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?"
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.
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
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.
Yeah, I hate how they try to make everyone think that digital tech makes things automatically clearer all the time, unconditionally.
Of course, at least nowadays most all phones negotiate a digital connection when the signal seems to be in pretty good shape (i.e. errors are minor enough to be cleaned up by the error correction mechanisms and sound better), and failover to analog when digital encounters too many transmission errors to be effective, and then let the human perceptive system take over to correct....
It might be nice for places with *almost* perfect signals (content delivered by coax/people very close to transmission towers/satellite in an area that is clear most of the time), just to clean up the little fuzz here and there. Of course their descriptions of the possiblities of digital that aren't possible with analog are ludicrous. For example, saying that digital technology makes it possible for a channel to show 4 shows at once a viewer can switch between, it isn't due to the digital, it's due to the extra bandwidth, if they had equivalent bandwidth they could show 4 channels. Maybe they can't provide convenient labels to each channel, but still....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It doesn't have ENOUGH value. Cringely wrote an article a couple of week ago and stated an axiom about how "Creating something 10X cheaper that does what you current equipment does or creating something 10X faster for the same price will enable you to take over the market."
HDTV fails both these principles, it is orders of magnitude more expensive, and the quality is not the same orders of magnitude better. It can't use price or quality as leverage, because its too expensive and although better quality, not enough to justify the expense for most people.
Look for digital TV to fail and for increasing consumer unrest until Digital TV's are only twice as expensive, or less, than regular TV's. Then expect a big blow up over pay-per-view. The only way to add enough value for me to pay per show it to 1. Allow me to watch it anytime and pause and resume it. 2. If I pay for it it will have NO COMMERCIALS, the public will not pay for the privelege of watching commercials. 3. It better be good, a lot of TV nowdays it background noise, or whatevers on, people won't pay unless they really want to see the show.
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?
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
Even the simplest books engage your intellect. TV is in general an entirely passive medium. Books require eye tracking, TV does not. Books can make you think, they take time to read giving you time to process the information. TV rarely does the former and never does the latter.
People who read invariably have a better vocabulary and are more prone to thinking. The latter is something corporations and politicians positively hate - there's nothing worse than customers or constituents who think.
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
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.
"Can anyone explain to me why reading a book is better than watching TV?"
:)
It's not automatically better. The ratio of bad books to good is, from what I can tell, actually higher than the ratio of bad TV shows to good.
Personally, I think most of the "turn off the TV and read a book" crowd are just elitists who've found something that not everyone wants to do, but has the appearance of something "better".
Damn right! We'll never buy system with increased quality at the cost of built in encryption targetted at squarely at stopping fair use casual home copying (because it's trivial for commercial pirates to crack but just hard enough to flummox Joe Sixpack).
Yes, it's a good thing that white elephants like CSS encrypted DVD's will never take off, right?
</sarcarm> aside, what's your basis for thinking that there'll be any kind of "backlash"? What's the single action that's going to spark this huge wave of protest, and what's going to sustain it for days, weeks and months?
I rather fear that we're going to keep going right on with this DRM crap, a little nibble here, a tweak there, a watered down bill, a few arrests, nibbling and cutting a tiny bit at a time, adding a couple of dollars a month to the bills of the average citizen (not consumer, dammit). A little carrot here, a little stick there, all done so gradually that only us reactionary geeks notice or care. And who listens to us? We're all pirates and (evil) hackers, right? To paraphrase a Salon cartoon:
I can see your fingers hovering over the "troll"/"flamebait" buttons, but instead of that, 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. Then a lot of us thought it would be the DMCA passing, but that barely registered on the mainstream radar. The DeCSS case passed the people by: nobody cares that you can tell people how to make bombs, but you can't link to DeCSS code. When I wore my "Free Dmitri Sklyrov" shirt at work last Friday, one coworker - one - knew what it was about. In a software development house. CDBpthhhhpptpp... see, I can't even remember the name, post SSSCA (let's just call it the Hollywood Retirement Fund Bill). Even if that monster passes, it'll be years before the effects are seen at retail level, and (I'm sure) there will be enough compromises that it won't force everyone to go out and buy new (crippled) hardware all at once, it'll be a little carrot, a little stick.
So - and this is a 100% genuine question - what on earth is the trigger going to be for this "backlash" that I keep hearing about?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Maybe the technical standards are the same, but the programming quality standards have regressed to incredibly low levels since then.
When I look at NBC's lineup, or CBS', or ABC's, that's when I'm disappointed in the lack of progress.
A billion pixels of crap is still crap.
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
Yes, it's a good thing that white elephants like CSS encrypted DVD's will never take off, right?
That's not an entirely true analogy. The value-added aspects of DVDs far outweigh the value-removed aspects for most people: random-access scenes, bonus materials, alternate audio tracks, 5.1 sound, increased picture resolution, and more durable format. The main drawback is region-coding and CSS which are not intrinsic to the format but an add-on included by MPAA members. Besides, most VHS tapes already prevented fair-use home copying with a little something called Macrovision before DVDs ever hit the market.
However, the value-removed aspects of HDTV will far outweigh the value-added aspects: degraded signals for recording, recordings time-stamped to expire (which means no archiving!) or restricted altogether and planned obsolescence of TV hardware with changing standards. All of this for increased picture resolution?
No, you will see backlash in this case - particularly if Joe Sixpack is forced to move to HDTV.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
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
"Personally, I am anxiously awaiting 2006. I think it is going to be funny when they throw the switch to turn off the analog signal and hundreds of thousands of TVs will instantly become worthless/obsolete."
It would be funny if it happened, but nobody in the broadcast/content industry has any intentions of that. 2006 will come and go without Joe Sixpack hearing a word about DTV.
The broacasters will keep their analog band and repurpose some of that unpopular digital band for profit increasing services - pay-per-view, data services, mutiple OTA channels, etc. And truthfully, that's probably more in the public interest than pretty pictures, although the route was extremely underhanded.
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?