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."
That's the biggest question.
The FCC can shovel HDTV down our throats all they want. The technology is still too damned expensive for most people.
Sent from your iPad.
"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.
Most people haven't ever even seen a good HDTV demonstration. As soon as they do they love it. It's much clearer with better colors. For a sports fan it is heaven.
I love my HDTV setup. I'm lucky enough to be in a good place where Time Warner supports HD. I just wish they would add DiscoveryHD.
Here's how to set it. Keep pushing the resolution higher and higher until you can see the breast-enlargement scars. Then shift back one.
Best Windows Freeware
OK, let's see if I got this right. The pact promises to:
1) Standardize digital cable TV reception in TV sets so as to eliminate set-top boxes -- meaning that your TV will, after 30 years of cable TV imprisonment, finally regain the ability to CHANGE THE DAMNED CHANNEL. Thanks, guys, but I would rather've seen you do this in 1980, when you first forced me to use your stupid boxes.
2) Mandate that any set-top box with two output connectors (analog and digital), support output to both connectors. Because there are dozens of manufacturers out there just begging to sell boxes with connectors that don't do anything. Thank you, cable TV industry, for protecting us from these monsters!
3) Place severe restrictions on the programming you can record, after putting the cable 'box' inside the TV, giving you no chance to intercept the video signal. Of course, I'm sure that cable HDTV hardware built into the TV will obey the same copying restrictions as the set-tops. Voila! Uncopyable television. It's a DRM wet dream -- total control of your viewing experience!
Thank you, oh benevolent HDTV overlords, for blessing us with thy loving oversight!
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
"Because DirecTV is so difficult to receive and often so expensive to have installed, NFL Sunday Ticket is restricted to a lucky few -- and is something of a rich man's toy."
Spoken like a true shill for the cable industry!
DirecTV is usually cheaper than cable for comparable service levels, and is available with free installation. The boxes are often free to new subscribers as well. Unlike cable, DirecTV hasn't raised their rates multiple times a year (in my town, standard cable rates have nearly doubled in the past three years, DirecTV hasn't budged.)
Rather than being a "rich man's toy", satellite TV is just as affordable as standard cable. The only caveat is that you need to be able to mount a dish that points to the correct part of the sky. Most homeowners can do this, as can many apartment dwellers.
I couldn't care less about football, but I shed no tears for the cable industry which has used its monopoly to drive up prices and drive down service quality.
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?
here's the license pdf from the makers of hdcp
sections 3.3/3.4 clearly state that it's not legal to have a dvi/hdcp receiver with any analog outputs (save 16/48 audio).
not having dvi on your set (or not having a mitsubishi 'promise') is nigh a death knell for future hdtv compliance.
here is an excellent writeup on the present situation
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
I pay less for my 150 channels of DishTV than the local cable costs.
You can get free installation if you sign up for 1 year of service at $22.50 or above.
For an extra $50 you can get a PVR (Tivo type thingie).
Of course you still can't get NFL sunday ticket, but heck who wants to bother with football anyway? The game is boring and unwatchable unless you have a PVR and can record the game in advance and scan forward over the commercials.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The NFL is a private enterprise, as is Direct TV.
If the NFL wants to deal with something that locks out the majority of fans, then that's their bad business decision.
Why must the government get involved in this? You don't explain your reasoning on this key issue.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
..don't use rabbit ears but I have a small tower I built out back with a normal television aerial. I have no interest in small dish systems either. 50$ (whatever) a month just for television is silly, IMO, at least where I live on a mountaintop, can get a variety of over the air stations, although we watch very, very little here of it. I have a large "dish" stashed that I scrounged but no box for it yet. I *might* get a small dish system if I can't get broadband any other way sometime though, but I don't care if television comes with it, and I probably won't get it if they insist on it with additional charge. I really don't use tv for much entertainment beyond popping in a taped movie, I get the bulk of my electronic information I want off the internet.
The rural areas of the US have no "cable" tv, you use over the air or basically small dish, I'd say it's running roughly 50% or so around here people who have small dishes. I don't know what the breakdown is, but as a sort of rule of thumb, cable tv is very limited to only urban areas or very close to them, which leaves some huge land mass area in the US that doesn't have cable and probably never will. That's one of the tradeoffs for living where it's nice and unpopulated, if that's your gig. I swap deer in the yard and a large garden and the nearest neighbor close to 1/2 mile away for urban conveniences like cable and quickstores every hundred yards and hot and cold running crackheads and huge crime,loud, noisy, dirty, etc. Different strokes and stuff.
As to serving the public interest, hell ya! I can't tell ya how many complaints I've filed about the major broadcasters/networks. I think it sucks bad those goons get a rubber stamped license to print money year after decade after generation. They skew the news, propogandize to the detriment of the people in general, emphasize some truly weird stuff like taking up a full 1/3 of local alleged "news" 7 days a week with SPORTS? And the programming is more social engineering leading to absurd consumerism and political non-awareness than any sort of "good" near as I can see, with just a few exceptions. It's bread and circuses keep the population dumbed down in part. But, seems like most folks don't really care just accept it, home from work, start the beer buzz, veg. The globalist fatcats love it, keeps the billions rolling in, keeps the goons in power, double win for them.
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
No group of professionals meets except to conspire against the public at large.
-- Mark Twain
I read the internet for the articles.
What?
It is not consumer friendly to integrate the STB with the monitor. It will make it easier to sell though.
HDTV's are monitors, and why that is seen as a problem I don't really understand. So the STB is integrated into the set, what does this mean? Only thing it means to me is you don't have a separate box. You'll still have to pay for the components, they're just inside the TV instead of next to it.
I'd rather have a monitor capable of 1080i and 540p or 720p that simply has component video in along with a STB that handles the conversions and outputs to a resolution my monitor can display. This way I can feed my component video to any device that supports it and display or record it if I wish.
It does not benifit me to have a TV that traps the signal, and provides no output or limitted output. It may seem easier if I just need to plug one cable into the TV, but it certainly doesn't benifit consumers beyond initial setup ease.
What would be consumer friendly is a recording device that could take a 1080i, 540p, or 720p signal and record it and replay it in the same format.
Don't let them fool you, this is retailer and provider friendly. It will help cable providers keep their "you don't need and extra box" advertising fodder, the networks by preventing you from recording programming, and retailers, not consumers.
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.
It will be cracked in short order and be about as usefull as CSS is for the DVD format.
Check out Niels Ferguson's Censorship in action: why I don't publish my HDCP results
I definitely agree that the system should be more advanced than "no digital copies of a digital copy" for the exact reasons you state.
The "copying bit" idea is probably the best idea. Breakable, in the end, but once again, Hollywood simply needs to go after the people that break it. Have a bit set in each broadcast that says "recordable, not copyable". Anything you make has that same bit set to "recordable, copyable."
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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
It is in violation of this license to have analog outputs on a display device. That is, a device which has the capability of recieving, decrypting, and visually displaying HDCP content. This is not a requirement on a source device. The cable box would be a source device, as it recieves its content through a means other than HDCP and transmits them via HDCP.
You would not be able to pass the signal through the TV to make it analog (except with a camcorder or some soldering), but you can certainly make a device that has both an HDCP output and an analog output.
-Alison
People spent stupid amounts of money to watch sports. Most large screen TVs were sold so people could watch their (foot|base|basket)ball at 40+ inches at a ripping ~400 x ~320 res.
NTSC (never twice same color) was developed in 1925 and standardized by 1927. It allows for around 525 lines vertical res. You're lucky if a GOOD SVideo will put out 400. Enough to trick the eye, but then 24 frames/second tricks the eye pretty well in the theater. The eye is easily fooled and the brain can make pictures out of the most staticy images. Doesn't mean that better won't look lots better to you, it just means that you can see ok with really bad images; like NTSC.
If you've ever seen the experimental film stuff that ran at > 60 frames/sec rather than the 24 you see in the theater, you'd notice that camera motion doesn't blur the screen radically. Some parts of LOTR were just hard to see because of that. (both CG and real).
Current TV is "good enough"
Well yeah. So was 18 frame per second film in 1910 (old old films sometimes look very fast cause they were shot at 18FPS and xfered at 24 by fools).
We could have, and should have, dumped the current NTSC signal when color came along. But "thousands" of people had bought these expensive TVs so the gubmint decreed that any of this new fangled color stuff must be viewable on the good ol black and white TVs. Nice work.
I came out of film. I hate movies that lop off around 1/4 of the screen when shown on TV. Most film camera view finders have TV ratios marked on the viewer so directors these days don't have much action on the sides (lame, but most producers and directors know that most of the viewing money comes out of video, in the end), but sports is really an immediate driver.
When I was in the UK, widescreen was being pushed as "See *all* of the world cup, not just 3/4's of it."
As I travelled through Asia, bars in the most impoverished nations had widescreen high res showing Football aka Soccer everywhere. With crowds.
So imagine the NFL pushing that with HD/Wide you get to see it more clearly - so they can use longer shots and you get the same resolution you USED to have, but lots more of the field in the frame. Imagine taking your cheapo 19" and stacking 2x2 of them. Each with the same resolution but continuing the a larger image. That's 1080i.
Don't believe for a minute that these people who pay $100+/month for sport feeds, who have old huge $2000 dishes in their yards - now worthless and replaced by little dishes, won't drop a year of satellite fees on a HDTV. Or two years. That's beer money, dude. These guys are the ones not buying new computers every two years.
What if Superbowl/2004 or the world series was shot ONLY in HD? What if movies were shown all there but "squeezed" for you guys watching that 100 year old 4:3 ratio stuff?
You wanna stick with your mommy's 19" $150 TV past 2006? Fine, someone will come out with a box that drops 3/4 pixels for you. And everything will be letterboxed. And eventually, older HD's will be available on the used market for cheap.
Now, where can I get a video card that works well on 16:9? The most my computer will dump on my 30" HD wide is 1280x1024. Unreal rules at 30".
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.
Well, the fact that NFL Sunday Ticket is only available on DirecTV *would* sound like a really bad thing until you do the research.
;)
My family comes from Wisconsin and lives in Louisiana, so NFL Sunday Ticket looked like it would be an excellent birthday gift for my dad last year. Unfortunately, it's only available on DirecTV, and you can't go out and buy a receiver at your local store without buying a year of service or paying the $150 extra (the "penalty" for no service). Neither of those options were acceptable, so I started e-mailing, and when that went nowhere, I got on the phone.
Well, it turns out that you *can* get NFL Sunday Ticket a la carte. It is the only a la carte service DirecTV will sell you, but they *will* sell it to you (probably for the express reason of avoiding "abuse of a monopoly" lawsuits). You just go to your friendly neighborhood used stuff site (I chose eBay, as much as it pained me to finally register, hehe), and you buy a *used* receiver (or even a whole used package).
DirecTV will charge you a few bucks for a new access card (since you don't know where the old one's been, I'd definitely do that), and then when you call, you simply tell them that you want to activate a used system with *only* NFL Sunday Ticket. ("Yes, just NFL Sunday Ticket.... No, I don't want that; I just want NFL Sunday Ticket.... No, I hate TV, but I want NFL Sunday Ticket....") A few hairs later, you've got your nice system all up and running, with no additional committments.
So, if you're comfortable enough with a compass, wrench, and RG-6 tools, you can have NFL Sunday Ticket for the price of the season, a used receiver, and a new access card. Not a bad deal, at least compared to flying to Green Bay and buying, er, "resold" tickets every game.
(Oh, and as long as I'm here... "GO! PACK! GO!")
Yes, I know that there are millions and millions of zombies out there who spend their lives in front of "Survivor" or whatever crap they are being told to watch by the network marketing droids. This only proves my point: TV is what people do who are too dumb to use a computer.
Seriously. What is there to watch? News? Get your news off of the Internet (Fellow Americans: Try the BBC for a serious eye-opener about what CNN, Fox, and Time Warner don't think you should be interested in). Sitcoms? The only thing that even comes close to being entertaining for people with an IQ over 60 is "Buffy", and you're better off waiting for the DVD version anyway, unless you're into watching ads every five minutes. Information? Yeah, the "Discovery Channel" is nice, but it can't compete with this cool technology call "books". Films? Get the DVD, they don't have the commercials and they don't have half of the stuff hacked out to make the censorship people happy. With the money you've been paying those cable people, you could have had surround sound years ago.
Anybody who is willing to pay a company to let themselves be bombarded with commercials is getting what he or she deserves. Screw TV in analog or digital: You have a computer, or else you wouldn't be reading this; all you need now is a DVD player and a bookshop. If you are a TV zombie, you shouldn't be on Slashdot anyway.