NeuroManson asks:
"With the growing hype surrounding HDTV and copy protection, and as further corporate control of the FCC becomes more commonplace with the inevitable arrival of the technology thanks to Hollywood, you will have no choice in the future of watching anything else, since your TV, VCR, etc, will be forced into obsolescence.
There are two things that this brings to mind that should be addressed: who will be paying for the retrofit to the thousands of CRT and TV manufacturing plants around the world to make this possible; and assuming that this is going to be a US only problem in the short term (approx 3 years), how do they propose to safely dispose of all those outmoded TVs?" About the only way that this can happen by
the recently proposed deadline of July 1st, 2007, without trashing and replacing the majority of our current televisions, American television owners would have to have their TVs "serviced" by a qualified technician to continue to receive broadcast signals. Having a secondary tuner would not work as that would break the "trusted" display chain that Hollywood is seeking to establish.
"Assuming there are approximately 300 million Americans, with 2/3 having upwards of 2 TV sets, that amounts to close to 500 million or more perfectly functional TVs that will wind up in landfills or third world 'recycling' countries like China. These are not exact figures, but you get the idea. As this grinds on, it looks like economic and ecological impacts are the predominate risks involved, as well as not being able to record the latest Star Trek because they put a copy-block flag into the digital broadcast. This is something that I think everyone, from the geek on the web to the little old lady across the street, through the average soccer mom should be concerned about. Any suggestions as to how such could be made publically known, organized against, and promoted, in such a way that the public would know it as a threat, not only to their way of life, but also to their pocketbook and health?"
Slashdot Mirror
Most information I've seen is that they don't mind 480i ( standard TV ) resolution output even if not 100% copy protected. What they worry about is HDTV 1080i or 720p becomming the next rippable format without a fight.
C'mon this is the same crap the TV manufactured whined about when CC became mandatory. The chip now gos for $2US in bulk. By the time this becomes the standard simple decoder boxes will proabably be in the sub $50 range and the cost in a new TV will be less than $20.
It was tough to find the questions buried in that long commentary, but here are the answers:
1. Who pays for the factory retrofits?
It's not like we're talking about a completely new way of generating images that makes all old factories completely obsolete. Most of the parts stay the same, there are a few new ones, and some need to be built with better specs. The manufacturers are constantly upgrading their facilities, because it enables them to sell more TV's cheaper. So they'll pay, and if it does cost a lot, they'll pass some of it on to the consumer, just like they always do, but I'd be suprised if there's a huge jump in priace in 5 years. HDTV Tuners started out at $1000 and have dropped to $500 in about two years, and they're still not really being manufacturered in quantities yet. Plus, tuners to upgrade old sets don't need to be high-res, which makes them much, much less expensive.
2. Where do all the old TV sets go?
Where do they go now? Into landfills. That problem has got nothing to do with HDTV. There will be an easy, cheap, external box to buy that will make your TV continue working. Hollywood doesn't care about low-res, NTSC analog outputs, only the higher-resolution ones, so they don't need a "trusted chain".
There are things to be worried about for when it comes to freedom of digital media going forward, but this isn't one of them.
They already have for me. The digital channels on my cable system look like a bad Real Media video stream over a 14.4 modem. Even without interference, the compression artifacts are often visible.
The most annoying part is that when the blocks become visible, they can remain motionless even when the object that contains them moves. That is really distracting and unnatural.
They aren't going to necessarily phase out analog
broadcasts any time soon; they are just requiring
that all TV's support digital.
You won't have to get rid of your old TV either,
cheap tuners will be available to take the basic
digital 480 signal and display it on the standard
composite connection that virtually every TV and
VCR already support.
HDTV tuners today are $500; by the time this
technology is mandated, the cheaper 480 tuners
will likely be less than $100.
The copy protections will only prevent users
from recording and using the raw digital stream.
Devices that record the composite signal, e.g.
VCR's and Tivo, will still work just fine;
though VCR's auto-programming features might have
some trouble.
In the UK, Digital Televisions are not available in sizes less than 28", and at approximately double the price of the equivalent analog TV. They offer no additional features, since they use the same signal. Even when digital signals are available, they will offer only double the picture quality (oh wow, an EGA mode), preferring to spend their bandwidth on american-style hundreds of channels of crap, rather than improving quality in the 2-3 channels that people might watch.
Right now, only the most "have-to-have-latest" type of people are even considering DTV, and even they have to admit it's not any better than standard. If DTV is to become popular, broadcasters will need to wait until enough people have the receiving kit (i.e. until enough people decide to pay double-price for a standard household item) before they can switch-off analog signals and force the rest to sign-up or sit out.
Doesn't seem likely in the medium term. Hell, most people don't even see the advantage in DVDs, and digital television has far fewer distinguishing features.
Needless to say, when DTV is in the process of becoming popular, it won't help when the early-adopters report that their video-recorders don't work, or that they can't change channel during adverts. If so much of a hint of hollywood-style customer-screwing gets talked about, the whole project could be delayed by years. This could be an advantage... it could even be specially arranged....
countries like the EU states, China or Russia. Countries which definitely don't care about international problems and the mind-stunning threat of internation terrorism.
Without wishing to get into a political argument, as a citizen of a `second world' country, I'm a bit irked by your implication that nobody outside the USA cares about international terrorism. No disrespect intended to the thousands who died and were bereaved by the horrific attack on the WTC, but the rest of the world has been living with the effects of terrorism for a bit longer than the last year.
To take an illustrative example, over the last thirty years in the UK we've had actual elected Members of Parliament assassinated by both loyalist and republican Irish activists. Shopping centres have been bombed at Christmas, pubs blown up, ordinary people shot for associating with other ordinary people who happen to be `on the other side'.
I count myself fortunate that I've not been personally affected by such things, and I have every sympathy for those who have - like millions of people around the world I watched in horror as the WTC collapsed.
But to claim that countries and federations like the EU, China and Russia (which between them have roughly 1.5 thousand million inhabitants - a *quarter* of the world's population) just aren't interested in international terrorism is at once naive, insular, and offensive, and in the long run will only serve to fuel the sort of ill-feeling and fanaticism which causes the terrorism in the first place.
The world will be a mess and it will be because of whiners like you destroying the worldwide US surpremancy.
The world is a mess partly *because of* the USA's powerful influence. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about the USA which I admire, and I don't think the UK has a particularly shining track record as far as international diplomacy goes, either, but simply dismissing everything as the other guy's problem is not the right way to go about making the world (or even the USA) a better place.
But then I'm a bleeding-heart liberal eco-head living in a `second world EU state', so what would I know?
nicholas
I work for a large cable company and I can tell you (at least from what I know about this company's game plan) that there will be no all in one box. We're planning on rolling out an HDTV converter as a sidecar box that connects to the digital cable box. Which means, you will have to pay for both of the systems (Digital cable & HDTV) as well as a monthly charge for both boxes. In San Diego the pricing scheme is around $10 a month for the HDTV service and $3-5 for the box and the service only picks up 5 channels. In our Arizona system (another test system) however you have to front the $500 for the box, there is no rental option. HBO is one of the channels that will be included in the HDTV package.
Most people with HDTV sets don't have HDTV, they just get better DVD quality. A lot of people get Digital Cable (heavily compressed NTSC/480i signal) and are convinced that their expensive set is important.
I have an HDTV set, and I receive HDTV channels from my Digital Cable provider. They give me all the local OTA HD channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOS, WB), an HDTV Demo channel looping some beautifully-produced PBS programming, and the HDTV-version of HBO (which I also subscribe to). If I subscribed to Showtime, I'd also get SHO-HD. Furthermore, my Digital Cable provider (Time Warner), does not charge extra for these channels. They are included with the digital cable package, and can be used by anyone with the necessary hardware (Analong component video outputs are right on the cable box).
So, apparently, I'm getting a similar HDTV experience to your own, but from a single service provider, and without the hassle of setting a big antenna on top of my apartment building. Unfortunately, I don't have an attic in my apartment, and since it's concrete-block construction, including the walls between units, indoor antennas can't pick up a lot of signal anyway.
Also, although I'm in an apartment, I live in a rather suburban area dominated by single-family homes. I doubt I'm the only person in my area with this setup.