CableCARDs and HDTV

An anonymous reader writes: "HDTV is the next big thing. I attended the NAB conference in Las Vegas last week and everyone was pitching HDTV or asking about it. DesignTechnica has an interesting article on CableCARDS, which allows viewing HDTV through a CableCARD compatible HDTV set without needing a set top box. Cable companies are required to enable CableCARDs with card-compatible HDTVs by July 1, 2004. So here's some questions: Has anyone heard of CableCARD? Is anyone planning on buying a CableCARD compatible TV? How many people actually get HDTV in their area, and how many channels? HDTV is so hyped right now but seems that there is barely any deployment."

Comments

Isn't there a no record flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

That they're forced to follow?

Re:Isn't there a no record flag?

[tsg]

If broadcasters prevent people from recording the shows, less people are going to watch them. They know this.

The broadcast flag, to my recollection, is there to prevent you from making a copy of a copy. You can record it but you can't send the recording to someone else. It makes sense for anti-piracy purposes but it also prevents you from lending the recording to a friend who forgot to record it or watching it in a different room without moving the DVR, or possibly making a backup copy of something you wish to keep but not on the DVR.

I have a suspicion that the broacast flag is going to annoy enough people that broadcast-flag enabled DVRs wont replace the VCR which, although of much lower quality, will give them more functionality. People don't like buying new technology that does less than the old.

Set top boxes suck

[Stevyn]

between digital cable and direct tv satellite, I've always thought that a set top box hinders the viewer from the easiest viewing experience. A feture like picture-in-picture is lost. It requires you to program another remote, and for some people this is a pain. It can require the user to have two remotes, one to turn on the tv, switch it to cable input, and adjust the volume and then one to changed the channel and use the converter box.

For me it's not that big a deal, but for people who aren't engineers the logic of how to turn on the tv and change the channel is actually difficult for them to understand. Say for example, the television I purchased had a standard digital cable converter built in, it would make it a lot easier to use the service. Maybe it could work by the cable company sets up the firmware so make it more customized for their customers.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I should not have two remotes to watch tv, and I don't think I should have to deal with programming those multi-remotes either. Finding the codes when those batteries die at this point in the game is a waste of time in my mind.

Maybe this issue of remotes sounds petty, but this would be one of the main driving forces in getting people to buy a new television if the sales clerk can relate this ease of use to them.

Re:Set top boxes suck

[bob65]

between digital cable and direct tv satellite, I've always thought that a set top box hinders the viewer from the easiest viewing experience. A feture like picture-in-picture is lost. It requires you to program another remote, and for some people this is a pain. It can require the user to have two remotes, one to turn on the tv, switch it to cable input, and adjust the volume and then one to changed the channel and use the converter box.

I sort of have the opposite view. I think TVs should do one job, and one job only - display whatever is input to them (in fact, I think they should not have speakers either). Decoding of digital cable content (and in fact, tuning analog cable channels) should not be the job of the TV. TVs should have one single input (like a DVI port, or something to keep the image digital). Everyone should also have an A/V receiver so they can plug all their equipment into one central source - perhaps there could be a market for cheap stereo receivers, for those who don't need 5.1 dolby digital surround sound. Connections to the A/V receiver should be *fully digital* (maybe then they could have all audio/video data on one line).

Why do I think this is a good idea? Because it is much more simpler, especially for those who aren't inclined or willing to understand how everything works - there's only one connection to the TV, so you obviously plug the video out to the TV - anything else like your DVD player or digital cable terminal plugs into the A/V receiver. There would be no "changing your TV to channel 3 and changing your cable terminal to channel 56" nonsense, which is probably the root of confusion for most consumers. Also, it is much more modular - what if a new cable or satellite technology comes out down the road? Do you really want to buy a new TV? What if a new video techology comes out? What if you need more inputs? What if you want to upgrade your speakers? Upgrade the TV only? The multiple remotes issue could be solved by mandating a standard interface that the A/V receiver uses to communicate with all peripherals. That way, all communications would be between the remote and the A/V receiver, with the receiver controlling functions on other devices such as DVD playback or changing of channels on a digital terminal. The TV could have a power-save function that would turn it off when no signal is detected (or, an interface could be defined so that all A/V receivers would have control over the TV power).

Re:Typical Legislated Crap

[2nd Post!]

Blah you mix memes here.

The reason the government is involved is because airwaves are 'public'

Democracy works fine. Vote for people who will care about what you care about, and educate others to care about what you care about.

Refuse to purchase what doesn't suit you.

In the end companies will lose business, if you are right, and politicians who gain power will lose corporate financing.

Still waiting

[Snover]

For a CARD that goes into my computer so that I can watch digital CABLE. Now they've stolen the name with a completely different concept. What the fuck?

Re:Err?

[ciroknight]

Sadly, I think he was trying to making a point.

Re:The problem with HDTV right now...

[jfengel]

Look at it the other way: if the government were to declare that new TVs would have only 240 scan lines rather than 480, would your TV experience be substantially diminshed?

Picture quality does matter, especially as TVs get larger. It probably doesn't matter enough to junk an entire infrastructure, but this is a lot more about reclaiming bandwidth than it is about resolution. The new standard reclaims valuable spectrum and replaces it with a format that makes better use of the bandwidth.

Or alternatively, it's a way for the existing networks to grab additional bandwidth while fighting tooth-and-nail to keep from giving up the old one. Either way, the new picture is really, really pretty, when you can get it.

Re:forget it

[Rombladi]

If the TV has the decryptor card, this means no DVR. No deal.

You catch on quick kemosabe... or you use THEIR DVR, which decides what you can record (if anything) or how long to keep it.. or how much to charge you every time you watch it...

HDTV is widely available

[jfengel]

How many people actually get HDTV in their area, and how many channels?

Actually, nearly all of the networks in nearly all of the major markets are broadcasting HDTV. If you're not in a major market, coverage is far spottier, but a substantial fraction of the people in the US do live in a major market.

The number of people actually receiving the signals is pretty low, since the TVs are expensive, but the digital signal is there, in lower resolution. The actual high-definition content is pretty low, since it's expensive to produce (requiring new cameras and other equipment), and so people aren't buying the very pricey TVs. No content, no viewers; no viewers, no content.

It also doesn't help that we're still waiting on standards like high-definition DVDs. Supposedly that's busily being resolved. They're also finally starting to put out the high-definition content over cable wires (which many people in the major markets have) and satellite systems (which are immensely popular among people too far from a major market to get cable, and also among those who find the cable companies obnoxious).

Me, I'm waiting on a cheap digital-to-analog converter so I can watch the new signal on my old TV, since the signal is clearer than analog.

Re:HDTV is widely available

[jfengel]

You might check eBay. I've seen them in the $100 to $150 range there, though I can't vouch for quality.

Still waiting...

[Kjella]

...to see what exactly HDTV-DVD will mean. 720p60? 720p30 1080i60 1080p24? If and when I'm getting an HDTV, I want to see movies on it. 2/3rds downscaling (1080->720) would suck (take 3 lines, combine down to two... far worse than 2 lines native). On the other hand, getting a much more expensive 1080 set makes no sense if 720 will be the standard, due to size constraints or whatever.

And have they finally agreed on a *final* standard that won't be cut off or downscaled later (analog, firewire, HDMI???). A TV isn't like my computer, that one gets upgraded or replaced quite often. They need to tell me what exactly I can expect to get, not today, but several years ahead. So far, they haven't done that.

Kjella

Manufacturing tolerances for full 1080i support

[maynard]

It's not 1024x768 (DMD) or even 1280x1024 (LCOS). It's 1920x1080. Didn't the industry learn from the lawsuits on disk drive size and display diagonal measurements? (Of course they did, they learned that lying generates far more profit than the resulting lawsuits consume.)

I think it's kind of a rip that there's a ton of hype over HDTV, and that people are rushing off to buy HDTV "compatible" TVs, spending nearly $10,000 for some, and not one is true HDTV. Of course, in a year or two when the plasma screen finally fades away, the replacement model might actually be HDTV.

The problem here is that you expect manufacturers to build to the 1080i/p standard before the technology exists. The best sets for high resolution out there are still CRT based, because LCD (and that goes for LCoS too) and DLP technologies simply don't offer more than 720p resolution at the consumer end of the market. In fact, there are no DLP chips out there that do more than 1280x720, and the high end of LCD Front/Rear projection is still 1366x768 (Sony HS-20). Only a CRT offers full 1440x1080i resolution, because CRTs are inherently analog technology from the electron beam out to phosphor.

If you want full 1920x1080 resolution you must either wait for LCD/DLP technology to progress to native HD spec resolution (probably two chip generations away before it hits consumer), or buy a very high end CRT based system. I have an HS-20 LCD front projector (720p native) and a Hitachi 51S500 RPTV; a low end model with three 7" CRTs and semi-decent optics. It only supports 1080i at 1440x1080. The better RPTVs use 9"CRTs, with better optics, but they're still limited to 1440x1080. The only "real" CRT systems out there that do full 1080i spec are commercial units for pre and post production, usually costing somewhere in the range of $25K - $30K.

Why is this? Because the scan times for 1080i and 1080/24p are insanely fast, and the bandwidth requirements are insanely high. It's not just a computer monitor. And with an RPTV, the convergence issues alone get in the way of full 1080i. Really, the upshot here is that full 1080i spec was written long before the technology existed to display such resolutions. Only today with the migration away from CRT to digital LCD/DLP chip technologies are we coming close to display devices capable of real 1080i. And note, plasma doesn't even come close.

Anyway, feel bad about it all you want, but I think the manufacturers are doing a fine job with implementing the standard given current technology. I note that my 51" RPTV with the higher resolution isn't much nicer than images projected against my 117" screen at 720p. Honestly, one can't tell the difference, though 480p from DVDs does suffer with such a large screen size.

The real PITA has been the fight over DRM and copy controls interfering with rollout of content and obsoleting old HD displays. There will be a lot of very pissed off customers once they realize their component only HD sets are worthless for HD content in the next few years.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Re:HDTV - Really?

[batkiwi]

1080p is not the only HD signal. You're forgetting about 720p and 1080i.

While I agree that many 480p only sets are being sold as HDTVs when they're really just progressive scan SDTVs, all you REALLY need is a 540p screen to be able to display 1080i signals and be a "proper" HDTV, which many displays can do.

Not to mention the amount that do 720p native nowadays (mostly RP and FP though, almost no tubes that I know of).