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

HDTV / DVI situation

[tweakt]

What I'm concernec about is the situation of HDTV and what happens if the CBDTBA (or whatever it's called right now passes). It basically outlaws unencrypted digital (or ANALOG hi-def) media. What some are pushing for is that only encrypted data enters your DTV, and there is no access to the anlog output at any point.

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). ;)

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?

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

Re:Mixed bag

[liam193]

You analogy is not valid. Both the B&W/color and the VHF/UHF enhancements to TV occured because of market pressure not because of gov't involvement. VHF/UHF: Originally there were only 12 channels (2-13) available in any area. Since VHF signals travel so far and tuners were not great, the area was rather large. This meant that large cities had VHF stations and the suburban and rural area around them could not have any because they were in the "overlap area" of 12 stations. As a result, people in these areas picked up 12 channels of 50%+ snow. Enter UHF. UHF was specifically put in place to allow more channels for use in smaller cities. Tuner attachments were sold to allow a 2-13 TV to pick up UHF stations and the inherent demand for TV in these areas forced the issue. B&W/Color: This was NBC's big thing. Remember the NBC proud as a peacock slogan? You know how NBC has the logo with the peacock? That's because NBC was a pioneer in color. They got with manufacturers like RCA... said, "we think this will sell in color if people actually see it." So they started broadcasting some shows in color and when they did they put the logo in the bottom of the screen. They also had TV stores put color TVs on display and did a marketing campaign to explain to viewers that everytime you see the logo that show was available in color and you were missing it because you didn't have a color TV. People saw what they were missing and saw that it was worth to them what the cost was so they bought color TV's. Now an explanation of HDTV. HDTV is perceived by the general public to be superior; however, it's not perceived by the general public to be worth the cost. As a result, the market demand doesn't exist right now and the product should be delayed at this point. However, lobbying and so forth has produced gov't intervention to make TV stations broadcast in HDTV by certain deadlines. As a result, some stations will probably disappear most will actually do the upgrades but not because of true demand. Most consumers will need to go get a new TV and/or other equipment and the end result is that the TV manufacturers who lobbied for it get a guarantee on equipment sales in the near future.

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