Slashdot Mirror
No Business Case for HDTV?
Lev13than writes "The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation argues that there is no business model for HDTV. Speaking at a regulatory hearing being held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), CBC president Robert Rabinovitch noted that 'There's no evidence either in Canada or the United States that we have found for advertisers willing to pay a premium for a program that's in HD.' In order to cope with infrastructure and programming costs that are roughly 25 per cent higher, Rabinovitch proposes that the CBC start charging cable and satellite companies to carry their signal, and to limit over-the-air transmission. HDTV — good for Best Buy, bad for broadcasters?"
Not going HD would be like cable companies saying "No need for us to build high speed infrastructure - everybody likes dial-up."
My other sig is funny.
Another problem is that the television networks are looking for traditional ways to exploit HDTV rather than innovate. It should come as no surprise that advertisers wouldn't pay more for regular commercials during HDTV broadcasts
Broadcasters fail to willingly recognize two driving factors for HDTV:
- The public now demands it, so they don't really have a choice (other than beg the government to force carriers to give the networks kickbacks)
- The technology and vastly improved resolution will allow greater integration of programs with the internet. This would allow viewers to seamlessly interact with game shows via a remote, or to purchase clothing that their favorite soap stars might be wearing. Advertisers are willing to pay HUGE sums of money for interactive content and online purchasing.
Where I do agree with the networks is their argument for dropping traditional HDTV radio wave broadcasts. It's ridiculous for the government to mandate that HDTV be receivable via antenna, let the networks use public demand as a gauge for where and how to best deliver hi-def.Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Show me a major network that refuses to broadcast in HD and I will show you a network that will be irrelevant in 5 years.
I guess you need to shop elsewhere for your cables. Cables For Less has HDMI Cables for $12 (3 foot) and $16 (6 foot). Just because the big retailers charge tons for cables, doesn't mean you have to pay those prices.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
HDTV is a classic case of chicken and egg. Without an installed base, the industry has no incentive to produce and broadcast HD content. Without content, on the other hand, there will be no installed base. You can't blame the broadcasters for following their financial incentives, any more than you can blame consumers for rejecting high priced HDTV hardware on which they had nothing to watch.
Fortunately, broadcasters, unlike consumers, are beholden to federal regulators and can be coerced. The FCC saw this chicken-and-egg problem coming and mandated terrestrial broadcast of HD content in the US. The Canadians should do the same. If you broadcast SD, you have to broadcast HD as well.
Anyway, none of this matters anymore. HDTV is finally a done deal. Between the US tuner mandate, HD capable enabled game consoles, and the price trajectory of LCD flat panels, consumer adoption of HDTV is unstoppable. Advertisers and broadcasters will be dragged along soon enough.
Actually there is a business case for it.
Only it has nothing to do with television, and everything to do with the FCC being able to auction off all the old television bandwidth to wireless carriers.
And yes, I do have that in writing.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Don't kid yourself. If the benefit gained by a legal infraction is greater than the potential fines due to being caught, then there is a business case for any crime. Hell, the fact that the RIAA suing random people from evidence which has proven unreliable is legally questionable. They've made a business case for it.
The first step in any discussion about laws with respect to corporations is learning to play by the same rules they do.
It's been a long time.
OK OK, one laaast point -- anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked. I recommend doing an A/B comparison between SD and HD, of the same content. HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long? BRING ON MORE HD!!!
I've done just that, and I still just don't see the point. Sure you MIGHT be able to see a bit more blades of grass, but big deal. The benefit just isn't there. This IS NOT a black-and-white to color revolution like it's been made out to be. The difference between HD and SD isn't nearly as large as the HD industry, which you are a part of, would have us believe. If such a difference did exist, the why do 50% of HDTV owners think their watching HD content, when they're not? I'll tell you. Self delusion. ("I paid $8,000 for super clear tv, and by god it is!")
It's hype. Successful hype mind you, but still just hype. If was as big a deal it's being made out to be, then the corporations wouldn't of needed the power of legislation to coerce the public into an upgrade. The public would be upgrading voluntarily. The fact that HDTV conversion has been so slow, and sales of HD channels lethargic so far is indicitive that there's little to no demand. I'm sure you're seeing a ramp in sales of HD equipment, now, but it's not because of some sort of spontaneous demand. It's the fact that government is banning analog. The deadline is looming, and panic is setting in. If you didn't have Uncle Sam as your salesman, you'd still be trying to move box 1.
The way this HDTV conversion is going down smells. And as a capitalist, it's disturbing. It's command economy meets the oligarchy.
The fact that you make your living selling HD equipment and now you're telling everyone to upgrade makes you're opinion circumspect. That isn't meant to imply that you're being intensionally dishonest. Frankly, I think you merely drank your own kool-aid. Just like those HDTV owners, that can't even tell their not watch HD content.
I dunno, I sometimes wonder if most people even care. I've seen far too many people watch SD programming all stretched out on their new wide screen TV to believe that they actually give a shit about extra resolution. They just go to the store and buy whatever teh salesman is pushing that day. Nothing too expensive, mind you, but nothing too cheap (SD) either. They pay extra for the illusion of higher quality and then go home and set their TV to stretch an SD picture to fit the 16:9 screen... like they dont' even notice that it is distorted! WTF?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Any fragment of imaginary and/or entertainement work, political, and religion in any form and media : book, music, tv show, film, games (p&p, board, computer & console) is a fragment of our culture and of the Zeit-Geist, whether of good or bad quality by your own personal feeling. This is roughly the only way you live your culture, or at least what is left of it for the next generation. How else do youn want to live it in ? Talk with friends ? That aren't culture per see. Go out of visit the world ? Ain't it either.
And like the gp said, this is where the steal of our culture kick in : all those piece of CULTURE, were supposed to come back to us the PUBLIC after we the public granted them a TEMPORARY monopoly on selling their stuff. Alas for anything done during your lifetime now, it will never come back during your life time as public domain, and maybe not even to your children, to your grand children. Thus a stealing organized by lobyying. The fact that it was m,ade into a law doesn't change the fact that only 1 stackholder was involved and the other stackholder (the public) was taken its goody gainst its will. In my culture we call that stealing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You mean this $7.69 HDMI cable cannot exist? And that this 16 foot HDMI cable for $29.99 is a figment of my imagination??? Eghads! How in the world was I ever able to get a usable signal from my home theater?
Perhaps that's because you should have spent more time researching, or at least talking to a real expert, and not the pimply-faced sales droid at your local electronics store who will spin more lies in pursuit of that 75% premium cable profit margin than a politician chasing re-election.
And, by the way, comparing HDMI to TCP/IP is like comparing Apples to Stainless Steel Cookware. And TCP/IP does not demand error correction (UDP is best effort). But TCP/IP does run over Ethernet or Token-Ring, either of which can run over 100-Ohm UTP. In fact, TCP/IP over GB-Ethernet on 4-pair 100-Ohm UTP has sufficient bandwidth to carry multiple real-time HDTV feeds up to 100 meters.
Finally, there is nothing magical about making 100 Ohm UTP cable. It's been around for dozens of years and is the most common specification. It is certainly MUCH SUPERIOR FOR CARRYING DIGITAL SIGNALS compared to coaxial cable, which attenuates and degrades the digital waveforms over distance due to its inherent capacitance characteristics.
I will concur that HDMI cables longer than 30 feet are unheard of, and that this is because of the specification. Every network standard has distance limitations. It's a trade-off between performance, convenience and cost. In defense of the standards team I can only say that most people tend to put their TV and tuner/dvd/etc on the same side of their house. Sort of like putting the oven in the kitchen with the fridge. But I'm kind of conservative that way.
--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]