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.
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.
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.
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.
Digital TV
Pushed by politicians seems
Like a bad idea
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
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.
I have no problem with these restrictions. As long as they pay me for hosting their revenue device in my house and the HDTV has a credit card swiper so I won't be the one billed for their greed.
They may have to pay to introduce that technology into my house. The current crop of pay per view selections seem to lack intelligent content.
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)
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?
From the article: "...pay to view..."
..Excuse me, but don't I already "pay to view" television?
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.
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)
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
They look like garbage. A friend of mine plunked down $3K for a 65" Toshiba HDTV. DVDs - even anamorphic on his top of the line DV Dplayer look BAD. There's a subtle grain/texture that appears - probably artifacts that normal TVs don't show due to less resolution OR due to line doubling. But regardless - he gets pissed when I tell him DVDs look better on my 6 year old Sony TV than on his super HDTV. But its the truth.
Now when he watches a true 1080 HDTV signal, its breathtaking. But how many people think we're gonna see stuff in 1080? Fat chance.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
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.
Differing standards. The one that is used in "digital" cable (When it's digital- in many places they slapped a couple of digital channels in on top of the analog feeds and slapped an "interactive" television front-end on all of it...) and in direct broadcast satellite is called DVB. The one that is used for HDTV/SDTV digital broadcast is called ATSC and it uses slightly differing packet types and a different modulation scheme to send it's signals.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Tell your buddy to find a certified ISF technician (did I spell that correctly? It's too early in the morning) and pay him some money to properly calibrate the TV. If he's done some of the calibration himself, he should know how much it helps. If it's still 'showroom floor calibrated' then heaven help him.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
Fortunately, dead-tree form books aren't going out of styleany time soon.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What you just said reminds me of 1984, the televisions, or whatever they were called in the book, were constantly on. All you could do is dim them (except for inner party members, which I believe could turn them off for a short period of time). The other part of the TV equation in 1984 is they were all installed with spy devices to make sure you were conforming like a nice citizen.
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.
Will you feel so great after you watch a few really stupid shows that you didn't like but had to pay for it anyways? As it stands I will not switch to Digital cable any time soon! Why should I? There is no real benefit in doing so because I can't cheaply record and watch/rewatch my favorite tv shows. Not to mention most of the writer and directors/producers of the TV shows are bad writers. There just isn't enough reason for a geek to switch--let alone the average person on the street.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
He did - it didn't help (let me qualify - it made HDTV pictures look even better, but...) - it really boils down to it being such a large set with such high resolution that artifacts you'd never see on smaller low res sets become very noticable and it makes the picture appear grainy
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
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.
~grumbly face~ I hate Adelphia.
It's gonna get worse...I don't know where you live, but Adelphia is going to have to divest itself of 50% of its cable franchises to pay for the Rigas family's high-finance shenanigans. Can you say Enrondelphia? I knew you could.
If you live in the Greater Los Angeles, CA area and you have Adelphia as your cable company, kiss 'em goodbye.
However, this may actually be A Good Thing (tm).
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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
...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.
But if it's getting an NTSC signal, it should be displaying in NTSC resolution; it's not like blowing up a 320x240 image to 1280x1024 and seeing the big blockies. Is the player progressive scan with component out? You could always tell him to hop on the Home Theater Forum and ask; everybody there seems to love the Toshiba sets.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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?
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.
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?
Yeah, he's got progressive scan, only gets anamorphic DVDs if he can help it. Of course he thinks it looks fine - maybe its just me :) It varies by DVD, but still its noticable.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
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?
More resolution would be nice for about 5 minutes, but it is hardly a reason to spend tons of money and dump all of the existing technology over because when that 5 minutes is up, you realize that we still have the same shitty content as we always have. High definition is such a marginal change that it doesn't even come close to being a compelling upgrade.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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?
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
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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?
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 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?
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
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.
Could part of the problem be his DVD player? I've found the DVD player makes an even bigger difference in image quality than the TV does. I used to have an APEX piece of junk (God, the "hidden menu" feature of the 600A was so not worth the aggrevation of the bad picture and firmware bugs) and then switched to a higher-quality DVD player, and the difference was amazing.
Totally off-topic: anyone know if there are any firmware updates for the 600a to fix those annoying awful bugs in the unit? The occasional lockups, etc. I've heard they exist, but APEX's site doesn't have any for that model.