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.
My father bought an HDTV about a month ago (a Phillips, IIRC). It's very nice, though all of the signals are still coming in analog (4:3) because the digital cable receiver *doesn't support HDTV output*, meaning he has to replace it with one that does. Oh bother. It's wonderfully ironic when the local nightly newscasts declare they're "broadcasting live in HDTV" yet the output doesn't change to match this fact.
At least DVD playback looks really good.
As for existing televisions, there are probably legions of geeks and middle-to-lower-class citizens that will either use their older game consoles with them, or simply choose not to buy into the hype and watch their older stuff that they've been taping but haven't had rhyme nor reason to watch, which is pretty much counter to what the industry wants.
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.
Will these become "obsoleted" as well? No. The copyright protection systems discussed so far involve also the recording of analog signals. This is about the same as macrovision did for DVD players. This is already happening with DVHS.
The truth is, probably ~80% of the HDTVs sold (all the reasonably priced ones) do not contain an HDTV tuner, they have analog inputs which are capable of 1080i, 720p, etc, resolutions. These _cant_ be simply ignored since it took so long to get capable equipment into the hands of consumers, the industry isn't just going to say tell everyone to buy another set.
I imagine these will be grandfathered. New sets will contain digital connections (like DVI for example) and some kind of end-to-end protection, but this, as we all know is futile anyhow.
For the time being, there are VERY few practical ways for Joe Consumer to record a high-def broadcast and replay it, or even send it to someone else. DVHS is the only customer usuable solution right now. Which as we read about earlier has already been taken care of.
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?
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. well, if bush gets his way at least the history channel will have some new stuff to beat into the ground by this time next year. grrr. screw you kids and you newfangled digital tv, i'll stick to npr and the bbc on the wireless. feh.
... 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
Digital TV has been creeping in for years, all without anyone buying a new TV. In the UK we had BSB digital a decade ago, and BskyB is digital now, and I believe Dish network in the US is also digital. Most europeans have access to over-the-air digital with DVB boxes, and in the US one can get AT&T digital over cable. [Some of these (dish, BskyB at least) transmit one or two HDTV channels, but these mostly seem to be used in TV stores to try to sell the occasional HDTV set.] All of this is done with external translator boxes in the comsumers home - almost no-one has either a DTV, never mind an HDTV.
My local COMET store is selling funny little DVB translator boxes for around 60 quid, so all this stuff about digital TV adding hundreds to the cost of TVs is horseshit. I'd bet that once every TV can do DVB, they'll be _cheaper_ than regular TVs.
Now, there's other reasons to worry about DTV, not least the greatly increased control this gives the content/distribution folks, but "I need to buy three new TVs" isn't one of them.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
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.
As long as the technology is unsettled, at least some people will be reluctant to do anything as long as they have something that works. There will also be a lot of people who just can't afford to upgrade. Advertising driven TV is dependant on a mass audience and the lowest common denominator will dominate it for a long time, no matter what the people pushing the new stuff thing. These are powerful interests.
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
I was just talking to someone here at work who is somewhat acquainted with a few of the local TV stations. He said that, on average, it will cost approx. $1.7 million to outfit a television station with the necessary technology to prepare for all this nonsense. That may not be a massive amount to a big city CBS affiliate, but what about public broadcast stations? Won't they also have to participate in this?
I'll certainly bitch and moan if I have to outfit my TV with some new-fangled doo-hickey to watch anything, but I'll bitch and moan even more if I lose the small local/publically funded stations here. That's a lot of call in donations for a station already on a tight budget. Is there some sort of government money available for what they're forcing on everyone?
(please note, this is just a figure that some guy gave me. I'm not claiming it to be absolute, just what I heard.)
You sound a little edgy. Maybe you're not getting enough sleep because you stay up too late watching TV. If so, you might think about getting rid of your TV. You'll be better for it.
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 apartment, and I got an attic antenna giving me the local OTA signals. Combine that with DirecTV (HDNet, ShoHD, HBO-HD), and you get 8-9 HDTV signals. It's fun, it looks great, but it ain't easy.
Broadcast HDTV is going strong, slowly. All the HDTV STBes for satellites include an antenna input. Samsung has a line of OTA-only STBes.
Living in a city (I live in Boston), you start to think that everyone lives in apartments. However, more middle-class individuals live in houses in the suburbs. Home ownership remains high. Houses can put roof-top antennas up, etc.
HDTV is coming along, its coming along slowly, but its coming along. Personally, I would expect HDTV to die a few years after the DTV switchover. I would expect the local affiliates to show 6 480i signals in the HDTV over-the-air. This doesn't bother me though, if you can get 40 channels over-the-air with a $150-$200 STB, that will put a lot of preasure on cable/DSS.
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?
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....
The whole thing here is that the FCC wants this conversion to take place as soon as possible so they can re-parcel the old televisions spectrum and sell it at auction for bug $$$. TV stations pay nothing for the airwaves under the "public good" clause.
All those analog TVs will still be useful. Just as B&W monural TVs can still be used today in the age of color image and stereo sound. Please don't use such alarmist tones unless you really understand the issues at hand.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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?
What will you do with your 20 year old TV's when they stop broadcasting analog signals on VHF and UHF, which if I'm not mistaken, is the plan?
The reason you (and I) have been able to enjoy the low costs that come with durable equipment is that the transmission standards haven't changed in fifty years.
Now, suddenly, there are as many new transmission standards are there are kinds of recordable DVD. Can you even keep track of them all? I can't.
In the United States, it doesn't seem to be possible to buy such a simple thing as a cell phone that will work anywhere. Shortly, it probably won't be possible to buy a simple TV that will pick up every local broadcast.
You'll have to have a stack of three or four converter boxes... which upgrade their firmware automatically every few months and will then mysteriously stop working, and you'll have to wait two hours on hold listening to irritating music interrupted every minute by a recorded voice apologizing for the delay...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
There are two completely seperate issues that most here can't seem to see.
One is a purely technology issue: converting a 50 year old analog broadcast system to a modern digital system, with many technical advantages.
The other is political: Hollywood, and the congressmen they own, are trying to subvert the open system to extend their control to unprecedented levels.
Now, even the tech issue is being misrepresented here. What's this garbage about throwing away all existing TV's? A simple digital receiver will output NTSC that your existing TV and VCR can use. These are already available, and will be VERY cheap once people start converting.
The technological advantages are very clear, DTV allows 6x the resolution of DVD's (1920x1080), Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, sub-channels to display more than one program per channel, program guide data included in signal, and a perfect digital picture - free of static/ghosting/fuzzines/etc.
Check out this site for some screenshots to demonstrate the quality of HDTV broadcasts.
As a big fan of HDTV, I hate the Hollywood efforts as much as anyone. But, these misconceptions only cloud the true issues.
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.
My 'TV' is a 27" Sony PVM video monitor, and while it is not a truly top-end display, it produces a much better image than any consumer TV i have seen, and it shows up the inadequacy of the picture transmitted through the cable here in NZ rather obviously. The snow is extremely obvious on practically all the channels they carry.
My other big screen, a 29" Mitsubishi VGA monitor (also has composite/S-Video input) has major problems syncing properly to the signal produced by the cable box, (has no trouble with Playstation/VCR/DVD signal)which makes me wonder just how bad the signal these clowns are broadcasting is.
Connecting my PS2 to the Sony via the RGB SCART connector shows me what a sharp, beautiful picture my 'low-tech, analog' display is capable of, but if the cable companies apply the same production quality to their HDTV signals that they do to their current 'low-fi' broadcasts, theres just no point in wasting the money on an HDTV-capable set.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
That's true enough, but...
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.