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
It just won't happen. This is an FCC/Hollywood pipe dream. If it does actually happen this way, there will be revolution, trust me. There are people who can barely afford TV sets today, let alone taking that privlege away from them by forcing digital down their throats.
While forced technological innovation may be a bad thing, remember that the main reason this is being pushed through is because the FCC really needs the additional frequencies. This is your future Gigabit wireless that they're trying to lay the foundations for.
Mike
Although broadcasters will be broadcasting HDTV by 2006, there is a catch. HDTV can be broken up in to several different, lower quality channels. Its much cheaper for networks to do it this way, so what do you think will happen? The other big problem is that by 2006, the majority of us will still have plain old nonHD-TVs. What incentive will there be for the networks to provide a high-quality signal? I don't think its realistic to expect networks to broadcast high-quality TV for free when they can split the signal and make more money, especially when the consumer demand is not there. The only hope is to have pay channels like HBO - I think thats the only real HDTV you will see.
If you don't know what Zoo Blacklisting is, click here.
What's more, they probably want to make it possible to use existing VHS recorders, because otherwise people will go out & get TiVos and DVD recorders and other things that will make it very easy to exchange Content with all their eyepatch-wearing friends. If the VCR works, the TV will too. I wouldn't worry about throwing out that tube just yet...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
Still, I tend to envision television's ultimate form as every show ever made in every language. To steal a quote from a Qwest commercial. At any point I should be able to choose to watch any show no matter how obscure. Hollywood opposes that unless they can get their cut. Hollywood's idea of the ultimate form of television is that every viewier pays for every bit of content they watch. And they'll happily charge you for the privilidge of watching commercials if they can get away with it (Case in point, been to a Movie theater lately?)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... for Slashdot to have such an anit-technology standpoint. Every HDTV article I've seen on Slashdot in the last two years has been totally against it. Wild claims by ill-informed posters decry the supposed "lack of difference" in picture quality or fears that their TV's will be remoted controlled by Hollywood.
I've owned an HDTV for over two years now. A big one! Widescreen, rear projection. I watched a boatload of DVD's on it via a progressive scan player. 480p looked pretty damn good! Leaps and bounds above interlaced NTSC video from a VCR. Nobody will deny this, of course.
Three weeks ago, the first local station went up with the DTV (digital TV) broadcasting. Last week I purchased a DTV set-top-box and a very small UHF antenna which I hid behind the TV. I turn it on and get to watch real, true high-definition content received directly from the air! No cable, no satellite. Even watching non-HD content that is upconverted directly from the network -- it blows DVD away!
Anybody who says they can't see a difference is either not watching HDTV or a blind luddite!
Who is it that always mods these posts up. Every time there's a story about television, someone chimes in early with a "I haven't watched TV for ten years and I'm better for it. Throw your TV away!" post. I'm vasilating between whether I think these posting are trolls, just idiots, but that's not relevant.
What is relevant, is the fact that someone, each and every time, decides that these posts are worth modding up.
They're not.
They're not interesting. They're not insightful. They're not funny. They're either off-topic or they're troll. Please start modding them down, or at least not modding them up.
--
RumorsDaily
Reading the posts so far, it seems that very few people understand the issues involved. An exception is a reply titled "Don't confuse DTV with HDTV", look it up above. Here are some more facts to set matters straight:
;)
:-)
1. The FCC says that analog transmissions will shut down on 2007 only if 85 percent of the population will have DTV receivers.
2. Rather than replacing your TV set, you can use a Set Top Box that receives digital transmissions and converts them to either NTSC or AV signals.
3. You could use a DVD to do the same job.
In addition, I believe that by 2007 DTV prices will drastically go down- even today, you can get a large DTV screen for $1600.
So don't panic, things are not as bad as you think
To read more, check out: http://www.oren.com/knowledge.html
Hope this helps
Astromage
"Should be obvious to most that television dwindles intellect. My solution is to just not buy one. Dont really need it.
Got the net for news and I can watch dvds on my computer."
They aren't selling. That is why they already pushed the deadline back once. There is really no reason TO buy a DTV right now, as VERY few stations and cable systems even broadcast in it.
Why should someone pay $1200 instead of $300 for a TV when there is no benefit?
And even if there WERE more DTV stations broadcasting, is it really a benefit, when freedoms we have had in the analog world are forefit just for the priviledge of a (possibly) more "ShinyThing"?
Remember that while the FCC has mandated DTV, they did NOT mandate any standard for what a DTV signal is!
This means that a TV station has the option of broadcasting in anything from HDTV quality, down to MULTIPLE heavily digitally compressed SDTV signals!
There is no assurance that EVERY or even MOST programs or stations you receive will be any better in quality than what we get today on NTSC analog!
Corporatism != Free Market
As the subject says, this is the kind of shit we have to deal with when people see the state as the be-all, end-all solution to problems. I'm semi-opposed to file sharing because it eats up the bandwidth like crazy at my university, but even then you won't see me advocating prosecution. This is what happens when institutions of control push one thing over another. I know from personal experience why this is bad because I'm one of only 2 CS majors at my school that use OSX. Our school is geared toward whatever the professor wants, --if it can run on a PC--. Even though all of the curriculum for the BS can be completed with a Mac running OSX, a Sun Blade 100 (isn't that the $1000 one?), etc. A perfect example of them choosing to limit our options even though it is completely unnecessary.
I'm reminded of something Data said in one of the early episodes of ST:TNG: "That form of entertainment didn't last much beyond the 22nd century." (paraphrased, century might be wrong, etc. You get the point.) The television industry will kill itself by making it too difficult to watch, and we'll find something else to do, and we'll be all nostalgic for the time when we could sit in front of the TV.
This leads to the question: what will replace TV?
timeshifting was found to be protected "fair use"
Fair use is part of copyright law. The DMCA's circumvention ban is completely orthogonal to copyright law. According to the decision in the MPAA v. 2600 case, making a backup of a copyrighted DVD is fair use, but it's still banned because fair use is a defense only to copyright infringement, not to circumvention.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You're confusing too many things right here.
4:3 Aspect Ration doesn't mean analog. You could have 1080i programming in a 4:3 aspect ratio or 16:9 or 3.14159:1.
Digital cable isn't high definition. Digital cable means that the signal from the head-end to the cable box is a data stream and the cable box decodes that. It could look good or bad depending on the quality of the original signal.
The nightly news broadcasts in HDTV OVER THE AIR. Tell your father to get an antenna, put it on the roof and then look at the local news.
--Mike
Don't knock Good Eats. While a cookbook can tell you what ingredients to use and describe a procedure to assemble those ingredients into something edible, it's hard to beat actually watching someone doing something to see how it all comes together. Since you're no longer able to watch everything your mom does in the kitchen (wait a minute...this is /., there are more than a few people here who probably still live with their parents :-P) and you're not likely to attend the CIA just to learn how to fend for yourself, what's wrong with picking up tips from cooking shows?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
the problem with the tv today is content, not presentation. crap like "friends" and "survivor" and "who wants to debase himself on national tv for a few dollars" isn't gonna be any better in 720p than it is now.
Correct. But I feel that these shows might look better in 1080i:
Sopranos (oops already is)
Six Feet Under
Curb Your Enthusiasm
West Wing
Sex in the City
Law & Order(s)
CSI (whoops already is)
NYPD Blue (whoops already is)
Firefly (yep I liked it)
etc...
Just because shitty shows exist on TV doesn't mean all shows are shitty. Every time there's a TV-related posting on slashdot, you get some idiot posting on here about how there's only crap on TV, and THEN THEY LIST ONLY THE CRAPPY SHOWS!
It's like being pissed off that everything's red when you're wearing rose-colored glasses.
"And like that