Digital TV Still Indecisive

/dev/trash writes "The logjam between Hollywood and Silicon Valley seems to be over. According to this article on cnn.com. It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy"" If it was only that simple- the article makes it sound like there isn't a lot of progress being made.

Comments

Over or just starting..for us atleast

[cOdEgUru]

Kraus said it right :

"The only consensus this group seems to be arriving at is that there is no consensus," Kraus said.

One thing I dont understand is these groups fanatically oppose any consumer intervention, meaning you and I, though we are ultimately affected by these decisions, have no way of participating. I rate these money mongers at the same level as Mafiosi thugs.

Also once this bill is passed, we would have no way of sending copyrighted material to our office computers or any other ones.

Re:!!!GO USA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

political: we manage to get every country ticked at us.
social: we are self absorbed, unthinking, and cannot function socially without coffee and television
education: our system is a mess. there's not enough money to pay teachers. the ciriculum is dumbed down. half the students can't pass basic minimum requirement tests.

ah, but we have Patriotism(TM) and that makes us right!

Still Can Be Distributed

[jwilhelm]

What they don't seem to understand is that as long is it can be viewed it can be copied into a format that can be distributed online. Maybe the copy won't be as clean, but if it can be viewed it can be copied, and if it can be copied, it can be distributed.

Re:Still Can Be Distributed

[Carbonite]

If the copies degrade with each duplication, as analog video does, then a peer-to-peer network isn't nearly as useful: you can only copy the show out to limited number of people before it degrades to grey noise.

If an analog copy is made from the original, the quality only degrades once. After that one-time hit, the data can be stored and distributed in digital format. It's the same with the copy protected CDs. In the absolute worst case, the sound from the speaker is recorded with a microphone and then stored as a regular MP3.

Any public display,

[Limburgher]

recording, rent, sale or rebroadcast of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. . .

. . .unless all chnages made to the source are submitted back to the authors and the original and modified sources are distributed with any complied binaries.

Probably...until the hack the hack comes out

[Roached]

Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.

At least until debroadcastcss is developed. Gee, they don't even seem confident that it will work...

Re:Probably...until the hack the hack comes out

[sffubs]

Actually afaik they've managed to keep the encryption standard for DVB under wraps in Europe - I don't think anyone has broken it yet. Of course, people have reverse-engineered the authentication modules, and the encryption keys are freely available over the net... -s

Where's the Value?

[Lysander Luddite]

I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.

Once the broadcasting machine realizes that people don't watch commercials as much as they want to believe they'll likely realize increased exposure to their product would guarantee after broadcast revenues such as DVD and VHS sales, and secondary merchandising opportunities.

It's just going to take them a while to figure this out. By the time they do everything will be locked up anyway.

Re:Where's the Value?

[grungeKid]

They still broadcast ads before/after/during reruns, and advertisers still pay. Maybe less than what they would pay for appearing next to the initial broadcast of a show, but probably enough to cover the costs and more. Why else would 30+ year old shows still be rerun?

Ever notice how many ads there are in recorded shows being spread around file sharing networks?

Re:Where's the Value?

[Lysander Luddite]

Ahh yes, but its a game of diminishing returns. Like I said, one people realize that TV ads are little more effective than web ads then the whole system will need to be reengineered. I believe that the broadcasters will realize that their are more opportunities outside the broadcast for money making. They don't show ads on DVD collections during the shows do they?

No I don't know how many shared files have commercials. I don't download them.

Re:Where's the Value?

[WebMasterJoe]

I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.

I agree. The whole idea of over-the-air broadcasts is that anybody with the proper receiver can pick up the signal. So, if we can all receive the programming for free, why can't we make a near-perfect copy of it for our friends?

The "content owners" say that we don't have the right to re-broadcast, basically because if everybody could re-broadcast then their syndicated shows would be less desirable and they couldn't keep making money selling the same product. Also, we could remove the advertising if we wanted to, or theoretically replace it with our own to subsidize our costs.

But let's focus on that last part - if we take out the advertising, then the audience that we re-distribute to won't go out and buy a new Jeep after watching our copy of the show. So the companies that advertise through the "content owners" don't get that additional exposure. But guess what? If we don't re-distribute, then our second-generation audience won't see it anyway. They also won't see the program, or the network's watermark in the bottom corner, so they may be less interested in getting the broadcast feed next time it's on. And that means nobody is going to tell them to drink Sprite ("Don't listen to celebrity testimonials, drink Sprite and be like me, the Famous Athlete").

The "content owners" are confusing "free advertising" with "loss of control" - yes, they aren't the only providers of the Andy Richter show now, but they have a distinct edge over the P2P network - they have the newest episodes, best quality, and are most convenient (most of us don't run the ATI All-in-Wonder out to the TV), and it's the same price to consumers. All that the P2P networks have is time- and space-shifting.

Re:Where's the Value?

[milo_Gwalthny]

This is a good point. In the magazine world, publishers assume a "pass-around" rate: for every copy sold, several people read it. This rate is different for each type of magazine (ie. computer mags have a higher pass-around rate than business mags.)

The magazines use this number to get higher ad revenue ("well, sure we only sell 100,000 copies, but 500,000 people read it.")

You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.

Unless you use those damn Tivos to skip the ads.

DAT died...

[geoff lane]

...because it had such a copy prevention flag.

While you can go to the store and choose between two boxes, one that can record/replay anything and one that can't (and assuming all else being equal) the box with the copy prevention will stay on the shelf.

You can already see this with DVD players. Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more. Almost all DVD players can either be configured by the supplier or the owner to play any region disk and the makers are unlikely to end this any time soon (nobody wants to end up with warehouses full of DVD players with the wrong region set...)

Re:DAT died...

[Microlith]

Apple had a copy prevention flag too.

Set one bit and supposedly the Apple OS would not copy a file. This was, inevitably, ignored by everything including apple's own software shortly after it was implemented.

Of course, it wasn't *legally* mandated, but you never know what might happen.

Re:DAT died...

[Dimensio]

I wasn't aware of this. While I did consider hackability when choosing a new player, I was far more interested in a model that could output a good progressive scan image (and play SVCDs) and I was willing to sacrifice region selection for that.

Re:DAT died...

[tshoppa]

..because it had such a copy prevention flag.

Two points:

1. DAT isn't dead. It's not being used for consumer audio, but is still somewhat common in pro studios as an interchange format. It's in decline in pro use as other technologies displace it, but five years or so ago all pro audio techs used it and even many amateurs with a few hundred extra $.
2. It was doomed for mass consumer use anyway. Yes it was vastly better than regular audio cassettes - but it was also much much more expensive (both for the recorder and for the media.) For the last several years, of course, CD-R is the vastly more affordable and usually more convenient consumer equivalent.

Re:DAT died...

[ncc74656]

Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more.

In the UK I understand this is commonplace, but I don't think that's the case in the USA.

They're not as easy to find ("region-free" isn't something you'll see on the shelf tag), but you can find DVD players that are either (1) region-free out of the box or (2) can be upgraded by various means to be region-free (some are as simple as burning a CD-R with updated firmware). Your grandma probably won't know where to look for region-free DVD players, but she probably doesn't have non-R1 DVDs anyway. (I don't either, but I reserve the right to get my DVDs wherever I want. Jack Valenti can go fsck himself in the neck, and his minions can do the same.)

Re:DAT died...

[spitzak]

The professional equipment does not have SCMS. So it is quite possible that copy protection is the explanation for the consumer equipment failure, while the machines that lacked it succeeded.

Re:DAT died...

[jedrek]

I paid a 25% premium on my DVD-ROM to get it RF right out of the box. In fact, living in Europe, I will *not* buy a DVD player that doesn't allow me to switch regions. No way in hell!

Re:DAT died...

[tshoppa]

So it is quite possible that copy protection is the explanation for the consumer equipment failure, while the machines that lacked it succeeded.

That's possible. It's also possible that we'd all be flying around in private helicopters instead of driving cars if only the FAA would open up helo pilot licensing to the public.

I personally believe that consumer DAT was a flop for the same reason that Elcassetes and quadrophonic vinyl (remember those? all the rave for a couple months each in the 1970's as the "new consumer audio standard") didn't succeed, and that was because none of them offered sufficient perceived value to the average consumer to justify their costs.

A perfect digital copy of crappy content...

[jbarr]

...is still crappy content. When will the networks learn?

Now all we need...

[NetRanger]

Is a flag for "Don't Allow Broadcast Company to be a Rights-Trampling Monopolist".

I suspect they aren't going to hold up the rollout to include this one though.

Digital TV has copy protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sorry, for a moment there I forgot I was in the UK, where we've had Digital TV on Satalite, Cable and Terrestrial for over three years. What copy protection?

Next you'll tell me that the US doesn't have a single agreed standard for their mobile telephone networks!

Re:Digital TV has copy protection?

[ncc74656]

you don't seem to realise that MPEG2 over OMDF is a EUROPEAN standard too. Europe is both physically and economically larger than the USA and we have a larger population, too. What's the USA's excuse for not implementing GSM? Europe didn't semm to have too many problems...

When your phone networks are government-owned monopolies, it's much easier to impose a single standard than when you have three or four companies competing for market share. FWIW, the cellular industry managed to settle on AMPS as the analog standard sometime in the early-to-mid-'80s. By the time digital technologies came along, the carriers decided to adopt competing technologies (GSM is one of them) to attempt to stake out competitive advantages. The fact that most of the United States isn't anywhere near as densely populated as Europe also doesn't help things here (BTW, if you added up the EU countries, they don't cover anywhere near the land area covered by the US. You can easily drive from England to Germany in a day, going through France, Belgium, and Luxembourg to get there (been there, done that). It'd take me a day just to get from Las Vegas to Reno...and that's just one state out of 50.)

Re:Digital TV has copy protection?

[ncc74656]

maybe some of the reason it takes so long to get anywhere in the US is that everyone drives so slow!

Point taken, especially when you get anywhere near a concentration of old farts (basically, anyplace with "Sun City" in the name). It wasn't like this in most places before 1974, though.

Whether at 75 or 95+, though, it's still a long haul from point A to point B most of the time (4.5 hours to LA, 6 hours to Phoenix, etc.). (That one-day drive from England to Germany in my original post was in a Chevette that didn't want to be pushed much past 65, BTW.)

My Christmas wish

[GMontag]

It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy

Oh please let this be true! Pretty please?

Everybody keep quiet until these goofballs come up with something totally ineffective. They have not failed us yet!

Looks like DMCA is the real weapon

[line-bundle]

The article is unfortunately skimpy. But it still seems like a flag can be bypassed. My guess is that the real protection would probably come from a combination of DMCA and spy chips in the TVs, recorders and whatnot. I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.

Digital TV could bring so many advances to homes

[forged]

To me, Digital TV means so much more than a new class of devices with just more copyrights protection built-in. I don't think that we can escape this entirely, and perhaps there is a compromise in the air. What I am looking for as a consumer, is the following:

For once, screw NTSC, PAL and SECAM. I still can't figure out why various countries chose to have different broadcast signals in the first place. Hopefully Digital TV will make this a moot point, once we all share the same "format" (and it better be good :)

Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.

Imagine for a moment what a good-looking picture on your big-screen TV might looks like. A picture with shard details and glorious colors. Not like anything you can get from NTSC equipment, and to a lesser degree on PAL/SECAM too.

As you can see, I'm really looking forward to Digital TV. I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit. I just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..

indecisive televisions

[tps12]

My old analog TV can never make up its mind, but it does have a whole continuum to choose from. At least digital TVs only have to choose from a finite set.

(please do not mod down if you don't get this joke)

Let them make....

[Orangedog_on_crack]

....all of the lame attempts at DRM etc. With the continued increase in computing power to the hardware that the consumer can buy, IMHO any "copy protection" or encription scheme the powers that be come up with will be broken within a year of it's introduction. It happened with DSS and Dish Network, it's only a matter of time ( and probably not much time) before it's cracked.

Also, if they are taking this long to come up with the initial standard, it will take another decade before they would be able to deploy an new standard to replace the one that will be cracked.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[night_flyer]

In 2006 when everyone broadcasts digital you'll have to get one

with the cancellation of the shows I found even remotly entertaining, the rest will be gone by 2006. I wont have to get anything, I wont be watching TV anymore...

Over My Litigious Lawyer's Dead Body!

[FreeUser]

I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.

Until and unless Big Brother Hollywood is going to pay for my internet connection, they'd better not even think about imposing that kind of draconian supervision over my viewing habits. If they should try to do so I will either organize a class action suit against them, or sue them on my own. Whether it is 2 bytes or 2 gigabytes, I'm the one paying for the bandwidth and their use of my resources against my will constitutes tresspess of chattles and arguably theft in precisely the same way junk faxes and SPAM do.

Now, if Hollywood is going to offer me free 100Mbit bandwidth to the internet, I might briefly consider making a Faustian bargain with them, exchanging my privacy for faster pr0n downloads, but I suspect even then I would consider it only briefly before rejecting it. Some things, like individual privacy and freedom, aren't for sale at any price (at least by me, though it seems the masses of mindless drones that populate our western democracies, indeed perhaps the entire planet, aren't as discriminating as one might wish).

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[Zathrus]

For once, screw NTSC, PAL and SECAM. I still can't figure out why various countries chose to have different broadcast signals in the first place. Hopefully Digital TV will make this a moot point, once we all share the same "format" (and it better be good :)

Uh... riiight. Whatever.

HDTV is a North American only standard. Japan has it's own analog high definition standard. Various countries in Europe have their own standards (e.g. - the UK. Not sure what the status is of other countries at the moment).

Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format [slashdot.org] better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.

There are already ongoing efforts for an HD DVD standard. Blu-ray is one of them. The name of the other (which is a single company, not a consortium) escapes me at the moment. If there's any relation to the HDTV broadcast standards then it'll be more because the hardware is already setup to deal with specific resolutions than for any other reason.

I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit.

Some of the issues are not solvable. The 8VSB broadcast standard sucks wind. It doesn't fulfill it's goal properly - multipath transmissions kill it dead, and its current operational range is pathetic. If you live within 25 miles of a HD tower you'll probably get reception. If under 50, you may. If 75, you'll be lucky. Over 75? Forget it, the signal won't be strong enough to get a picture.

just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..

No, they're making all new and improved mistakes. The FCC apparantly got neutered in the past couple decades and they haven't done anything that is in the consumer's interest regarding HD. Removing the "must carry" clause for cable when it comes to HD was the nail in the coffin. At this point they're just throwing dirt on top (no recording standards, no cable box standards, no encryption standards, etc.).

I love the idea of digital. I've seen HD and it's absolutely stunning. But the rollout has been so mismanaged that I'm increasingly of the opinion that HD is doomed to become the next DAT.

There's a lot of "value"

[Ted_Green]

The value is in a few things. But the most obvious (at face) is syndication and reruns. If such "popular" episodes are freely available elsewhere then they stand to lose revenue when they air that old episode of CSI because less people are likely to watch it (as they can get it else where) and advertisers aren't going to pay top dollar for a spot they know few are going to see.
Effectively this kills the whole method of TV production as it stands now. (Consider how much out there *is* reruns).
No one wants to (or even can I believe) come out with hit show after hit show, which is what would effectively have to happen for people to keep up with TV.

Of course, all this is bullshit at the moment. Few have the bandwidth (and far fewer the inclination) to digitize the shows they watch and make them available to the general public. But then, the network execs aren't planning for now, they're planning for days ahead. They see what things like Napster have done to the music industry and don't want it happening to them. (Let's leave out the side comments about how Napster and other programs "help" the music industry.. I don't think anyone has the honest facts on that, and besides this is all about perception.)

Eventually, if one takes the slippery slope down the road of enlightenment, what we'll all end up with is extremely watered down TV.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[stubear]

And what do you call the flagrant copying and distribution of copyrighted material by internet users? I'd call that "rights-trampling". People have taken fair use and abused it beyond belief and expect numerous industries to just change their business models so people can have copyrighted material for free. Sorry, but illegal business models should be shut down, not dealt with.

Incentive to Copy is the Issue

[salamander49]

Right now, I have the incentive to download music from the net and burn my own CD's. That incentive is that I normally only like 1-2 songs per CD and I'm not going to pay $18 for two songs. Movies are different, it's worth it for me to pay $20 (ish) for a DVD because it will take a couple of hours to download and put the whole thing together (today). The trick for the recording/movie/tv studios is to set a price point for their media and create a distribution channel where its not worth it for me to download from the internet. Why should I pay for rock/movie stars to go to the space station when the answer to all their problems are just lower prices and common sense distribution?

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[Chris Carollo]

Imagine for a moment what a good-looking picture on your big-screen TV might looks like.

I don't have to imagine, I've seen it, and it's absolutely stunning! I've got a D-ILA projector that can do 1360x768 (which is less than the 1920x1080 or 1280x720 of the HD signal, but it's got some wacky temporal aliasing scheme that does wonders), and on my 120" screen it honestly looks better than my local cinemas. Whenever I demo any HD material for folks that haven't been previously exposed to HD, their response is -- without fail -- "Oh my God".

I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit.

These are happy times now if you're willing to do the research and deal with the typical hassles of the early adopter. ABC and CBS are doing most of their primetime lineup in HD, NBC has committed to all their new shows in the fall being in HD (and rumors of 11 total primtime hours), and the WB is even doing 3-4 hours of HD this fall. Add HDNet showing sports and the Olympics, Discovery HD Theater starting up on the 17th of this month, HD-HBO and HD-Showtime...

If your local affiliates are up to speed (this biggest question mark at the moment, IMO), or you've got Dish or DirecTV, there's quite a bit of astoundingly impressive HD content out there right now, and with HD sets in the sub-$2K range, it's more accessable than most people think.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[forged]

That's a lot of US references in your post. Unfortunately I happen not to live on the continent, which was also one of the motivations for my post: streamline the standards, so that if/when you move, you don't end-up with equipment you have to leave behind.

again proof that upper management have no brains.

[Lumpy]

first off, there is no way in hell they are going to technically pull it off. all they are going to do it make it a pain in the ass for regular joe public for only a short time before the tools to undo their garbage happens...

And supposedly I'm the type of person they are after. YES, I have every Invader Zim episode on divx on Cd's. Why? I like the cartoon and it is going away. Nickelodeon has stated that they will NEVER release them on DVD, and I can go stuff it in my ass. well you know what? they cant tell me I'm stealing something that doesnt exist!! That' like saying that people who buy lemons are stealing from the lemonade bottling companies! It costs NOTHING to produce a show's archive for sale, and die-hard fans, the people that will buy the stuff, will buy it!

IP is stupid, anyone that is supportive of IP is stupid, and we all need to get beck to reality instead of acting like a bunch of greedy 5 year old babies screaming "MINE MINE MINE"
thinking they are going to become filthy,obsene rich.

I'm tired of it, the world is getting tired of it, and we need to call a dog a dog.

Until these "groups" are staffed with something other than yes-men that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about we will have extremely stupid and idiotic decisions and policies.

we are at a time in history that most of the human species does not understand, nor can understand, the technology that is in use every day... and it is only going to get worse.

It's SCMS all over again...

[stereoroid]

SCMS is the Serial Copy Management System, which is what put consumers off from buying DAT drives, I agree. It's relevant to any digital audio stream, really, but you hardly ever hear of it any more. The other thing that killed DAT was pressure from the major labels that bumped prices up and restricted drive and media availability at the crucial time.

Now, of course, you can but SCMS strippers, or build your own. The people suggesting this as a serious security mechanism are "asleep at the switch", methinks...

Re:again proof that upper management have no brain

[Adrenochrome]

"It costs NOTHING to produce a show's archive for sale"

Uh, bullshit.

Programmers might be smart, but they really ought to need to take a couple business/economics classes before getting their sheepskin.

1. Home video distribution rights. Who owns them? Can Nickelodeon acquire/license those rights?

2. Digital transfer. The masters for the show are probably in analog format. A DVD transfer must be made. Possibly new soundtracks must be created (5.1 surrond, etc.)

3. Additional content: Behind the scenes interviews, production stills, subtitles, etc. Authoring a DVD is a PITA, and the service doesn't come cheap.

4. Locomotion is an AWESOME cartoon channel. How come we can't get it in the states? (oops, way off topic, nevermind)

5. Packaging. Yeah, consumers still want packaging. Weird, I know.

6. Distribution.

7. Marketing.

8. ...

9. ...

So no, it doesn't cost "NOTHING".

Releasing on DVD has an "opportunity cost" as well. If it is available on DVD, then your cannibalizing your ad revenue for future showings/syndication.

But hey, if you really like the series, talk to the producers. I'm sure they'd love for someone to foot the bill for them continuing their work. Maybe you can even buy the home video rights from them...

Re:!!!GO USA!!!

[elefantstn]

political: we manage to get every country ticked at us.

But yet, they keep coming back for more...

social: we are self absorbed, unthinking, and cannot function socially without coffee and television

If you think this makes the US different, you've clearly never been to Europe.

education: our system is a mess. there's not enough money to pay teachers. the ciriculum is dumbed down. half the students can't pass basic minimum requirement tests.

Oh the irony of misspelled words in "our edumecation is bad!" rants.

ah, but we have Patriotism(TM) and that makes us right!

Fuck patriotism, we have John O'Brien, Landon Donovan, and Brian McBride.

WE WON, YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! We will dispose of every pansy-assed Euro team that gets in our way.

This looks like the crux of it

[Observer]

Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably (my emphasis) would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.

So there's going to have to be some mechanism built into all the electronic information transport mechanisms commonly available to consumers that will look for and honour the "It's MINE, I tell you, all MINE!!!!" flag? Even when the content has been transformed into a format suitable for transport?

I wish them luck. Perhaps the broadcasters have finally found a form of sufficiently advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic (nods to the shade of Arthur C Clarke); would they now mind turning their attention to producing something that's worth watching even once?

Somehow, I have a feeling that for this plan to fly they're going to have to get some more laws passed by their tame sock-puppets in the legislatures. If only because otherwise they'd have to fund the requisite extensive changes to the communications infrastructure themselves, which would doubtless bring about the end of civilisation as they know it....

The usual Slashdot I don't so no one does....

[NetJunkie]

I have one. The guy sitting next to me does. My parents do. Heck, even my grandparents have one now, though I doubt they watch digital signals on it.

Digital TVs are cheap enough that "normal" people buying TVs are getting them. Go to Best Buy on a weekend and watch them go out the door.

Your Telivision Will Not Be Revolutionized

[Hard_Code]

Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
by John Litzenberg
This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience
the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have the option to view programming that reflects
actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have more information at your disposal,
but a great deal more disposable information;
you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging
or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints
of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life;
nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment
that will best equip you to face other human beings
who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence
because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D.
by absorbing the litany of T
but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom
vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports,
or candid interviews with starvation victims
in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast,"
and may be convinced exists
only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator,
or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching
carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands
resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis,
sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling,
all of which may or not be created using special effects.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television,
in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence
and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week,
and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes
or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections
or wash-and-go shampoos.

You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts
of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa,
but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like,
"When did you first realize that you were different from other children?"
and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes
in between paid advertisement programs
showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home,
and they will be given equal air-time,
and each will be gently disclaimed:
"The opinions expressed by guests on this program
do not necessarily reflect the views of this network,
do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers,
and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."

You will continue to find yourself in a world
that has an increasing number of methods for communication,
and alarmingly less and less to say.

You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that
"the medium is the message,"
and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning,
"Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume,"
and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra
that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

Re:Your Telivision Will Not Be Revolutionized

[Hard_Code]

Oops..that got mangled, try again:
Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
by John Litzenberg
This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience
the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have the option to view programming that reflects
actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have more information at your disposal,
but a great deal more disposable information;
you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging
or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints
of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life;
nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment
that will best equip you to face other human beings
who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence
because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D.
by absorbing the litany of T & A, S & M, B & D and R & R
on CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN,
people who have important things to say
regarding the fragility of relying on modern convenience
will not be able to set up independent broadcast towers
because the FCC, FBI and CIA will make sure
that you do not find these programs included as part of "Must See TV,"
and they will certainly not be sponsored
by Mobil Oil Corporation and the Fortune 500.

You will not be able to immediately gain access
to the viewing public without waiting nine months
on a list for new programs, waiting only to be passed over
by a Committee for Fairness in Television
because your views are not deemed interesting enough
to command a favorable Nielson share.
Nor will you be able to select features for your viewing pleasure
that have not been hand-picked by the owners of the airwaves
and their supporting advertisers.

Your television will not be revolutionized.
Your television will not be revolutionized.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

You will continue to experience a decrease in rapid eye movement,
increasing cases of attention deficit disorder among your babies and children,
and on-going, invasive modifications to your DNA
caused by the barrage of an electron machine gun
you have invited into your home to expose "viewers like you"
to a thousand points of artificial light.

You will continue to form images subconsciously inside your physical brain
without the benefit of seeing them outside your head,
and without the ability to blink and shut them out or slow them down
so as to maintain the facility to selectively choose
the sound bytes and sound tracks and sound effects and
hypnotic waves of electricity that will influence
your spending patterns, your methods of recreation, your opinions on procreation,
your impression of reality and
your overall sense of physical health and well-being.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

Your retention of information will continue to decrease,
while the available percentage of brain cells at your disposal
will continued to be used up by phrases from sitcom theme songs,
by deductive meanderings on who shot J.R., and
by images of politicians wrapped in flags and kissing babies,
eating chitterlings, slicing pizza and
spreading lox on bagels.

You will not be able to take your message to the streets
or distribute pamphlets questioning the party line
at union meetings or city council sessions,
because your fellow citizens will be safe at home,
unified only in the respect that they are all watching re-runs
of the same shows so it can be assured there will be a topic of conversation
when we are all turned loose to exercise
our First Amendment rights
assisted by a new and improved level of communication
brought to you by the Association for the Preservation of Technological Megalomaniacs.

You will not be able to tell the difference between an embrace
offered by a virtual reality image of your dead father
and the gentle purring of a live kitten grasping your shoulder;
but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom
vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports,
or candid interviews with starvation victims
in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast,"
and may be convinced exists
only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator,
or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching
carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands
resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis,
sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling,
all of which may or not be created using special effects.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television,
in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence
and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week,
and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes
or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections
or wash-and-go shampoos.

You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts
of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa,
but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like,
"When did you first realize that you were different from other children?"
and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes
in between paid advertisement programs
showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home,
and they will be given equal air-time,
and each will be gently disclaimed:
"The opinions expressed by guests on this program
do not necessarily reflect the views of this network,
do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers,
and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."

You will continue to find yourself in a world
that has an increasing number of methods for communication,
and alarmingly less and less to say.

You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that
"the medium is the message,"
and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning,
"Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume,"
and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra
that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

What about sneaker net?

[Rev Snow]

I know some school teachers who occasionally see a television program that is relevant to their class. They record the program on video tape, then carry the tape to school and play it for the class on the school's VCR.

Would this kind of use be permitted under the proposed DRM scheme?

Re:What about sneaker net?

[isorox]

watched 24/7 by teams of secret police

who watches the mpaa^H^H^H^H secret police? They are people after all

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Try more like $1500 for a "low-end" set that is still head and shoulders above any standard-definition set. And its getting cheaper every day, Apex king of low-priced DVD is moving into the market with plenty of cheap digital TVs too.

http://www.bestbuy.com/HomeAudioVideo/Television s/ DigitalTVs.asp?b=0&m=1&cat=24&scat=1470&sort=4

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[foobar104]

I dont know of a single person, anywhere, that owns a digital television.

You do now. I bought one last month, and so did a friend of mine. Another friend bought his last year; he kind of opened the flood gates for us. I watched the SuperBowl in January, 2001, in HD at another friend's place. He's our early adopter.

I'm not sure where you live or what kind of friends you have, but HDTV is more common than you realize.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[foobar104]

I pay much more attention to the vivid, full-color picture outside in my garden than I do to anything on TV.

I wonder if I could convince you to try the same trick with your computer.

Every time there's a TV-related story on Slashdot, you get people crawling out of the woodwork to post mildly off-topic comments about how they don't watch TV. You know what? Nobody asked you. If you have something to contribute, that's fine. But if all you have to say is, "I only watch Masterpiece Theater and those delightful Taster's Choice commercials with the English chap," then please just move along.

Sheesh.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[IronChef]

If digital TVs were $100 I still wouldn't buy one -- because there are no PVRs that can time shift HDTV content. I hate to sound like a commercial, but my ReplayTV has revolutionized how I watch TV, and I am not going back.

Re:What's the difference between...

[Technician]

Digital TV is an interactive (handshake required) transmission between components. (tuner-monitor/display) A perfect copy of the data stream will be refused by the digital monitor due to the lack of a handshake when the encrypted stream is fed back to a digital display from a non-lisenced playback device. This is not the analog NTSC or SVGA stuff you are used to. Any recorders will be required (by DMCA etc) to take the Copyrighted copy bit and change it to I am a copy bit when recorded. That copy will not be able to be recorded (2nd generation) to a device (DMCA playback hardware) that will handshake with the monitor. Your encrypted (received by e-mail) film will not play from your hard drive. A burner (DMCA hardware) will not burn it on a DVD for playback.
That's the way they have been trying to set up Serial Content Copy Control specification for digital TV. It's to be encrypted with challenge/response communications all the way to the monitor with protection against making a playable copy of a copy. (protected by the DMCA and prevented by the hardware) It will be the same as the SONY Music Minidisk with it's serial copy protection. It's nice, has nice quality, but limited in usefullness and wide spread adoption. MP3's and WAV's on CDR's open format has vastly overtaken SONY's portable music market.
Hardware manufactures know the power of the votes of the public dollars and don't want to make hardware that is voted down by the consumers.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[foobar104]

IMHO the ONLY reason to have a digital TV is for watching movies, or maybe sports.

:cough:farscape:cough:

You'd be surprised how much regular old entertainment TV is being mastered in HD these days. Enterprise has been shot and finished in HD since the pilot episode-- although I know that that doesn't make the quality of the writing any better. My point is that there's a lot of fairly low-rent TV out there that's being produced in HD. They're just waiting for the broadcasters to catch up.

I have been told-- although I can't swear to it-- that Farscape is in production on the 2002-2003 season (season 4, is it?) in HD.

When we get Buffy in HD, I'm gonna be pretty much set for couchly entertainment.

Doesn't Hollywood have a clue? When even AOTC is so crappy that I'd skip seeing it, maybe they need to seriously take a look at the steaming piles of you-know-what they're putting out.

Hollywood didn't have anything to do with AOTC. LucasFilm is completely, 100% independent of the Hollywood studios. Fox distributed it, but that's it.

And your opinion on AOTC seems to be very much in the minority, friend.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[foobar104]

If your local affiliates are up to speed, or you've got Dish or DirecTV, there's quite a bit of astoundingly impressive HD content out there right now.

HD TiVo, dammit! HD TiVo!

Re:again proof that upper management have no brain

[IronChef]

IP is stupid, anyone that is supportive of IP is stupid...

That's quite a statement.

If there were Invader Zim DVDs to buy, wouldn't you be, uh, supportive of that?

And color me stupid, because I write and sell books. Guess I am part of the evil IP cartel! Now where's my Ferrari, dammit?

Re:double?

[Lonath]

I guess CmdTaco has better things todo then read /.

My opinion of him just went up.

But seriously, this just means that they will go to Sen. Hollings (D-Disney) for more controls like the SSCCPBDTABA or whatever it's being called this week to hide from the public outcry.

And, in case you were still buying or renting content, plz stop so these people can't do this stuff. Don't steal the stuff, just don't buy it either.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Sabalon]

Didn't you see "The X-Men"???

The hot dog vendor on the beach had one, the crummy bar in the middle of nowhere Canada had one, everyone had one :)

Copy local or copy never, but not copy once

[Rogerborg]

I don't think that this article says or even implies that there's a "copy once" bit.

What it implies is a new standard for gateway digital devices that will pass content only to other devices of the same class, and (I suspect) over a proprietary, non-IP network. Then (whatever actual encoding is used) there's going to be an identifying watermark that the receiving device must look for. It will either be a simple identifier (so that you can copy from one PVR to another if you plug them together) or a "copy never" bit so that you can stream it to another PVR, but this second PVR will not make a copy, it will only stream on to a display. Technically, there might be a "copy once" bit, but only on the original broadcast, so once it hits your PVR, it's "copy never".

If it's the former case, and you can make copies by plugging two PVR's together, I think that's fair enough, because I can take my PVR round to my brother's house and make a copy of Buffy for him. That's raising the bar far enough, as it effectively restores the situation that case law has decided is fair use: making a few copies explicitely for known friends and family.

However, that theory is replete with flaws. For one, it doesn't match the way the industry has been going. It's far more likely (I suggest) that it will be a "copy never" bit, and only local streaming will be allowed. For another, there's still that bloody great gaping hole at the tail in either case: sending to a display. Because unless the display also has to be one of these new devices, you just stream to a video capture card, then it's straight onto the internet with the content, and people will download it and stream it to their own non-compliant display devices.

That's the sting. It has to cover display devices (TV's, monitors) and it has to be mandatory. Don't think this will stop with PVR's. For it to have even a hope in hell of making a difference, every display device sold will have to be compliant, and it will have to refuse to show content without the watermark. That means that PC video cards will also have to watermark their content. You see where this is going? It snowballs pretty rapidly. But unless they get everything, there's little point in them pushing ahead with it.

To support this rather alarmist attitude, ask yourself this: if this is truly an industry consensus, why does it need to be legislated?. I suggest that the answer is that for it to work, it has to be mandatory, and it has to be across the board: every channel, every cable decoder, every PVR, every TV, every monitor, every video card, every DVD player, every VCR. Everything.

Wake up, the coffee is brewing. This is Son of SSSCA, yet again. They're just hoping nobody notices this time until it's too late. Please, please, get out that pen and paper, and ask your elected representatives to have a good, long, hard look at this, because it has the potential to be as bad as you can possibly imagine, and then a whole lot worse.

Re:Digital TV could bring so many advances to home

[Zathrus]

OFDM was invented by Bell Labs in 1965... my reference for this is here and (better) here. According to the 2nd article, the C of COFDM was indeed done by a French lab, which would lead to the moronic NIH syndrome.

While we're at it, here's another article that talks about some of the differences between 8VSB and COFDM, and even points at some advantages to 8VSB.

To venture back off-topic - yes, the US telecomm market is rapidly headed back toward a monopoly. Except this time it won't be regulated like AT&T was. The rest of the US free market is doing pretty well though :)

Back ontopic - what's interesting is that Digital TV's are selling pretty well in the US. What isn't selling well are the set top decoders to receive digital broadcasts. People are buying the TVs and then hooking up DVD players to get a superior picture. And since most of the large screen TVs have built in de-interlacing, you even get an improved NTSC picture.

Why aren't the boxes selling? Partly the 8VSB issue and the cable issue (nobody is going to stick up a big ass antenna on their roof nowadays), partly the lack of broadcasting by the major networks, and partly (a very small part) due to some of the more informed people knowing that anything bought today may not be compatible in 2-3 years -- since the studios and the manufacturers are still hashing out connection standards it's possible that any DTV you buy today may wind up being reduced to NTSC-quality reception in the future because it doesn't have the right connectors on it. Fun fun fun.

For me, the last bit is the one and only reason I don't have a digital TV now. I have $5k earmarked toward one (and I'm hoping to spend much less than that). But I'm not going to buy one to have it rendered nearly useless by idiotic studio mavens.

Yet they think I'm going to buy a DTV?

[NanoGator]

Wow, these guys are working really hard to make sure that I don't buy a digital TV. I'm curious what economics class they took that said:

"Don't listen to your customer's needs. Instead, assume they are a thief, and prevent your product from being miused at all costs! Only that way will you be able to maintain an ancient business model."

It's real simple: I'm not buying a Digitial Video Recorder if it only lets me 'copy once'. They better hope that somebody hacks it if they want my money.

You know, a couple of years ago I used to really love TV and Movies. Now I feel like we're fighting a war. It's amazing how much less value TV has when you're stressed about stuff you can't do with it.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[KFury]

"Has it occured to Slashdot's staff that nobody in the real world owns a digital television?"

I'm not sure you understand the point. It's not about digital televisions; it's about digital recorders. A lot of people have ReplayTV, TiVo, or UltimateTV, and a lot more will soon.

The industry doesn't give a crap about whether people watch broadcasts in digital or analog form. They care about chains of perfect copies of content.

Hang on a second there

[jfengel]

When I read your comment, I envisioned a studio executive holding the freshly-completed final copy of, say, the next episode of Alias, and waiting for your demand that you hand it over immediately.

Before the thing is broadcast, at least, a TV show or album is a thing with a lot of value and you have zero rights to it whatsoever. The guy wants to find some way to sell it to you, to recoup his investment in making the thing. So he's suddenly trampling on your rights by trying to sell it to everybody rather than having you give it away for free, just because you have a way to do the cheap part (duplicating bits)?

There used to be a good way to do that distrubution: he'd put it on the air, and sell people rights to interrupt it with commercials. Obviously that's a deeply flawed system, but it's one way to do it, and it has the advantage to you that you get to watch it without laying out any cash.

Technology has exacerbated the flaws in that system to the point where it's totally dysfunctional, and a new technology must created to solve the problems. But the flaws are in the fact that the broadcaster can't control distribution any more, not that you suddenly don't have your "free" content anymore.

Maybe it is time to end over-the-air broadcasts entirely, since it only works by giving monopolies on a public resource to rich people, who are no longer able to get the value out of it that they need to produce their content. That would make a lot of people unhappy, since they don't get their TV, but we get our airwaves back.

I just implore you to think twice where rights come from before you call the broadcasters "rights-trampling monopolists". Yes, they are using public resources to enrich their pockets, but they are also creating content and employing a lot of people, from actors to writers, directors, and gaffers. They also profit from the system.

There is a serious debate here over the best way to control content, and how much copyright affords. But suggesting that all of the power is on your side, and that they owe you this content, is unhelpful and greedy.

Re:Hang on a second there

[arkanes]

Sorry. They are rights-trampling monoplists. I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use. They want to remove this right from me. They are willing to flex unreasonable economic and political muscle to do so. Obviously, I'm not OWED content. But they aren't owed my money, either. But they get it - tax subsidies, the right to own my airwaves, control over content that violate all logical reasoning (I'm going to send you a signal, but you can't look at it. If you do, I'll have you thrown in jail), taxes on recording media.... I'd say they certainly owe me SOMETHING.

Re:Hang on a second there

[jfengel]

I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use.

Fair use allows you to use it; it does not allow you to "exchange" it.

But they aren't owed my money, either.

They have a right to charge for their content, if you wish to watch it. Perhaps using the airwaves to distribute it is a bad idea. It was always kind of dubious as a model, since the "price" of content is exchanged through the weird medium of advertising money. Still, at one point it functioned according to an economic model that suited everybody reasonably well: they broadcast it, you saw it live, and it was over. You didn't get to rebroadcast it or watch it without the commercials.

Since then, technology has changed that. Maybe they need to stop broadcasting over the air. Certainly there are other people who would like to be using that spectrum. RF is hardly the only area where this occurs; the government sells land rights for mining and agriculture dirt cheap as long as you have enough money. So the technology has changed, and it seems like time to renegotiate the contract, not time to assert rights to a resource that has changed dramatically since the contract was create.

200 channels on the Digital TV...

[night_flyer]

and there is STILL nothing on to watch...

Digital TV? HD-TV? Fuggetaboudit.

[crovira]

Its not going to happen.

You don't need it for carrying commercials and reruns of "My Mother the Car."

That's the direction the industry's headed in since day one. There's no compelling reason for the advertisers to invest in new infrastructure until the old one has collapsed.

I hopy you LIKE the current resolution and aspect ratio because it ain't changing. Nobody wants to pay for it. Not the advertisers and certainly not YOU.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Yarn]

a) digital doesn't necessarily mean hdtv
b) it is actually easier to timeshift digital TV, the BSkyB Sky+ package does this, just capturing the transport stream, no messy analogue stage.
c) You can build your own digital tv shifter, google for 'VDR'

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Zathrus]

You're deeply, deeply out of touch.

You can buy a 40"-ish DTV for $1500 now. 50" sets are $2500, and 62" sets are $3500. This is, of course, the low end on each. But you can buy one of those $2500 50" sets, have someone come and calibrate it properly for about $200 and end up with a set that's better than an uncalibrated $6000 50" set.

Digital TV's are selling, and they're selling very well indeed. If you look at the circulars in Sunday papers you'll see that the majority of large screen (>36") sets are digital ready, either in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios.

The thing that is not selling is the digital receivers - which are down to about $500 now (maybe less). And those aren't advertised in the circulars either. Because they're not selling. People are buying the DTV's to be "upgrade ready" and to get way, way better picture quality from DVDs and (usually) NTSC broadcasts. Even a crappy scalar built into the sets is better than watching interlaced.

Why aren't people buying the receivers though? Well, it's a few factors. First, 8VSB sucks and a lot of people simply can't get reception. Since the FCC declined to require cable must carry rules for digital broadcasts (despite the fact that 80% of the US gets all TV from cable, and it's been this way for 15 years) most people can't get a signal. Rabbit ears don't cut it for 8VSB, and people aren't going back to the 1960s and putting huge ass antennas on their roofs.

Second, there's no broadcasting. The networks have done a miserable job of holding up their end of the bargain. Fox is deliberately dragging its feet and broadcasting in only 480p where they're broadcasting digital at all.

Third, the connection standards are pretty non-existant. There's no recording standards, no encryption standards, and no definite cabling standards. All of these have been vaguely proposed, and vaguely accepted, but the studios and broadcasters keep whining that it's not sufficient and keep wanting to go back to the drawing board. The cable industry has only done preliminary steps on a cable box interface standard -- allegedly finished, but now we get to watch them fight over patent and royalty issues for a few years. And those of us in the know haven't bought digital yet because of this. It's entirely possible that any DTV without the proper DVI connector will wind up not being able to display anything better than NTSC quality in a couple years when all of the above issues DO get ironed out. I have a good bit of money earmarked toward a very large DTV, but I'm not spending it until some of this gets figured out.

Set top boxes have it covered

[heroine]

With the amount of copy protection you can build into dedicated appliances and the amount consumers are willing to pay for convenience, copyright violations are hardly a problem.

Classification of Irish.

[EnglishTim]

Unlike most countries, where one of your parents have to be a citizen for you to be able to claim citizenship, Ireland has a policy of allowing those with a Irish grandparent to claim citizenship. Mick McCarthy, the Irish football coach is Irish because of this, IIRC...

Anyway, I'd imagine this boosts the number of people in the world who are able to claim to be Irish quite considerably.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[cruelworld]

>> most people can't get a signal. Rabbit ears don't cut it for 8VSB, and people aren't going >>back to the 1960s and putting huge ass antennas on their roofs.

Try a bow-tie antenna. It works quite well. A double-bow tie indoor antenna ($40 from radio shack) works even better when multipath is a problem.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Tumbleweed]

> And in 1980 when everyone uses the metric system, you are going to need a new bathroom scale.

Yeah, and we'll have to rearrange the keycaps on our keyboards for DVORAK while we all learn Esperanto. :)

Consensus via keeping everyone else out

[geekotourist]

Looks like the EFF fought hard to get in and stay in the meeting process. It really seems as if the industry group didn't think that anyone else should have a say in this issue, even though it significantly affects fair use (and not to mention the millions of current HDTV owners being sent up that stinky creek). From the EFF's abstract of their well-written comments on the final report:

We hope that readers of the Co-Chair's Report will find in this briefing, compelling evidence of the dangers presented by the BPDG recommendations and will recognize them as the self-interested aspirations of a small, partisan group seeking to write an anti-competitive law that protects its commercial interests at the public's expense.

The BPDG "process" has been rife with acrimony, arbitrariness and confusion, to an extent that cannot be fully ascribed to mere haste. EFF believes that the failings of the BPDG process stem directly from BPDG's efforts to cloak a inter-industry horse-trading exercise in the trappings of a public undertaking, with nominal participation from all "affected industries." In reality, the representatives were hand-picked by the conveners of the BPDG to minimize any dissent, as is evidenced by the high degree of similarity between the original proposal brought to the group by its conveners and the final report that the co-chairs unilaterally present herein as the group's findings.[bold added by gt]

Throughout the process, the absence of any formal charter or process afforded the co-chairs the opportunity to manipulate the rules of the group to suit their true purpose while maintaining its illusory openness, as when the scope of the group's discussions was summarily expanded to encompass all unauthorized redistribution of feature films, as opposed to unauthorized redistribution over the Internet.

Options for HDTV timeshifting

[bentradio]

Actually, if you are willing to build your own PVR (and I can understand that some aren't), there are quite a few options for timeshifting HDTV content. Namely;

AccessDTV: http://www.accessdtv.com/accessdtv/index.htm
Hauppauge WinTV-HD: http://www.hauppauge.com
Telemann HiPix: http://www.telemann.com/products/dtv200.html

There are quite a few opinions on these cards, and if you are really interested you should be sure to check a more recent one because as the software they use changes, so does the capabilities of the cards. As always, a great resource for all of this is the AVS Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/ [avsforum.com]

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[foobar104]

The superbowl wasnt broadcast in High-Definition. It was 480p. Fox sux when it comes to HD.

I wasn't talking about the 2002 game. I was talking about the 2001 game, like I said, which was broadcast by CBS is glorious 1080i.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[ncc74656]

I dont know of a single person, anywhere, that owns a digital television.

You do now. I bought one last month, and so did a friend of mine. Another friend bought his last year; he kind of opened the flood gates for us. I watched the SuperBowl in January, 2001, in HD at another friend's place. He's our early adopter.

I'm not sure where you live or what kind of friends you have, but HDTV is more common than you realize.

It all depends on where you are and what's available locally. I know someone with a HD-capable monitor (60" widescreen Toshiba), but he hasn't bothered getting a HD receiver to go with it. There's only one HD broadcaster in town ATM, and while I'm sure that JAG in HD is nice, it's not thousands-of-dollars nice. The widescreen capability ends up only getting used with DVDs. As for me, I have a 27" Akai (the one with a widescreen mode that squishes the vertical scan) that plays anamorphic DVDs at full resolution and cost less than $400. It works well enough for me.

Not quite accurate...

[OmniGeek]

Many computer monitors run at horizontal scan rates different from the mains frequency (I'm running 800x600 at 75 Hz right now), so it's NOT really primarily a matter of EMF induced interference. What is really going on is that cheap, poorly-filtered HV and deflection supplies (such as those built into consumer-level TV sets) that are synched to the mains frequency won't show visible effects on-screen from mains-frequency ripple on their DC outputs. (Actually, the artifacts WILL be there, but as they they aren't actually moving, they aren't noticable without a tape measure; they appear as degraded vertical linearity (scan line height). High-quality system such as VGA monitors and HDTV sets generally have better-regulated DC supplies and suppress the ripple better.

As for the difference between PAL and SECAM, I will cynically suggest that it is due to French orneriness and a nationalistic desire to go their own way. Alas, this attitude is very transnational; as a species, we just cannot seem to agree on ONE standard for anything. (Video coding, modem standards, tone-dialing frequencies, power-line voltage/frequency, power-line freakin' PLUGS, you name it...)

Re:again proof that upper management have no brain

[Lumpy]

Yes, and if you wouldn't let me buy your book(s), I'd gladly take it(them) over to a photocopier and copy the sections I need/want. or (GASP) fint it at the library. (Funny, you publishers arent out hanging librarians and burning libraries.. they have photocopiers all ready and waiting for rampant copyright infringement! My God, Libraries are Cesspools of Wanton illegal activity! People are READING books they didnt pay for!!!!)

so yes... if you published your books on the same model as television shows, you are in the exact same category.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[Bowie J. Poag]

So, here's what i've learned in summary for this thread:


"If you go HDTV, you'll never go back because 1080i BSkyB Sky+ Enhanced DVD Digital 480 Mega Overscan HD Super Mario PVR is great for viewing 2006 DIgital NTSC 480i CSI!!!! If you haven't spent $3000 on a television, you arent as cool as me and the other 2% of the population stupid enough to pay $3000 for a television!!! You're poor, because me and this guy I've heard of a couple towns over have HDTV! You're poor!!"


And...

"I just want to watch TV, and watch movies occasionally. I could care less if its digital. If a movie sucks, watching it in high-definition digital quality isn't going to make it suck any less. Besides, half the time, all thats on TV are commercials and reruns, and I could care less if I can see every individual hair on Ted Koppel's toupee."

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see which group I subscribe to. Then again, if you were one of the unfortunate morons who bought a $3000 idiot box, here's a hint: I belong to the -second- of the two groups mentioned. Get crackin'!

Cheers,