Slashdot Mirror
More Details About HDTV Pact
Masem writes "The NYTimes reports that a pact between the makers of HDTV systems and cable and satelite providers appears to be a consumer-friendly route to pushing HDTV technology. The solution proposed by the two groups will remove the need for a set-top box to receive the programming (save for on-demand or interactive services) in upcoming HDTV sets, and will standardize on the DVI port for these (Existing HDTV's, however, will probably still need some set-top device for compatibility - the deal specifically requires set top boxes to send both analog and digital signals as to support older HDTVs). The proposal must still get FCC approval before it becomes set in stone."
"The digital FireWire connection will allow program providers to restrict the number of times that a program can be recorded. Under the agreement, HDTV programs from network broadcasters sent through cable or satellite companies will be completely unrestricted and recordable. Subscribers to pay services like HBO could be restricted from making more than one copy of programs from those services."
Yeah, REAL consumer friendly.
AFAIK, the FCC's jurisdiction is over teh airwaves. Why do they have to approve anything dealing with cable?
Does anyone, anywhere, actually view broadcast anymore? (You know, with a set of good old rabbit ears?) If you're getting the local channels via cable, that doesn't count!
The US has certainly gone to hell in the last 25 years. The government used to at least pretend to be looking out for the interests of the public. Now it's all about maximizing the bottom line.
Whatever happened to the rule that one owner can't own more that X% of the stations in any one market? Whatever happened to the idea that in order to get a license, a station had to serve the public interest?
It's sad the our government has been infiltrated by the corporate idea that people are CONSUMERS , and forgotten the ideal that government is concerned with the welfare of its CITIZENS .
YAABOIAIHYA![*]
(In today's modern world, I feel the need to state "You're All A Bunch Of Idiots, And I Hate You All!" so often, I decided to coin this nifty, hip acronymn.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
While it's nice to see some standardization in what has to this point been somewhat of a doggy dog industry, I'm a little worried about letting the corporations themselves work out such standards on their own.
I suspect that whatever standards are agreed upon will favor the big players over the little ones, and be harmful to consumers and investors. Just look at the RIAA or Enron if you need proof.
It's somewhat reassuring that whatever they come up with will have to be approved by the FCC, but I somehow feel that the FCC should be the one designing the standard to begin with, to insure that everything is fair and impartial.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
While the agreement allows program providers to prevent any recording of pay-per-view or video-on-demand programs, users of hard-disk-based recorders like TiVo would be allowed to record and then watch such a program up to 90 minutes later.
So much for fair use. Unless they agree to allow people access to the signals for whatever purpose they want, then it's NOT consumer friendly.
With the signal that comes out of my DirecTV box (which, for the sake of argument, is no different than a cable box), I can...
- Record it on a TiVo-like device
- Record it on a VCR
- Split it and re-direct it to other parts of my house
- Send it via analog wireless a receiver elsewhere in the house
- Record it on a PC
If I can't do those things, all of which I do regularly (except for the VCR), then this is NOT a consumer friendly solution.
A digital connection is fine... as long as there's absolutely NO restrictions on what I can do with that data. There are already laws against me saving a copy and sharing it with the world over the internet. They really need to just leave it at that.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I guess that puts me ni the minority. I saw HDTV and wasn't really al that impressed
I was kind of disappointed by your response to the 90 minute rule thing, but I guess you didn't think of it as I did.
90 minutes is too short of a time to be forced to watch a program. I know that when I record a show or block of shows I probably will be watching them the next day, or why would I be recording them in the first place? (the only stuff I usually watch could be considered "late-night" shows) Or sometimes I record for 4 days in a row (in the case of rally racing on the Speed channel) to watch it all at once when my schedule allows.
They are touting a "consumer friendly" standard, but only allowing 90 minutes to view a recorded "restricted" show is not very friendly.
Now before you flame me, I realize that a pay-per-view or on-demand movie is supposed to work around your schedule but my chief concern is once they see how well it (may) work they might extend it to classify other programs as "restricted viewing" and impose the same 90 minute rule.
But heck, at least they didn't totally say "No recording pay-per-view or on-demand programs"
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
The NFL is a private enterprise, as is Direct TV.
If the NFL wants to deal with something that locks out the majority of fans, then that's their bad business decision.
Why must the government get involved in this? You don't explain your reasoning on this key issue.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
When I got Digital cable, I had to buy all of these Motorola cable boxes for my TVs (I only got two, so I have 2 TVs still on regular cable - I wonder how long before they think of a way to charge me for these as well).
I was delighted to see the Dolby Digital logo on the front of the box. Finally I can watch Band of Brothers in 5.1... wrong. AT&T (well, now their cable TV is owned by ComCast) craftily has put metal slots over the coaxial out (not the cable, but the digital audio connection, just not TOSLINK) and S-video outs on the back of the box. A friend and I opened the thing up and noticed the ports aren't there at all.
I called AT&T to see what was going on and they said I had to special order a box with digital connections. And it would cost me an extra $10/month.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
"...New technologies must be pushed through ..."
Sure, but *NOT* by the government under any circumstances!
If NBC for example wants to only broadcast in HDTV signals that is their business, but to decree that we all must buy HDTV boxes so NBC can continue to make massive profits and undermine our control of what and/or how we watch TV is unacceptable.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
$1,500! Nope! I bought a perfectly good TV for $150!! Yes, it's a 19" set, but it's just the right size for my living room. I don't even WANT a 64" giant.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
HDTV tuners for the "HDTV capable" sets are 'way expensive.
I don't see HDTV making serious inroads until the price differential with NTSC gets ~$100. Until HDTV becomes very popular, there's no way the FCC can reallocate [autction] the spectrum.
The big deal is that fair use is not defined as "one copy for personal use." Fair use includes making a number of copies of a very small portion of a work for commentary purposes (say, showing sixty or so seconds of footage from a movie for a webcast movie review program I create). Fair use includes making multiple copies for personal use (perhaps keeping a "master" copy of the latest Disney movie safe somewhere and then occasionally making a "play" copy to replace the last one the kids destroyed). Fair use includes making multiple copies as I format shift my copy from format to format as technology advances. Fair use includes transferring a recording from one digital video recorder I own to another. On top of that, as the copyright on works expire, these technical limitations will continue to restrict my access to public domain works. Contrary to widespread belief, there are legal, ethical reasons to make multiple copies of a work protected by copyright. Fair use is more complex than the simplistic "one copy is fair use, two or more is not" that they want to enforce on us.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
The exact quote, with the proper attribution, is:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
-Adam Smith
In what way does encrypting the video prevent you from recording it?
Why can't you simply record the video on your HD-TiVo of the future in encrypted form, then play it back in encrypted form, which the TV can then decrypt?
Most of us are interested in making copies for timeshifting or backup or whatever. If every TV on earth can decrypt the file, just save it encrypted and you can still timeshift it.
What's wrong with this idea?
- Vincit qui patitur.
Its a cable nightmare, but...
Cable Coax -> PC With Digital Coax input -> CPU with cracked decoder -> PC DVI Video Out -> Back to the big screen
Isn't this just DVD all over again? Just a matter of time before someone steals the keys out of the hardware/software?