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?"

Comments

One day in the not-so-distant-future.....

[ASyndicate]

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

Perhaps...

[cleetus]

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

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

[nochops]

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.

Re:We already "Pay to View"

[JWW]

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.

Who asked them?

[catfood]

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?

Can I ask a naive question?

[scenic]

I understand the greed motivations of Disney et al in moving towards a charge-for-every-movement-of-a-bit system. I also understand why laws such as the SSSCA/CBDTPA. So, don't jump down my throat for this question.

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

Re:HDTV / DVI situation

[Rogerborg]

• 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

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:

• Citizen: I have some reservations about this bill in the Senate.
• Government: Why do you hate America so much?

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?

A brief history of HDTV

[Argyle]

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.