DTV ads berate Satellite for poor picture quality, but there was lots of artifacting as well as other image defects like the image pausing for several seconds. Of the 630 supposed channels, I think about 50 were music stations, 100-200 were pay-per-view, and appx 100 of them did not even exist - the guide channel went from like channel 313 to 414, skipping 100 channels!
In short, digital (at least in my neighborhood) is garbage and a waste of money. Better (yeah right) picture quality is not reason enough to change. How about better program quality? I am sick of fucking sitcoms, and even Enterprise is a piece of dung compared to TNG and the rest of the Star Trek franchise. Why doesn't Senator Hollings put some pressure on his beloved Disney (owner of ABC) to create a decent show for once?
...who knows for sure though.
:) But other than that, I don't watch TV... just DVDs I might rent or buy. (And I have the first four volumes of Best of Friends!! :) hehe)
First of all, I see TV in a similar light to "smoking." It's a bad habit to get into. But I guess that's where the similarities end.
I watch TV but usually, it's just to watch "Friends." That's just about it. The closest I get beyond that is to download Star Trek Enterprise episodes from a P2P sharing network... almost have the whole collection.
It could mean that in the future people will not watch nearly as much TV as we do now. It's kinda hard to say but I'm hopeful.
Back to smoking, though, the increase in cost of cigarettes hasn't deterred too many smokers and I'm sort of at a loss as to why that is. How much is a pack these days? I have no idea, but when I was a kid my brother had me run to the store and get them for him at $1/pack... gives you some clue about how long ago that was... I've not bought a pack since those days so I don't know.
In any case, maybe now's the time to ween yourselves from the 'idiot box' as I've heard many people call it. There's a whole world out there... check it out before it's gone.
Theater is a wonderful and underutilized form of entertainment.
I've seen the big time productions -- Le Miz and Miss Saigon, but while they are fine occasionally, they have the soul of a hollywood blockbuster -- which is to say none at all. They're fine occasionally, but in truth I've had much more entertainment out of local community theater, college and even high school productions (this also points out that there is probably a lot more theater, and a lot more affordable around than you think). The mega hits have the flavor of corporate authorship -- uncontroversial, safe and bland. By rights, George Bernard Shaw should be a geek icon.
Theater is fun, it gets you out of the house and out with other people. It is also interactive in a subtle way; no two performances are ever exactly the same.
Soon, entire movies will probably be shot with entire digital casts. Songs will be sung by computer generated singers. I don't have anything against this, but isn't the same as listening to a singer go for a long high note and wondering if his voice will crack. There is a drama to being in the presence of human skill used with risk that you can't. Would you watch the olympics if the athletes were digitally generated?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
From the inside trade journels I have seen over the last few years basicaly state. Joe sixpack is not buying it. There is way too much in option setups etc for even the best sales person to convince Joe to buy.
Also in the last few months was stated that the FCC was retinking the whole mess due to the time table being completly out of wack.
Under current MPAA ideas, I pay not for a DVD, but for a license to view the content on that DVD. If I break my physical disc, but still retain the store's receipt, the box it came in, and even the broken media, is there any way I can get a replacement for that disc? Under their terms and conditions printed on the box, I think that I'm entightled to that agreement, could we sue the DVD distributors if they don't comply?
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
2006 is four years away. Do they really think they will get everyone who has a tv set to switch in four short years, when pretty much nobody has thus far? If the analog channels are turned off on schedule, I will eat my hat with lox and cream cheese.
sulli
RTFJ.
The tag-team hit of no content, high cost, no demand is what's holding all this back. Trying to legislate through it isn't going to work, especially considering it's not that much better than what we have - and never will be. HDTV may have more megapixels, but that doesn't make the shows any better, which is what really matters. The key is content, and there's no way to improve that significantly, right?
Wrong. You can vastly improve the way that content is delivered. The key is (as I mentioned in my last post, check my list) Personal Video Recorders. You know, Tivos, PVRs. A properly designed digital system integrating a storage device and programability can draw consumers into the fold with a combination of digital quality; personal time-shifting so that you never miss a show; multi-source delivery methods including broadband for delivering personal videos, amateur productions (the ultimate public access), re-runs (so you don't have to keep watching just to find one show), and low-demand content (like international television); better ways of finding and recommending shows (even the small ones) via interactive methods, on-line communities, and playlists; enhanced playback with dubbing, subtitling, commenting and so forth allowing a broad audience and user-tailored delivery; less FCC censoring with integrated ratings systems; and even novel content like interactive television and games.
At the same time, it gives the broadcaster and producers many advantages including: better-targeted and more effective advertising; better options for pay-per-view delivery; a more efficient distribution system; a more forgiving and less directly competitive environment enabling smaller producers and less flashy shows to find their audience; and simpler, more effective wide distribution.
Essentially, what will drive user demand for digital TV is not digital quality, but digital flexibility. DVD isn't beating VHS just because it's a better picture, but because of all the bells and whistles that come with the disk, its' more robust storage medium, and yes, even the ability to make perfect copies and distribute them.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Disclaimer: IANATBIWTOE (I am not a Trekkie, but I watch the occasional episode.)
There was an episode of ST:TNG where some Americans are woken up after being in a deep-space deep-freeze for a few hundred years. When one of the guys asks an Enterprise crewmember about TV, he is told that in the 21st century people began to lose interest in TV and it went away.
With all of these ridiculous restrictions being put in place, I really can see TV going the way of the dodo.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
...for the question to which HDTV is the answer - or at least an answer which I want, instead of which the MPAA et al want.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Just one more thing... the content and delivery industries have demonstrated their close-mindedness and unwillingness to take risks or eat costs. Waiting for them to fix it may ultimately be futile. But everything I mentioned can be effected individual companies. The satellite companies like DirectTV are particularly well suited to start integrating PVRs into their delivery scheme, since they handle such a large and broad audience - but while they may be able to provide low-demand content in clever ways, the other advantages broadband has they cannot provide. On the other hand, digital cable systems can integrate broadband content with no difficulty at all, except with the comfortable lack of competition in markets they have little incentive to do so. It may take an upstart third company, like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, to make the killer set-top box/computer system integrating intelligent multi-source delivery and broadband to shake up the status quo (and legal infrastructure) enought to force the TV/entertainment industry into the 21st century.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Because here all the broadcast channels are at best fuzzy, and some are unwatchable even by MY standards. Cable doesn't exist here (nearest being 15 miles away).
So, how is HDTV going to help that?
And why would I want to pay more for "content" just because it's digital? What's on the air these past few years isn't sufficient to motivate me to go out and buy a satellite dish, or even a big antenna. I doubt I'll be any more motivated to go forth and buy a new digital TV when the time comes.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Most of these idiots replying have not f'n clue what you are even talking about in regards to HD not being a dramatic difference over an non-HD signal. Everyone who comes to my house and witnesses HDTV ... is "blown away" of course on my 65" Mits TV who wouldn't be ....
Also, not all HDTV set-top boxes are >$1000. You can find them right now for under $500. Remember the cost goes down as the demand get greater... Happened with VCR's, DVD players, and yes even televisions!!!! Oh, how about even computers.... Get over yourself about pricing.
HD is alive and growing... I enjoy most of the weekly shows in either digital(non-HD) or digital(HD) depending on what the local station is broadcasting in.
Only thing I can say negative is that we(the consumer) WILL take in in the ass with the DVI interfaces. Although I don't normally record programs so that is not a huge loss for me.
Pay-per-view is far more maligned than it should be. Every time you see a movie in a theater or rent a video, that is essentially pay-per-view, but nobody complains about that! You do however expect higher quality and/or a better viewing experience.
With regular TV, you're paying with your time and possibly your attention. Even if you don't watch the commercials there's not much you can do in 2-3 minutes besides get a snack or go to the can. And you're still paying many bucks a month for stuff you never watch anyway.
I only watch a handful of shows with any sort of regularity, and I generally only want to watch them once and not with any re-runs. If they were reasonably priced per show or (no more than $1 since this is television quality, not movies) or better yet per series (with free sample episodes), I would buy them and it would probably be CHEAPER than the $45 I'm paying now just so I can get Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Discovery and Sci-Fi, not to mention getting shows on the premium channels which are out of my price range.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
That's the problem with america these days. We will once again sit and watch our rights disappear before us, and all we'll have to show for it is some bitching and moaning on message boards. Meanwhile, back in Washington, the fatcats are getting fatter and you are stuck in a world where there's no freedoms with media, code, etc. So, I'll try and make the first constructive suggestion in this thread:
l d=0&commentsort=0&tid=103&mode=thread&cid=3271333
Write your congressman, spread the word, talk to your non-geek friends about how encrypting all media content is a bad thing. Hell, try writing the president. Do what you can, but complaining endlessly on a BBS is not the solution.
Meanwhile, in other news..
What's next? Will Slashdot editors start verbally attacking people for their opinions? Will subscribers be the only ones spared from this dissent?
Hmm.. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30409&thresho
The way I look at it, content control is the JonKatz of Congress. Though the world would be a better place without him, the above link proves what I am saying about just complaining. It doesn't seem to offer much of an solution, regardless of how valid the points in said complaint.
Regards,
Victor
Aside from the possible reduction of our fair-use rights, I don't really see this as all that bad.
Personally, I watch roughly two hours of television per *week*. Since any pay-to-view pricing structure would realistically have to let the majority of TV viewers (up to 10-12 hours each day) pay little more than they do with a flat rate, my cable bill should plummet.
Would they be willing to accept say.... $.10 per episode per viewer? That's what they'd have to do in order to stay in business thanks to the expectations on price created by cable and satellite.
to keep books on paper.
as long as we have things like physical books and magazines, we will have some sort of stimulation.
besides....I realy do not think an LCD screen can replace the experience of reading a book.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
FYI, they could just buy 75 ohm coaxial and got to radio shack for a coax to rca adaptor and run bitstream. *grin* it's all 0's and 1's in the end my friend.
Just recently ran a test between radio shack RCA and standard Monster Cable RCA.. take a wild guess which one was really better. Monster is the perfect example of how a shitty product can be sold at twice the cost.
Besides running component cables and making sure 3:2 pulldown is turned on to eliminate motion artifacts associated with deinterlacing and frame-rate convertion... I actually purchased a calibration disc and adjusted my white and black levels to optimized settings and I'm considering purchasing a sound level meter to make sure sound levels are set correctly for each channel... and to find out just how loud that 85Db THX-suggested-sound-level really is (and if my neighbors will tolerate it).
Joe-Consumer: hook up DVD player, with one big round cable, set TV to CH3, pres play. Total bliss.
Sad really... makes me depressed.
Ooooooo - wait!!!!
Imagine the expressions on these knuckleheads' faces when they find out they're paying $50k a minute and more to get their message out to an audience of 12, and they're the ones who voted to do it to thmselves. They'll all look at each other, and then quickly look away and down at their shoes. Spinchters will tremble.
give me a
In news today, the FCC released it's new Mandatory Viewing Schedule for this fall lineup. Citizens will be required, as per the Senator Hollings Consumer TV Awareness Act of 2004, to tune into their assigned channels from 8pm to 11pm for no less than 5 nights a week.
Senator Hollings called the new lineup, "A great stride forward in the quest to bring a closer relationship with consumers and our corporate masters."
Please be aware that, as always, any other activity during your assigned viewing time will be prosecutable to the fullest extent of the law. Do NOT attempt to engage in any other form of entertainment and or human contact during your scheduled viewing period.
In other news, the Voluntary Censorship Corps have set a new record for books burned! They claim that by the end of the year, all works of Shakespeare, Molere, and Orwell should be completely eradicated.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I have a sony xbr450. When I bought this $2200 dollar monster I was initially very unhappy. Standard analog ntsc 480i looked like garbage. I mean you could see every pickle, ever tiny bit of static and the colors were all off like on some circa 1970's tv. Why? Because the xbr450 has one of the most advanced tuners in the the world and it displays every bit of info in a analog signal properly! Most TV's have inaccurate and cheap tuners. When I hooked up a 480p (dvd) and a 1080i (hdtv) source to my tv, a whole new world opened up to me. HDTV is amazing the colors are lifelike, the details are amazing, no more pixelation, no more static (no more crappy cable). It was a tremendous difference from analog. My circa 1994 36" toshiba couldn't keep up with my 2001 36" sony. Would I pay per view? Hell no! Most content sucks and I WILL NOT PAY TO WATCH COMMERCIALS! I only watch Alias and HBO in hd anyway, but it rocks! HDTV is not cheap with surround sound speakers a progressice scan dvd player and a good converter I spent a grand total of some $7000 on my set up. Most people cant afford to do that, but I tell you its well worth it. If I had a larger room (I live in New York City) I would have spent more. More content is crucial. Also draconian measures aren't helping anyone. On top of that I have a profound hatred of the cable company here (time warner) they are evil sons of monkeys who charge way to much, provide terrible service and I' ve been waiting 2 years for a cable modem! Cable Vision in Brooklyn is not much better. We need more competition, less government support of these monopolies and more CONTENT! Or more people will steal cable/direct tv (I steal direct tv)
The FCC has made it pretty clear that they will not allow enrcyption on local broadcast HDTV channels - Their argument being the spectrum is a public resource and as many people as possible should have access to the signal.
Congress has also made it plain in the past that they won't go for systems that prevent time shift recording of tv programs.
Most of this assumes that Mr Holling's bill doesn't pass - I don't see it passing as a simple matter of economics - the electronics industry is worth much much more than the entertainment industry - they just haven't got their lobbying effort organized yet - but they will if they see a serious threat to their business.
Looking at it from a more global perspective, why do we keep voting these coporate-sponsored whores into public office? That's the root of the problem, isn't it?
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.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
People watch the Bud Bowl. Pretty close, I'd say.
Method of processing duck feet
Cause he needs five boxes. One for each device. One box per feed. His devices don't have digital tuners.
He probably wasn't around for when cable boxes/converters were the only way to watch tv cause TV's were not cable ready.
My understanding was that each digital box would have its own subscription like Digital Cable works now. My friend has it and he pays per box.
I do see this point being an issue though because right now my cable co loves the idea of charging customers per outlet and enforcing it.
My cable co has that too but their techies don't enforce it. When I got my cable modem installed he saw we already had the cable split like 6 times [5 tvs plus my parents have their own modem]. The dude offered to replace some of the coax [for free] as well as stable the other cables upto the ceiling. in otherwords as long as you are paying for at least one connection they don't really care.
My big problem with all this digital crap is that they don't broadcast all the channels at once. You need to stream the channel if you want. With analogue all of the channels are broadcasted simultaneously. If they make digital cable analogous to the analogue setup then I would be all for it.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
How have books escaped being filled with annoying ads for the most part? I think there were cigarette ads inserted in pulp fiction in the early 70's, but for the most part there are still no ads. Even when I go to see movies I have to sit through minutes of crap softdrink ads first if I want to get there early enough to get a decent seat. How have most books sold for entertainment purposes escaped? Not that I am complaining...
In 2050, advances in technology have transformed the modern home into a center of moderation. Many choices and options left to torment the family of yesteryear have been eliminated to make the home economy part of a much larger one.
Here comes the dog, with an electronic newspaper for Father! Modern newspapers have no paper at all. Father loads the day's news into his electronic reader, and the words on the page disappear as his eyes move across them. The local ball team has made a stunning victory. Father decides to license the story so he can read it whenever he wants for a full month. A single click on the payment button, and it's a done deal! Micropayments to major media companies can be made effortlessly in the modern home with almost no effort or attention required.
What's on the television, Junior? He'll soon find out. He has only six more commercials to go before the family HDTV will let him change the channel to whatever station he wants to pay for. No need for mother to pester him about the volume, since it can't be turned down during advertisements anyway. But wait! Junior has to go to the bathroom. The television pauses its commercial to wait for Junior to finish his business there. After paying for a single flush at the computerized toilet, he's back and the directed marketing resumes! Meanwhile, it looks like the subscription for the refrigerator has run out, and the door won't open! Mother makes a payment using the built-in computer, and the door opens. Many foods that were canned in the old days are now provided on a subscription basis. No more stale canned food- everything is fresh, and less than a week old!
And it's time to go. Junior goes to the bus stop, where he and his friends can watch advertisements at a bus stop terminal while they wait for the bus to take them to school to watch even more advertisements. Meanwhile, father starts his hydrogen-powered fuel cell car. After turning the ignition, he watches a few minutes of targeted advertising on the built-in HDTV set. At the end, the set retracts, letting him see through the windshield, and the engine starts.
Mother is left at the house to take care of the housework. Oh no! Junior has left his music albums all over the floor again. Mother knows what to do! She simply gathers them in a dustpan and dumps them into the garbage. And why not? Since they have all been played once, none of them will play again anyway without extra payment. And as Junior's musical tastes improve, he can rent new music to discuss with his friends at school.
It's called the OFF switch. Once we start using it, the Disney droids will go into full retreat.
"An Off switch? You'll get years for that."
Off switches have been illegal since the Hollings Act of 2002.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What is so bad about that??? They already have it on cable and satellite TV, its called Pay Per View. I think this is a good thing; it gets digital TV standardized and into my home faster.
I really would like to hear what the one single event is that will actually effect enough Joe Citizens at the same time to wake them up. I thought it would be DVD region coding, but it wasn't, because Region 1 gets all the goodies.
True, but outside the US, that does not get all the goodies, it's next to impossible to sell a regionrespecting DVD player.
Oh, the signal's encrypted and I can't record it with my TiVO to watch later? Really? You want me to pay you every time I see it? Really? Hmmm. You know what? I guess I don't give a shit. Keep your signal. It's mostly noise anyway.
cygnuhchur
All this talk seems to be centered around CBS, ABC, and NBC and when they are going to go digital.
I am confused.
Wasn't the purpose of paying for cable TV to be able NOT to watch those networks? Why would people pay to watch their mind numbing garbage, anyway?
Also, what advantage would there be in watching Friends or the news or some other ordinary content in digital resolution?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
I'll be reading paper books like never before.
Fuckin' greedy assholes.
What I'm wondering is why the government has to be involved to any great extent. Didn't radio, television, cable and the Internet all become viable without this level of tax-fueled encouragement? If they want to sharpen the picture and add a BUY button, fine by me, but can't they do it without sucking up tax dollars?
My big problem with all this digital crap is that they don't broadcast all the channels at once. You need to stream the channel if you want. With analogue all of the channels are broadcasted simultaneously. If they make digital cable analogous to the analogue setup then I would be all for it.
This article isn't about digital cable. It's about digital broadcast.
The only problem with theaters is all the actors and actresses. It certainly isn't a replacement for TV, film, recorded music, print, etc.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
But the entertainment industry is trying something even more difficult than the Soviet Union and KGB tried (and failed) to do! The USSR did not want *anybody* to read the forbidden material. The entertainment industry *wants* people to see the material yet somehow be unable to copy it!
What the Soviets tried to do did not violate the laws of physics and causality.
In 2006, if the analog signals are turned off, there's going to be a millions of people who can't afford the tuners and probably would find a pay for view model difficult. There will still be millions of functional TV sets that won't be getting any signal. It's not politically possible to shut these sets off - aside from the anger and protest from those who are used to getting their entertainment for at most, the price of a TV and possibly a few bucks a month for cable service, there's going to be another problem - if these people aren't kept quiet in their homes in front of glowing boxes, hypnotized by fantasy worlds, and entertained into willing submission, what are they going to be doing instead?
They're not shutting analog down in 2006. Consumers don't really want digital, and the people who most "need" to be pacified and brainwashed by our media system are the ones who can't afford it.
I'd find it very amusing if one of the side effects of this would be a less docile, more awake populace.
I've talked to my neighbors. Believe me, I'm better off watching reruns of "Three's Company"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Hell, some places charge $0.25 just to take a dump!
Just like in Philip K. Dick's Ubik.
Another bitter high-school drop out sounds off against those damn inteelektuals.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I'd pay to see marketing & entertainment execs kill each other in gladitorial combat. Now THAT would be bread & circuses!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Libraries, parks, exercise, trees, laughter, friends are still free...Get off the couch whiners.
I realy see this as the death of TV. More and more people are geting tired of watching tv(their was a study) to begin with. I see tv slowly disapering. the internet and vido games will take over. WEll then you will buy a tv to play your HDTV video games. Oh damit thiers that idea shot to hell.
I don't think they'll resist the opportunity to market something costing $200 to people who absolutely cannot spend $2000 on a new TV. Unless they make it illegal.
Is the whole time-shifing issue. the "piracy" issue.
:P
It's a non-issue.
What broadcasters need to come to grips with here is that when something is BROADCASTED... to several MILLION people... you've just distributed your PRODUCT for FREE.
I don't care how you try to justify it through an advertizing formula... the END USER gets NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox for free. After you buy the TV, that is...
It really pisses me off to read about NBC, CBS, ABC, et al all upset over the VCR... and now more recently PVRs... when they all refuse to aknowledge this simple fact... If they broadcast it... and I have the means to watch it... I have every right to do with it how I please.
Newspapers are out and about... have been for centuries. They aren't trying to force you to buy special goggles to read the daily.
Why should TV be so fucking special?
Yes, HDTV is an incremental improvement and way, way, too expensive. I made the mistake of buying a HDTV "ready" set thinking all this was moving along. Then, I find the off-air tuner will run $900. Damned TV cost $2200. In hindsight, plain old NTSC served up the soap commercials just fine.
But it won't be delayed. Today, we spend a major portion of our purchase budgets on items/features dictated by government. Free markets and capitalisum are quite dead in the US, save, perhaps, choosing which flavor of Kool-Aid you prefer.
Government to people... You must pay thousands for your new TV or none for you. You must pay to include X, Y, and Z features in your yard, house, car, kids education, insurances, businesses, etc. like it or not. Damned near every purchase over $500 has forced buys included, ultimately tied to government edict. Nor can you buy raw materials anymore, only nicely packaged, government approved products.
Makes me sick.
OK, I don't know all that much about television standards, broadcasting, and such as it's in USA. I only know about Finland (and something about Europe and the rest of the world).
;) - and yes, paper technology actually does qualify as hi-tech).
/.er, so that should go without say), I don't know what the hell is going on there and if all TV already is pay per open eye or what, but digital does not mean instant evil. It's a technology that allows for better quality in same airspace; more channels in same airspace; or same number of channels in less airspace; AND allows for more than just audio and video - eg. interactive content, multicast and broadcast data, and so on.
Finland has rolled out DVB-T broadcasts, and will stop analog broadcasts in 2006 (although the deadline may be shifted if there's a good reason). In the process, the govTV (well, public, government funded and legislated station) created the infrastructure to broadcast DVB-T to everyone. That infra was incorporated as Digita, and some of the new company was sold to TDF (subsidiary of France Telecom).
Three new bands were allocated by the government for DVB-T broadcasts, with the notion that in 2006 when analog broadcasts end, the analog bands will go back to the government for reallocation without compensation. The three bands (multiplexes A, B and C) were given to Yleisradio (public TV) and two commercial broadcasters, with some requirements - mainly coverage (will have to broadcast throughout all of Finland, no picking just the 10% land area that covers 70% of people). Also, new air channel permits were given to channels that are mainly owned by the corps that got the multiplexes. All existing analog channels got their own digital permit, and some new channels were started (of which two already lost the permit due to not broadcasting material - that was one requirement: You get a channel, You send out signal -> no signal = no more permit).
The channels are SDTV, not HDTV. But, when done well, the picture quality can be better than analog. There's no more "snow" on TV - if reception is bad, there are MPEG artefacts, then jerkiness, then no more picture. Which is of course not supposed to happen.
More multiplexes will be given to new broadcasters later, and while currently the DVB-T signal must be used mainly for TV channels, different content will later be allowed. I'd guess we go HDTV slowly when old analog bands revert to the government and thus more airspace will be available for TV operations..
Of course currently there are very few options for receiving digital TV content.. Set top boxes that do nothing but receive the signal, demux and decode, and send via analog out to TV (dummy boxes) go for about 300. Then there's some way-too-expensive Sony TV set. Currently perhaps about 1% of Finns have DigiTV set top box. However, by next Xmas we'll have better boxes, and dummy boxes will be cheaper, so I'd expect that the real conversion to digital will happen in about two years - until that, it's more like a novelty.
However, note that nowhere is pay per view mentioned. On the air we currently have mostly free channels. There are some pay channels, but I don't think they have pay per view material yet.
While digital TV makes different kinds of payment schemens easy to implement, it doesn't really mean that all TV will be for fee. Also, as TV sets have average life of at least 10 years, it'll probably be at least 2020 before all (>98%) TVs in use have internal digi-receiver. So, until that, set top boxes are mostly the way to go, and that means analog output, which again can be captured by VCRs (and computers).
Also, as DVB-T with MHP is now a standard, and a standard in use (here, and chosen by other countries), it will last for years to come. When Finnish government chose DVB-T, it was considered a risky move, as Finland was the first (or at least one of the first) to choose a digital TV standard, and as a small country, if eg. Germany, France and UK chose some other standard (and the same one), we'd never get real receivers for reasonable prices. However, after that the gamble paid off in that as the others chose the same standard, we were a little ahead of the curve, and got the chance to be technology exporters in the field - an important thing for a small country that tries to live from highly educated people exporting knowledge and hi-tech (where paper, too, qualifies as hi-tech
Now, as I'm no expert in US politics (hey, I'm a
go to www.fcc.goc/contacts. Semd the commisionars a well thought out email.
They probably wont read all of them, but they will be told how many they get. Just fo kicks, you coould cc president@whitehouse.gov and vice.president@whitehouse.gov
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Check out this story on Sonic Blue. Like TiVo, but with more aggressive anti-commercial features and the ability to send copies of recorded shows to friends. Includes a brief mention of the bill formerly known as SSSCA.
I'd buy one if I had money and/or a job. sigh.
---
For your protection, a copy of this message is being sent via RFC 1149.
The year that I am 'required' to purchase a Digital or HDTV will be the last year that I ever watch TV at my house. Fuck television, turn it off.
it's a sig, wtf?
You people think you have the right to entertainment? Bullshit. You only have the rights you pay for. Letter writing doesn't do shit. If you want right's you better buy you way into you Congressman's or Senator's heart by making campaign donations.
Rember these people wont draw Social Security when they retire or are voted out, they will draw their full salary.
Lets face it, we're fucked.
Retarded people do things for lack of knowing any better.
All this is being scripted with high levels of intelligence behind the effort.
Evil, abuse, enslavement, there are all kinds of words to better describe what's going on.
Now, here's why its happening...
The Macro economics of the industrial revolution have been altered by advancing technology and population growth. It used to take boatloads of people to build a car, boatloads in the steel mill, boatloads in the rubber factories, boatloads in the actual assembly plant. Everyone got paid.
Now, it takes relatively few people to make a car (or much of anything else). So, what are the redundant masses to do?
I think it was Reagan that said the world had to prepare for a "service economy". No longer will "things" drive the economy, but rather, "efforts at nothing" - like "Intellectual Property".
The system is this. Someone has to keep money moving in a world where tangible goods can be made relatively for free. What good is a super-duper robotic Cheerios factory when only 1 guy is getting paid to push the 0N/OFF button? Nobody (other than our guy) could buy Cheerios, even if they sold for almost nothing.
So, you build up false barriers around things like ideas so the markets are no longer "efficient". You do things like...
1) force significant changes in the economy so a bunch of money is forced to change hands. Conscripted purchases are a good way to do this, like Digital TV, car insurance, etc. A "free market" requires the consumer be able to opt-out, when they can't the false market can charge a higher overall price and pay a bit more corporate welfare.
2) allow trivial intellectual details to create false markets. Flip-a-bit, get a patent, and you too can write an EULA. What was a fairly non-intellectual effort can be turned into an economic shrine, and pay a bit more corporate welfare.
3) disallow self-help. Make it hard for competition to Dis-establish a existing economic infrastructure, like RIAA/MPAA. No, you can't publish your book/music on the Internet without a license for the content protection corporation. How often have you heard noise about saving "the jobs!" Jobs that pay a bit more corporate welfare.
On whole, our economy is approching Stallman's "post scarcity world". If you were King of the World, what would you do when only 20% of your population really needs to work? Managing an ecomomy in this deep isn't easy, so they're listening to big buisness since 1) they have the money; and 2) they seem willing to continue with corporate welfare system.
Rememeber, Bill Gates net worth alone represents about 1/5th of the Nation's grocery industry. Look at it this way, 1 dollar in 5 you used to be able to spend on food is now in Bill's bank accounts. Wanna eat? Then, you better listen to him and those like him.
I usually hate it when people do this, but the parent of this post is one of the most insightful comments that I have read on slashdot. Reread it a couple of times if it doesn't make sense, because there are quite a few keen observations.
Unfortunately, experience in this part of the world where there's no competition in the PPV marketplace, indicates that you'll end up paying for the content *AND* they'll still include advertising!
Actually the Internet evolved from DarpaNet, which was built with mucho bucks from the gov. Internet2 is also being mostly funded by the gov.
The biggest reason that the gov is involved is because rich content companies are paying them to be involved. This pisses me off, and I'm a freaking conservative!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
On of the main concerns that the FCC is facing is the diminising amount of avalible broadcast frequency. The current TV broadcast bandwith is larger than we needed do to digital technologies. By compressing the HDTV signals the FCC can shrink the needed bandwidth for TV broadcasting and redistibute the freed up bandwith to other types of broadcasting. This is why there is a mandate for 2006 HDTV complian broadcast.
I was living under the impression that the "post-scarcity" thing was Bookchin's brainchild. Not that I see any reason why disputes over the pedigrees of brainchildren should matter.
The intellectual propertarian trend in business and law affects a hell of a lot more than media. It jacks up the going rate ("relative price") for intellectual livelihood opportunities measured in the currency of non-disclosure politics. It may even have something to do with why DIY auto mechanics is a tougher art to learn that it used to be.
Can amateur X and professional X coexist in the same economy? Probably not, at least without some kind of specialization, such as amateur mechanics specializing in old cars.
I have yet to salescritter myself into a job that requires more than about an 8th grade level of education. I've been letting it mess with my self esteem way too much, and that's not healthy. Now I'm proud never to have signed a non-disclosure agreement!
Keep the aspidistra flying!
Many of you are assuming cable systems when talking about DTV. That's not necessarily the case over here. There are four possible ways of receiving digital TV here:
- Cable: typically from Telewest of NTL
- Satelite: BSkyB
- DSL: Can't remember who though.
- Antenna: ITV Digital (for as long as they remain)
They all have advantages and disadvantages.Satelite is probably the most advanced, content wise. You can also get variants of the boxes which TiVo like allow you to pause, record etc live TV. The down side of satelite is that the datareturn path is a modem and you have a dish on your house.
Cable is just behind satelite. The advantage with cable is the broadband return path. You can use the same cable for your broadband net access and your phone.
DSL I know little about except that it uses TV over IP. You have the broadband again but you're sharing it with your TV pictures.
Terrestrial via the antenna has reasonable content but again the return path is via a modem. You need a high gain wideband antenna to get decent pictures and unlike analogue it doesn't degrade gracefully. The COFDM system used in the UK is a pretty good one though.
Now some history. UK analogue terrestrial TV over the country uses the entirity of UHF bands 21 to 69. This is because of the relatively high population density and trying to ensure that you don't have cross channel interfence. This is also why we generally only have five channels. Most people still watch via analogue sets using an antenna. (There are, of course, hundreds of channels on cable, satelite and at least fifty on terrestrial digital.) Digital terrestrial doesn't need all these bands (the interference problem doesn't occur) and so totally digital TV would free up some bands.
Britain was pretty late moving over to cable so in most cases people went straight to digital. We don't have the long analogue cable background that you have. So in most cases cable installations are not conversions from analogue but new digital ones.
European TVs have, for many years, been fitted with the SCART or EURO connector. These provide bi directional access to composite, s-video and rgb component video, stereo audio, and communications (to allow vcrs to control tvs etc). All our STBs have component and widescreen video support. The later ones have optical digital output support DTS and 5.1.
The main terrestrial content providers eg. BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and (5) have to, by law, provide free to air channels and do so digitally. Hence BBC Choice, BBC 4, BBC News 24, ITV2 etc. The BBC are not allowed to advertise. These are available on all methods of providing content.
Right here comes the crux of the government wanting everyone to move to digital. As I've said above, digital terrestrial needs less UHF bands. So the government wants to shove TV in to a smaller bandwidth and sell of the rights to the remainder for the broadband mobile market by turning off analogue in 2010.
There is a precedence for this. In the early years of British TV we had a 405 line system. In the sixties and early seventies those still using that system had to move over to 625 PAL. Eventually they just turned off the transmitters and bought new TVs for those who complained.
There are complaints about the cost to watchers of transferring to digital but there are products emerging on the market which allow you to watch digitally without having to subscribe to a provider. . Also the cost of combined digital/analogue widescreen TVs is not much more than purely widescreen TVs in this country.
I really don't see there's an issue as the cost of receiving equipment is falling and most would have updated their TVs before 2010 anyway.
As for me, I'm probably going to subscribe to BSkyB in the next month. Mainly because it has the most varied content, has widescreen movies, and I'll be using a DSL broadband connection for the net anyway.