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.
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)
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.
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'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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.