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?"
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.
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). ;)
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.
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?
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
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)
Advertisers WANT HDTV.
I know for a fact that some rather large companies (car mostly) would not sign renewals with their current advertising agency unless a %age of the content was high definition.
They believe it can sell their products better if they have more screen realestate to flash data and make the stuff all bright and shiney.
My understanding is that the reduction of internet advertising funds has basically been transferred over to high definition tv ad funding for many advertisers.
Much like radio, I'd expect a crappy low quality show with crisp clear high definition ads coming your way before anything else.
Rod Taylor
1) Do you know what you're paying for? Do I get to see the script before I watch the show? If I pay for a sitcom and don't laugh, do I get my money back?
2) I still haven't seen any guarantee there _won't_ be advertising anyways. But regardless, when I see advertising the company in question is trying to convince me to buy their product: I have agreed to listen to their pitch in exchange for free content. The key is I am in control of if and when I spend my money. Sometimes an advertisers pitch works, sometimes it doesn't, but we have a mutual understanding to this effect, not a relationship in where one party controls all the resources and drops little morsels if I'm lucky.
3) I don't have a lot of money. Maybe it's just me personally, but with the economy the way it is, it simply doesn't make economic sense for me to pay to watch a Seinfeld re-run. When I already have a system in place that works seamlessly and has benefitted both viewers and advertisers for decades I get upset when they try to coerce my money from me.
All in all, pay per view would most likely only have restrictive effects without offering anything new to the consumer.
I think the problem isn't necessarily with the pay-per-view concept in general. After all, /. is kind of going to a pay-per-page-wiew model, itself.
The problem is the fact that content distribution companies are using legislation to make pay-per-view the only option, and that legislation makes it illegal for private citizens to use content or technology not sanctioned by the content companies.
Right now, if you buy a DVD, you can watch it as many times as you like on your DVD player, yielding a very low price-per-view. If you don't want to shell out the cash to buy the DVD for a movie you'll only see once, you can rent it or watch it pay-per-view, for a much higher price-per-view, but less than you would have spent on the DVD. Right now, it's your choice. The future, according to these people, is that you will no longer have a choice - you pay for every viewing. If you protest, you are a Commie Pirate Hacker that wants to take money out of the pockets of Starving Artists, just because you think you have the right to record an episode of "The Simpsons" to watch later. And once pay-per-view becomes universal, do you think prices per view will drop to anywhere near DVD levels as a result? History says otherwise -- prices were supposed to drop on music CD's once they gained market acceptance, and we're all still waiting. The net result is more money out of the pockets of movie buffs, with no measurable benefit gained.
You think that "paying" to watch TV will reduce the number of commercials? Buahahaha!
If Cable & Sat revenue streams were so great for non-broadcast groups like Discovery Networks (the Discovery channels, TLC, etc.), then how come they are running more and more infomercials at the odd hours (with a slowly increasing size of the "odd hours" window)? It used to be that if you were awake at 3 or 4am you could still catch something interesting on Cable or Sat. Now, it's mostly just The Weather Channel, ESPNews, CNN Headline News, and infomercials.
The Superbowl broadcast this year is an indication of what and who is "winning". It isn't be the consumers (was it ever destined to be that way?). It won't be 720p or 1080i HDTV. It will be 480p (DVD, prog scan quality, only one step above NTSC) at best, "DTV". Yet Fox, et al. were still trying to pin this as a "win" for consumers...
HDTV isn't dying because we aren't buying the equipment. It's dying because no broadcaster wants to broadcast 1080i when they can broadcast 6 480i channels in the same bandwidth.
The market for media really is this: content makers, broadcasters and advertisers. The audience is not a significant part of the market equation, and the audience is only expected to "consume".
Oh well.
Welcome to the Machine.
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.
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.