Slashdot Mirror
Digital Television Transmission Standards
I wanted to know what Slashdotters thought about the COFDM vs. 8VSB digital television transmission standard issue. However, I was suprised to find nothing related to this topic in a Slashdot search. This is an important issue, and it's a big one: almost half of the broadcast television stations in the US support the movement, lead by Sinclair Broadcast Group, to change the standard.
Here's the issue (another NY Times article talks about this -- search for DTV). Digital television, or DTV, is projected to replace America's current NTSC transmission system sometime in the earle 21st century. Stations have already begun to move to the new trasmission format. It promises better picture quality, no ghosting, and (here's the big one for "nerds") 19.2 megabits per second of raw binary data. One of the major forseen applications is delivering data like the data on the PointCast Network to mobile devices. Of course, however, the main application is television. Broadcasters have a choice: either they can transmit one channel of amazingly high-resolution, stunningly detailed high-quality video (HDTV), or several channels (4, I think) of standard-quality video, which is better than the video of the current system because there is no ghosting and fading up until a point where it doesn't come in at all. The issue centers over that point.
The current system is known as 8VSB, and it passed advanced laboratory testing and even some basic field testing almost ten years ago. However, last year, when Sinclair did actual, in-home, average-viewer's-setup testing of this system, it didn't work as well as the NTSC system. They could not receive HDTV signals from a station near an NTSC station whose picture came in clear. Then Sinclair did more, and more detailed, tests at home in Baltimore. This time they brought for comparison a sample modulator for the European transmission system called COFDM, and a demodulator / decoder box to receive it. They tried it in streets with tall buildings, parking garages, and apartments, all places where multipath, which causes ghosting, is prevalent. Each time they tested the two systems--European COFDM and American 8VSB, the COFDM receiver picked out its signal without fail--"It was hard to find a place where it didn't work," says my dad, who was part of the testing--but it was hard to find a spot where 8VSB would
work. Continued testing convinced Sinclair officials that the current system would not be able to work in the real world, and are pushing for a change to COFDM, a system that has been proven in Europe. They wrote up a petition to the FCC, and almost half of the television stations of the US have signed it.
Analog mobile phones have traditionally transmitted a signal containing less information over a wider channel at a lower frequency. The two first parts make reception resist errors better, and the last helps long distance reception.
There is no reason you could not make a digital phone system with the same properties, you just need to get a wide band at a low frequency. Even then the system probably would not support many users.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Really? Doesn't Manhattan fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC?
The FCC has invalidated every single covenant and lease restriction that forbids the pizza dish. If it's impractical to nail the dish to the side of your skyscraper, the owner must mount one on the roof and provide a feed.
A housing developer out here in the cornfields tried to pull this stunt with his arrangement with a local "entertainment provider." Didn't work.
You're gonna havta buy converters for all those TV's if you want to keep using them.
There are other winners in the DTV conversion.
The broadcast stations win because they only have to use 20% of their bandwidth for "free TV". They'll be able to sell the other 80% as subscription TV or non-TV services such as datacasting.
The networks win because they think they are the ones who're going to get to use all of that extra bandwidth. Most of the networks are looking at transmitting multiple program channels (e.g. ABC + Disney + ESPN + ESPN-2) in a single broadcast channel. CBS had only one channel and was the big pusher for High Definition TV, but since they recently were bought out by Viacom I'm expecting a change in that attitude.
The government wins because they've already booked the projected income from selling off the TV channels that will be vacated when current NTSC stations shut down. Unfortunately for them, they booked it for the year 2006 and nobody really believes that it's going to happen by then.
The film industry, represented by the MPAA, are tickled pink that they can make their movies unrecordable. The 5C (DTCP) copy-protection standard even has the ability for the MPAA to send a "death penalty" to any box that they suspect of being used for "piracy".
Lots of winners, each expecting to make big bucks. I wonder whose pocket those bucks are coming from?
For example, according to Itelco, who have supplied a number of 8-VSB transmitters:
"Broadcasters who have purchased 8-VSB modulators can retrofit their transmitters with COFDM circuitry if necessary. Itelco's digital systems use programmable digital signal processors that can be reprogrammed to transmit COFDM."
So changing to COFDM may well just be a firmware change. But even in the worst case Sinclair are saying that a change to COFDM should cost broadcasters no more than $20,000.
Also, note that Sinclair are not petitioning to force broadcasters to change to COFDM -- they are petitioning for broadcasters to be allowed to use COFDM if they choose to do so.
we're computer geeks. For computer related information I trust computer geeks. For video related info I trust the video geeks :-)
>> less [than] 35 percent of the country receive their television over the air.
Don't you have this backwards? I thought it was about 33% of households who had cable or satellite.
"Pay -- PAY?? -- for television? And it STILL HAS COMMERCIALS??? You must be joking."
Film resolution and color definition is still greater. 70mm film delivers about double the spatial resolution of the highest resolution HDTV format, and the color depth is greater in film (you need 16bits per color channel to digitize film yet digital TV uses only 8 or 10 bits)
The advantage of TV is more frames per second, allowing more realistic motion. Also, you don't have to put up with out of focus projectors and misaligned film stock.
This is just not gonna happen. The US system is so far behind the EU system they forgot to include the "Conditional Access" part. This means no Pay-TV. No Pay-Per-View. No big revenues for broadcasters. No subsidies for boxes. NO FREE BOXES.
Before the STBs were free in the UK they were ~£360 without subsidy. Compare that to the $3000+ for an HDTV STB in the US. Yes HD prices will come down, but they will take a LONG time to get near the price of an NTSC TV set.
However, for my account payment, i use my banks Internet banking services.
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
Oh, my sweet, darling, miguided Nicky! Where did you get such a silly idea?
Rural areas have had cable since the middle 60s, because they can't get over the air, line of sight signals. It's you city folk that took so long to get wired.
Yeah! Yeah! Isolationalism - that's the only sensible way to go! Think how much money can be made by ripping people off because they don't have any choice of a cheaper supplier?
I didn't say isolationism was the way to go. As it is, there IS pretty much only one country that makes memory, which seems to be a reason memory prices rose recently. Which actually seems to be similar to what you said; just the reason for the increase was different.
Re:Global Harmonisation (Score:1) by Malc (Malcolm_Ferguson@yahoo.NO_SPAM_PLEASE.com) on Sunday November 07, @08:36PM EST (#168) (User Info) Yeah! Yeah! Isolationalism - that's the only sensible way to go! Think how much money can be made by ripping people off because they don't have any choice of a cheaper supplier? "Like anyone in Europe would pick up the signles generated here anyway" That's not what he(she?) said. He said that he wanted to be able buy equipment in America and not have to get rid of it before returning to the UK. It's a pain in the arse and potentially very expensive moving between countries as a lot equipment doesn't work.
Oh i forgot we'd be inconviencing the millions of people that move between the US and other countries all the time, or have a summer home in france. silly me.
> It's known as the cliff effect -- analogue > signals just get slowly worse and worse, but > once you start > losing digital packets, you lose *everything*, > because they might be coding for the most > significant bits. Actually, this is oversimplification. At least with GSM, parts of the packet have different levels of error-protection/correction abilities. That is, 1/3 of the packet has 'better' protection, so that it can even survive some corrupted bits. Thus, it is quite possible to lose some of the (speech) data, in which case the sound quality will suffer (metallic sound etc), but still not lose the call. Of course, at some point this won't work, and the call will be cut off.
Unfortunately, the broadcasters consider "content" to to be such knuckle-walking, trailer-park trash as Jerrie Springer
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
Actually, this thought isn't really as radical as you'd think... I live in The Netherlands, and work for a company which will be broadcasting a digital signal over cable using MPEG-2/DVB for use with a set-top-box as recipient.
We're also part and founders of the Eurobox-consortium, which has defined several standards to which set-top-boxes should comply.
One of these is the loader, an application which can broadcast a new firmware version over the cable network which can be downloaded and installed by the STB.
We're currently still beta-testing our systems, but this loader is being used already on (digital) European satellite channels and does work.
One pitfall: this firmware cannot change the way our digital signal is decompressed because that is done in dedicated hardware for mpeg-decompression; also the demodulation and demultiplexing hardware isn't really upgradable, so this feature needs a stable type of signal.
Eventually, with the rise of dedicated programmable decoder chips, it might be possible to be able to upgrade the demultiplexing and decompression routines, but demodulation will still remain a hardware issue..
Los Ballos,Jap
Sort of like the hard deadline of having HDTV transmitters in place by the end of last year in the major markets. To my knowlege (I could be wrong) there are stil no HDTV stations in Chicago, although they did install the antennaes a few months ago. Maybe they'll have them by the end of this year. I'm sure the dozens of people who own compatible sets will be thrilled.
-Rich
The main beef I have with video today is that we've just gotten digital right for NTSC SDTV - or Standard Def TV - and now we're mucking things up by throwing in a totally new set of standards via the ATSC DTV proposal accepted/mandated by the FCC. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm just a video editor/producer by trade, who happens to like LINUX too. I'm not expert on this subject by any measure - but I do know that I can now edit decent NTSC or PAL digital video (compressed) on my desktop computer, for much less money than investing in analog editing equipment. ATSC/DTV threatens to screw all of this progress up as the current PC architecture cannot handle the bandwidth/throughput requirements for non-linear HDTV editing! My 56GB SCSI array can barely keep up with Beta-SP (today's broadcast "standard" tape format) quality in terms of throughput. Now, in the near future I'll have to worry about buying all new equipment just so I can do my job. New cameras, new editors, new VCRs, new TV monitors, etc.... The costs are enormous - especially for broadcasters and cable companies. The only ones who will win by this conversion to digital TV in the us is the major Japanese TV equipment manufacturers - Sony, Matsushita (Panasonic/JVC), and others - as well as those making MPEG codecs... I'll buy only when I'm forced to upgrade. For now my 27" TV looks just fine...
There is a lot of american pride in standards. Take for example the CDMA/TDMA mess. In a nut-shell, both standards are absolute crap. CDMA is prone to cell shrinking effects, massive bit error rates, poor audio quality, and problems with power levels (the closer signals will drown out distant signals -- no mountain top calling)The signal cannot penitrate structures of any kind, unless the tower is several hundred feet away. Of course, I used to love our CDMA standard -- superior capacity, spread spectrum, etc. until I used a local GSM provider. Near land line quality, even inside buildings. You know something is seriously wrong when someone has to actually tell you they are on their cellular. GSM is a great success in europe, and has been in use and tested much longer then other digital standards. I think americans should use proven standards, and not invent their own if others exist.
(Posted here because it considers a number of points raised above...)
There will be a standards fight. While the equipment manufacturers want things to stay as they are, the results of the tests that Sinclair cites are really scary for the broadcasters. They're already worried about market loss to other providers; they certainly don't want to wind up transmitting signals that people will have major problems receiving. (And, FWIW, does the talk of "anti-ghosting technology" to fix the reception problems sound to anyone else like a kluge?) Perfect receipe for a fight!
Unless legislated, HDTV will be a long time coming to cable. The technical issue of cramming n HDTV signals into a pipe designed for n NTSC signals has been mentioned. With most cable companies already spending big bucks on things like internet capablilty (for which there is an already-existing market), why should they divert resources to HDTV, with its $1000+ receivers? And most consumers won't want to pay extra for HDTV feeds that they can't afford to use right away, especially if the channel count drops at the same time. What we'll probably see is the cable companies installing conversion equipment at the head end, and distributing standard-tv versions of the HDTV images. This way they keep their channel count without upgrading their network (again), and can actually play the hero: "Old TV set doesn't get the new over-the-air signals? Don't worry, cable still has them!"
Most programming won't be HTDV. We're sure to have a HDTV Superbowl, but what about the "Live, Local, Up-To-The-Minute" remote news stuff? What about the existing library of old shows built to old standards? And what about those broadcasters who want to maximize their income by feeding a bunch of standard-definition signals rather than one HDTV one? Not to mention all those existing DVDs and VHS videos! As time goes on, we will see more and more HDTV, but for those long hours outside of prime time, most television will still be standard-definition.
Most programming isn't worth the change. People who aren't on cable and don't have satellite dishes will be faced with the choice of upgrading their gear or doing something else. Given the abysmal quality of most commercial programming, I imagine that a lot of those people will decide that the upgrade is too expensive for what they're getting, and do something else. Remember, those DVDs and videocassettes won't be going away. You can rent a bunch of movies for $1000. For the cable or satellite-connected, there's even less pressure: Those providers won't turn off their standard-definition signals until the market for them goes away.
The 10-year deadline for changeover won't be met. The rules provide that the old signals won't go dark until a significant percentage of the receivers in the market are HDTV-capable. Unless the reasons for the viewers to upgrade to HDTV become more compelling, that won't happen in time. And then there is the political aspect: Most people aren't yet aware that HDTV will mean that their old set won't work. Others have mentioned the political firestorm that will erupt when they find out. And congresscritters tend to listen to angry constituents. Regardless of what anybody says now, this will change, trust me!
Can anyone say "a real mess?"
I didn't know the antenna has to be directed to each transmitter. This really sinks it.
I'm a Certified Professional Channel Surfer. I can click through 200 channels in less than a minute and comprehend everything I see. Speed readers are awed by my skills. My wife's opinions are her own, however.
I don't want to have to wait for no steenkin' antenna, and I ain't gonna. No, sirrree, I need my credentials. It's dishTV for me.
This is slashdot - IP everywhere - let the IETF decide... 1. Consumers (The public at large) are the benificiaries of modularity, interoperability and open standards. 2. The lingua franca of the digital world is increasingly the internet protocol (IP). 3. The IETF has the Audio/Video transport(avt) working group that is developing RTP etc so that real time information including video can be transmitted over IP networks. 4. Televisions/Monitors are just output devices and are ripe for being modular components (In modular sterio system the tuner isn't combined with the amplifier and speakers - so why is it that in televisions the tuner is combined with the monitor?) Imagine a "network monitor" that undersands IP and the appropriate protocols to display video. Imagine the spectrum being allocated for use by IP, because everything including "television" starts using IP. Imagine a "network monitor" having a migration path, because whatever form the video transmission took there would be tuners that translated it to the IETF standard protocol. o.K. now go back to the real world.
test
That's what settop boxes are for.
clancey
i live in the austin, tx area and time warner cable offers a service called 'digital cable'. it's pretty nice: lots of channels, good picture quality, extra features.
however, when the signal gets messed up, it's REALLY messed up. also, the compression algorithm they use doesn't work very well for contrasting dark shades. i was watching one show where basically all the dark background colors were smudged together into a black cloud. very ugly.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
It's not just that. The small tv stations probably will not be able to afford to re-do their stations with all the new expensive equipment. They will either get help from the big boys or fold. If they get help, the big guys (networks) most likely get control. All the small towns and rural areas will be either controlled by networks or be shutdown when the days of NTSC die, except of course for 'pirate tv'.
clancey
how many Slashdotters here give a rat's ass about television, digital or otherwise?
I might be weird but I find that my TV is pretty much on when I am home. My computer is in the same room as my TV so I mainly watch TV while I am working/playing on my computer. I would like to turn the TV off more but the sad fact is that most radio programming is much, much worse (crappy, repetitive music and intrusive, too-loud commercials immediately come to mind).
Maybe this has something to do with me not living in the good ol' U. S. of A.?
Most likely. People in the U.S. watch a lot of TV, sometimes too much for their own good. It would be nice if people from the U.S. would pick up a book (or even a newspaper) every now and then...
--
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Umm... not finally. Heard of PAL? GSM? Metric units? Here in SA we've had nation-wide GSM for 4, 5 (?) years already with the states only just starting.
What you don't seem to realize is that we are right now in the middle of deploying the DTV system. Broadcasts began this year. The equipment is being manufactured and shipped right now. This thing began a long time ago. They can't begin to switch to COFDM because they are in the midst of deploying 8VSB equipment. It takes years for acceeptance, but the plan is for NTSC to be extinguished by 2005.
clancey
But wait, you say -- what if we end up with three different standards? Right. It would be just like the battle for 56K modems that is causing us so many problems today. Of course, that battle isn't causing us problems anymore, and the solution would be the same: standards consolidation, or a cable box that supports all three standards.
But then, what happens when someone creates a fourth standard, and it's better? Obviously, the manufacturers would end up making a cable box that is software upgradable. The next step would be for the decoding software to be carried on a cable channel so the decoder can be upgraded on-the-fly. After that, people could plug in their TV, and it would just work. End of problem.
Somewhere along the line, it would occur to people that the decoding software can run on a PC, the Internet and TV broadcasting will merge, and we all live happily ever after.
That isn't what's going to happen, of course. The bureaucrats need to maintain their power base, so they're going to enact a standard, and lock us into a technology that will become increasing obsolete. Then, like the railroads, and radio, and telephones, we won't see any improvements for fifty years. Fortunately, we will be using the Internet to bypass whatever they do. That is, unless they forbid it -- in the name of ensuring access for everyone.
Since the US broadcast standard for DTV is contained within the same 6MHz channel as NTSC, I propose that cable CAN carry DTV. The main problem is co-channel interference, since 8VSB does use a bit more of the channel than NTSC. It may be necessary to skip channels to avoid this entirely. Will the cable companies do it? Not unless they are forced as were/are the TV stations.
As for switching to COFDM, you can rule that out in the top 11 markets, which have already built transmission systems for 8VSB. I suppose the systems could be modified, but in all liklihood, the cost would be close to purchasing all new equipment. Not gonna happen. Maybe the smaller markets can build agile or go COFDM, which would in fact complicate reception quite a bit.
Miles Lott
PAL is interlaced, just like NTSC, giving you 50 fields/sec.
You will be able to buy a really cheap set-top box that will convert the incoming digital transmission into an analogue signal that your old TV is still able to process. So don't get your nickers in a knot.
You preach it brother. The brain leech is dead!!! Anyone see starship troopers.. where the bug sucks the brains? That's what TV programming represents to me.
Ofcourse, FOR ME, movies are different. They have a complete story. THey don't drag on every damn Wednesday. They convey a point.. they arn't inturrupted. It's a package deal.
IANAL, but television programming is annoying.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
The reason is simple: Americans want cheap prices, Europeans want quality. That's why there are waaaay more VCRs in use in Amercia than in Europe. The PAL system might be better than NTSC, but it is more expensive.
Don't forget digital wire transmission standards. The US has "T-1" at 1.544Mbps while Europe has "E-1" at 2.048Mbps.
And please don't remind me of GSM. I had GSM through Sprint here in DC area until they decided it wasn't good enough for them and forced everyone to change over to CDMA.
World Beach List, my latest project.
DVB, Digital Video Broadcasting is the standard for European (and propably worldwide) digital television broadcasts.
The standard defines several modes for different transmission mediums, DVB-T for terrestrial, DVB-C for cable networks, and DVB-S for satellite.
And there are already digital AUDIO broadcasts, check this DAB, Digital Audio Broadcast site for more information.
I know economies of countries interrelate...and to o much of that would be a bad thing, don't you agree? Also, why aren't chips made in volume enough in other contries so that if something happens to one it won't affect things much? You think that its a good idea that all of or oil comes from one place?
someday i'll be able to talk to katie couric on the tv and ask her what's happening.
Backwards compatability was actually considered. I am more happy than I can express that the idea was killed. Bad Idea.
Why is it a bad idea? Easiest way to answer that question is to challange you to watch the BEST broadcast or cable transmission you can find, then watch an AVERAGE quality DVD video on the same tube. If that doesn't convince you, maybe it's time to turn in your drivers license... you're probably a menace on the roads.
Digital TV been hearing about his for the past ten years. Hopefully we'll see it real soon.
"Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
Digital cellular uses vastly less battery power. So the analogy of tower spacing as proof of the reach of the technology is not applicable.
I have a phone with a sub-ounce battery. The battery life is pathetic in analog-only zones, presumably because it has to reach further to get to those wider-spaced towers you describe.
Oil comes from where oil is, and where it's cost-effective to get it. Most of our oil comes from the OPEC nations, but a fair amount comes from Texas. However, other areas just don't have the amounts of oil deposits necessary to make it cost-effective to drill it. As far as your original assertion, most memory comes from Taiwan because that's where most of the manufacturers are. If someone felt that it would be cost-effective to set up a plant in, say, Mexico or Cuba or whatever, they would do it; however, the real world, particularly as it relates to economics, doesn't tend to favor redundancy.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
NYT link didn't work for me - try http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb ?getdoc+site+site+79513+1+wAAA+DTV. Curse these dumb CGIs!
Good luck to Sinclair, I say. Given that we've already got working stuff in Europe, goodness knows why the US needs another standard at all. I'd like to have a telly I can use anywhere in the world.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Finally, somewhere where the EU is ahead of the USA.
We've had digital TV here now for about a year, and it's a _major_ advance over analogue. More channels, easy channel selection (Sky digital has a cool, easy to use menu system) and no picture problems at all.
I haven't seen digital cable yet, but i'm looking forward to it....
My Journal
Okay, is it just me, or is there very little cause for worry here? It appears that the problem is already taking care of itself...
Here's the scenario as I see it:
-Moving to DTV cause it's better
-Adopting 8VSB cause it got approved
-8VSB proving not up to snuff
-Adopting COFDM instead cause it's better
Now, is it just me? Since we're not going to immediately switch over to DTV for awhile anyway, and we've already got almost half (a big number no matter how you look at it) rooting for COFDM, which I view as the better, then it's downhill from there.
Any cable company installing a standard in which the reception isn't healthy isn't going to prosper, plain and simply. There are too many alternatives to your local cable company. Satellite, mini-dish, or, as I do, hook up a big antenna and only receive 5 channels... Works for me.
Synopsis:
-Any stations adopting the weaker standard is going to end up with unhappy customers.
-Unhappy customers means revenue loss
We are FINALLY living in a day and age in which consumers are REALIZING their purchasing power. I mean, c'mon, understandably enough, people are locked into things like Microsoft products because they don't know better... but who doesn't know about satellite. In most communities it's considered an UPgrade.
Anyway, I just think the situation is handling itself properly, and that there isn't any cause for concern... Feel free to flame me with more accurate info if I'm wrong.
Yep and TV is a right, not a privlidge. No progress should be attempted except that which can be _given_ to all residents of planet earth by the people who are actually willing to work to make things better.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Unfortunately, DVD doesn't have enough resolution to really necessitate HDTV. Just get a good-quality SVHS-capable TV instead, or something which can accept component video if you're really finicky. My 35" Sony Trinitron has 900 lines of resolution, and DVDs fed to it through the SVHS jack are incredibly sharp. As a test of this, I hooked up both the SVHS and RCA inputs on my TV to my DVD player and put on the Ghostbusters menu screen (with the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man tromping through a rendered New York with the menu items on various buildings). By flipping between RCA and SVHS, I could see how incredible the difference was - SVHS was perfectly sharp, whereas RCA looked like a plain old VHS videotape. But regardless, SVHS can handle 600 lines of resolution (as evidenced by my LeadTek S320 putting out a perfectly-sharp Quake2 at 800x600 on said TV), and I believe DVD has something like 400 lines.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
DirecTV my ass.
Have you tried to contact their customer service representatives lately? "Due to the increase in calls because of our merger with USSB, we are unable to handle your call. Sorry. *click*"
It took me 5 months, nasty mails, and finally refusing to pay the bill to get them to cut off satellite service (what I wanted was a downgrade, to keep paying for the basic package, but after hearing what I heard, I decided that they didn't want my business after all). After all that, I expect them to sic a collection agency on me.
In short, get Dish Network.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Just what we need, another standards war.
At least this one will most likely be decided by the FCC before consumers have to deal with it. Unfortunately, I don't trust the FCC to make the best decision.
Even if the two standards are equal, I hope the one from Europe wins. That will result in more standard world-wide consumer electronics, which is a good thing. With any luck, they can use this as a chance to eliminate the stupid PAL vs. NTSC vs. SECAM television incompatibility mess.
Here in sweden, the plan is to move over to HDTV as soon as practically possible. However, the box needed i rather expensive and not many channels are yet sending digitally. The consequence is of course that very few (like 500-600) people have bought boxes, which means the stations have not started to broadcast in this format. With a box you still do not get HDTV quality and you won't get any more channels than the regular programming; I for one will not pay a lot of money to get exactly the same (crappy) programming I already have.
Related to this is an effort to move to digital radio, but here the problem is even worse. While a lot of people own regular, cheap, receivers, the digital units are several times more expensive, and since FM radio sounds so good already, there is hardly any incentive to switch.
I do wonder if all that money could not be put to better use producing content that we viewers would actually want to see...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
There is a great demand for the UHF spectrum for other services such as public safety and commercial two-way radio. The current frequency allocations for UHF TV waste a great deal of valuable spectrum. The FCC has forced other spectrum users to move to more efficient technologies in the past. Why should television be immune?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I have followed the HDTV debate closely for years. YOU are correct. Slashdot readers should be aware that the EU and USA standard are worlds apart in terms of future potential. That is one reason the FCC has not endorsed the EU standard. The FCC is taking a shot accross the bow of the entertainment industry. Broadcast frequencies is an easy first shot, free bandwidth (lets dont go there). I think the FCC wants to hook customers, then reel the cable and satelite providers (and customers) into the HDTV fold.This plays towards the future; with DVD and Internet use by a group (family) in front of the HDTV. I tend to believe the average consumer will not be interesting in buying a new TV unless they can *see* the advantages. Astonishing pictures, DVD, and Internet use WILL shake loose a major revamping of how a comsumer is entertained at home. but thats my opinion and I'm just a farm boy.
The 3 networks+PBS are bleeding viewership because of the obstinacy over the pizza dish.
The reception in rural areas for over-the-air-broadcasts is quite poor. That's why everyone went to cable, and I mean everyone. The local broadcasting stations demanded cable carry them so they could retain viewership. It worked.
The stations have a different attitude with satellite dishes. They forbid the operators to carry their signal. Nohow, noway, never, even when the air signal is poor and cable is unavailable. People in these areas get pizza dishes, and quickly learn to forget about network programming. Loss of customer base.
Now their friends in town see the amazing picture quality, and drop cable for the dish. Same programming, except no local stations. They get over it quickly enough, and it's more loss of customer base.
Most cable companies have really bad customer relations. I know of one that lost a third of its base in a summer because they jiggered tiers and rates. All of the loss was picked up by dishes, and no dish viewer ever sees any network TV.
I think network programming will disappear from rural areas. Half of the potential customers already have dishes, they're not buying spindly antennas or a $4000 TV. When the remaining half see the price of entry, it's Helllllo EchoStar.
So just who is the intended market for DTV?
Basically, here's the gist: Broadcast companies could care less about broadcasting HDTV. For all their talk about drastically improving the quality of television, their eyes are on the really big asset they're sitting on: their spectrum.
First, a little history. (Sorry for the slight tangent, but bear with me :-) Unbeknownst to most people, network TV stations are the only companies in the country that get free transmission spectrum. This was done in 1932 (or sometime around then) when there were few other uses for the bandwidth and the government wanted to encourage broadcasting because they felt it would be in the public good to have universal access to this new communications medium. Since then, of course, that spectrum has become incredibly valuable, but the broadcasters continue to get it for free.
Enter HDTV. Using modern compression standards, broadcasters can fit the entire datastream of an HDTV picture into the same 6MHz T.V. channel currently used for NTSC. But broadcast companies started looking at it the other way around. Using modern compression standards, they could fit 6 NTSC channels into one spectrum slice. Or... they could fit 1 NTSC channel into 1/6 the slice, and use the other 5/6 slice for other services e.g. data transmission, cell phones, etc. After all, they're getting a full 6Mhz for free; if they can continue their current broadcasts (thereby continuing their current revenue) and add other profitable services without having to pay for the spectrum, why not?
Look at it this way: they could either use the 6Mhz to a) transmit 1 HDTV channel b) transmit 6 NTSC channels c) transmit 1 NTSC channel and a bunch of other services. It's clear that options b & c would be far more profitable than option a. This is why there is no one HDTV standard, but a whole spectrum of standards. Note how NTSC defines one picture standard, but HDTV defines 18 (all of which must be supported by a TV in order for it to be sold as an "HDTV")! One of those happens to include compressed, digitized NTSC...
Grease the palms of our honorable legislators enough, and it's not hard to get a sweet deal. And the networks are sitting on an incredibly sweet deal. First of all, they can decide which picture standard to use (ranging in quality from crappy NTSC to fullblown HDTV) assured that consumers have paid for the expensive decoder chips to watch whichever standard they choose to broadcast. Secondly, they can decide which mix of channels/services/etc. is the most profitable for them with no regulation whatsoever that forces them to use their spectrum for actually broadcasting HDTV. And they can do it all on free spectrum that otherwise would have cost them $70 billion (according to estimates of how much that spectrum would have fetched the government if it was auctioned)!
Are you feeling sick? Do you want to lead a consumer revolt by not buying HDTV sets? Don't worry; they have that covered too. In 10-15 years, by law, all NTSC broadcasts will be halted and everyone will be forced to switch over to HDTV. Unless you want to quit watching TV of any kind, you *must* purchase an HDTV set. Note how if you have a B&W T.V. from the 40's, you can still watch T.V. today, but 10 years from now, your NTSC set will be useless; why do you think they couldn't come up with a way to maintain backward compatibility when they were defining the HDTV standard? Or at least allow the market to determine the rate of HDTV acceptance as it saw fit? Perhaps because broadcasters knew that once people began to see that they essentially bought expensive new sets in order to watch the same crappy TV just so that the network companies could make more money off their spectrum, no one would buy HDTV sets and networks may have to continue broadcasting NTSC and miss out on all their extra profits...
So to segue back on-topic, broadcasters could care less about the quality of TV transmission and the details about penetration rates, signal quality, etc. etc. Because no matter how bad the transmission quality is, in 10 years, everyone will be forced to adopt the new standard anyway. And why should they care if half the people in their station area can't receive their TV signal and are thus not watching their advertising? They'll be making far more from all those extra services they'll be selling on their newfound $70 billion bandwidth horde...
I believe dish had already shipped a demodulator module to support HDTV on system 5000(might ship them soon if they didn't yet). It basically takes a bitstream from a satellite, modulates into an off-the-air HDTV format, and feeds into a regular HDTV decoder box. I believe they are planning to rpoduce an integrated box later.. P.S. DirectTV is boradcasting HDTV too,I think...
First, a standard has already been finalized. To reopen the standard now would set back the upgrade to TV technology by ten to fifteen years. Be patient. Remember that it took several years for color TV to be optimized and adopted by the public. The same thing will happen with HDTV.
Second, the motives of the broadcast stations need to be questioned. The FCC was fully aware that the upgrade to HDTV would be painful and expensive for broadcasters. So the FCC made a deal with broadcasters. The broadcasters would get a lot of very valuable spectrum in exchange for upgrading to HDTV. Now that the broadcasters have their share of the multibillion dollar spectrum giveaway, they are hesitating to live up to their end of the bargain. (To be fair, there have been plenty of technical glitches holding things up too.) If the standards process can be reopened, maybe they'll be able to keep the spectrum to profit from it in other ways and never have to pay for the transition to HDTV.
Finally, I must agree that it is unfortunate that nationalism is ruining a great opportunity for a single world-wide standard. But this point should have been raised in the early 1990's.
I agree that HD is dramatically better than current video standards (NTSC, PAL), but disagree that it's better than film. Film still has a much higher contrast range and resolution than any HDTV standard, and most of the HD material you'll see for years to come is going to continue to originate on 35mm film.
At the moment, the limited HD material that's out there may look quite good compared to a worn film print in a typical movie theater, but if you could see the results side by side, with equal care going into each, I think your conclusion would be different.
Disclaimer: I work for a company that builds systems for digitizing film for, among other applications, HDTV mastering.
I have followed the HDTV debate closely for years. Slashdot readers should be aware that the EU and USA standard are worlds apart in terms of future potential. That is one reason the FCC has not endorsed the EU standard. I believe the FCC is taking a shot accross the bow of the entertainment industry with free Broadcast frequencies and it's an easy first shot (free bandwidth, lets dont go there). I think the FCC wants to hook some customers, then reel the cable and satelite providers (and customers) into the HDTV fold.This plays towards the future; with DVD and Internet use by a group (family) in front of the HDTV. I tend to believe the average consumer will not be interesting in buying a new TV unless they can *see* the advantages. Astonishing pictures, DVD, and Internet use WILL shake loose a major revamping of how a comsumer is entertained at home. but thats my opinion and ***I'm just a farm boy***.
AFAIK, while there is a timetable for ending NTSC transmission completely someday, which would require you to toss your equipment or get some kind of converter box, that transmission cutoff won't actually kick in until a high percentage of sets in use are compatible with the new digital standard. Practically speaking, that may not happen for several years beyond the nominal cutoff date.
Your worried that your TV will be obsolete in 6 years ?
What about your PC, itll be obsolete in 2, but i bet you buy another one !
From what i understand, your saying your faced with two choices.
1. Have a new crappy (US) standard that doesnt work very well with new TV's, but is backwards compatable so your existing TV's work just as crappy as your new ones.
OR
2. Have a new standard (closer to a international standard) that has been tested to work well with new TV's and will probably work with old TV's via an adaptor box for a few hundred dollars.
If youve got 6 years to plan ahead and even if it did cost "a couple of thousand" say $2000, then you could start saving now, if you put away $0.90 a day youll be right.
You can bet that with the number of old TV's out there someone will come up with a cheap solution to get your old TV working with the new system.
Youve had the standard broadcasting system for 40 years or so, thats a pretty good run, how long did you expect it last?
If you want to live in a world with technology you have to expect it to become obsolete one day.
The best solution for everyone concerned: quit watching television altogether. Get all your news and entertainment from the Internet, public radio, and pre-recorded media.
I stopped watching almost a year ago and find myself happier and smarter as a result. I read about one book a month, talk to actual humans more often, and spend more time on my own creative endeavors. I also find myself less immersed in commercial messages and less aware of those vaporous trends which mean nothing but about which TV nonetheless makes people care.
Learn more about the negative effects of TV and the positive effects of quitting at the White Dot web site: http://www.whitedot.org/ .
The Big News Page
Guys, let's make no mistake. What's at stake is the ATSC standard which will likely be around for several decades once it's been written in stone. This translates to enormous potential revenues for the parties that hold the intellectual property behind the Standard. Simply put, this petition is about money. Whether vestigial sideband modulation is inferior to COFDM is just a side issue.
What I fear is that if the FCC relents and reconsiders its choice of VSB, it'll be yet another 5 or 10 years before a standard emerges. At which time, another competing interest group could petition for yet another reconsideration and so forth.
As it stands, if the FCC begins the debate anew, it could send the whole HDTV standards process back to square one.
Aren't you glad we live in an age ruled by intellectual property and special interest groups?
I thought it meant National...
Sinclair has for the past nine months been asking every broadcaster to consider that 8-VSB doesn't work in urban areas and more importantly, it doesn't work with indoor antennas. They weren't the first. In 1998, the ATSC test results in Washington DC were announced at the National Association of Broadcasters. These tests indicated that 8-VSB didn't work in our capital. Broadcast engineers knew it didn't work in urban areas with alot of multipath long before the executives of Sinclair figured this out.
Some basic facts:
DTV is broadcast in a fully digital format. The up side to DTV is that the picture is usually perfect. No noise. No snow in an ATSC 8-VSB signal. The down side is that when the signal gets weak it reaches a "Cliff Edge Effect". At this point the signal goes to black or freezes.
Most new 8-VSB frequencies given to broadcasters in 1997 by the FCC were in the UHF band. If anyone has every had an indoor UHF antenna you know just how tough it is to get a reliable signal. If your significant other should walk in the room, the old NTSC picture goes all ghosty. With DTV, when someone walks in the room, your picture goes away! Not many people are going to put up with a picture that goes to black without warning.
In the 1998 ATSC report on reception trials in Washington DC, they gave pictures of indoor antennas. These guys were pros. They had the antenna on a small tripod, hooked to a spectrum analyzer and pointed in the optimum direction (usually about 10 o'clock in the air and away from the transmitter). Still they had difficulties receiving DTV indoors. The jist of the matter is that DTV won't be received in urban areas by indoor antennas. The report indicated that outdoor antennas work as well as expected. So What gives?
It has been pointed out earlier that Cable isn't prepared to carry DTV signals, neither technically nor economically. The FCC is also going to be hard pressed to demand cable companies carry local DTV broadcasts. Consumers will be very upset when some of their cable niche shows are removed so we can have two local broadcast.
The result is that DTV is going to be an over the air terrestrially broadcast medium. Generally, less that 35 percent of the country receive their television over the air. These people might be construed as not constituting an early adopter demographic, and they probably wouldn't be characterized as the upper layer of American affluence. Regardless of their social class, they will be just as upset to see their favorite shows go to black.
So where does this leave broadcasters? All these people, Sinclair included, have been instructed by the Federal Government to spend millions of dollars creating infrastructure. These guys aren't dummies. They are asking themselves "Who's going to pay for it? When will they get a return on investment?". Nobody has a viable business plan for data broadcasting and there can't be much in the way of DTV ad revenues.
So what is Sinclair doing? Delay, and obfustication. They don't want to spend the money. They want the FCC to delay more DTV timetables.
The important thing to remember about broadcasters is that they are only distributors of media product and not creators. The only local programs you see from Channel 4,5,6, etc is local news. The rest of the product is owned by the media creators who are investigating new distribution methods (ie. internet, satellite or direct cable). Broadcasting is a dying industry with an expensive mandate from the FCC. I would imagine that Sinclair is putting their funds into .com IPO's and just trying to stave off the government from pulling the plug.
machinator omnis sine licentia
You'r wrong. The great thing about DVB is that it's an entire spectrum of integrated standards. HDTV will be broadcast via DVB-T(errestrial) while the cable networks will be broadcasting their channels in HDTV cia DVB-C(able) and the satellite companies will broadcast it via DVB-S(atellite). In fact, Austar and Foxtel Satellite already broadcast via SDTV DVB-S. So your spiffy new Australian HDTV (which will cost you MUCH less than $8000) will also be able to receive HDTV via satellite and cable.
Modulation at this date rate is not something that is normally done in software. A custom designed microcoded DSP, maybe, but it would probably have been designed for the specific 8VSB modulation scheme and not easily converted to CODFM.
I believe the exact same thing as in the US.
We get American channels in Canada and, conversely, Americans get Canadian channels. I doubt the Canadian broadcasters and the cable companies would be very happy if they couldn't deal with HDTV.
Remember that the 'N' in NTSC stands for "North America."
ACK! I'm the original poster... I can't believe I did that... I blame society. actually, it's ++C.
Yeah! Yeah! Isolationalism - that's the only sensible way to go! Think how much money can be made by ripping people off because they don't have any choice of a cheaper supplier?
"Like anyone in Europe would pick up the signles generated here anyway"
That's not what he(she?) said. He said that he wanted to be able buy equipment in America and not have to get rid of it before returning to the UK. It's a pain in the arse and potentially very expensive moving between countries as a lot equipment doesn't work.
In the game of DTV there is one often overlooked contender, our good friend Coax. Coax cable can deliver (currently) 10Mbps but improvements and refinements of the technology has allowed engineers to squeeze 30Mbps out of coax which is plenty of bandwidth fo both HDTV and NTSC signals on the same wire. Not only does it have the capacity for HDTV it also provides a rather high bandwidth return path for high speed internet. I think if cable companies put the effort into getting their coax up to spec with HDTV they could really get their foot into the market. If they made getting HDTV as easy as getting analog cable consumers would jump all over it. Networks are already moving into the multicast area, take Fox for example (please take Fox!); they have their main network, a sports channel, a channel for mostly syndicated shows, and their "family" channel. This is most likely the rubrick that networks will follow, all their different types of shows on a single channel. Then people like HBO and Showtime will take advantage of the 1920x1080 true HDTV format for movies and special events. None of this affects me too much, all I watch anymore is Cartoon Network, although an HDTV anime station might catch my fancy...
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
IMHO, you should give a lot more of a rat's ass about digital television, even if you don't care about the current crap being broadcast. If things get done right (i.e. the gov't and entrenched broadcasters don't screw things up), this will be a convergence of television and computing. The result? Imagine pipes coming into your house with the bandwidth to handle hundreds of channels of hi-res video and commodity displays capable of 1920x1080.
What Sinclair is worried about is silly. How many people still get their TV by the airwaves in the US?
Also, my understanding is that Sinclair used set top rabbit ears, which the FCC has said won't cut it.
What the FCC should have done is required cable companies to transmit the HDTV signal over their broadband. That way we would not be caring about multipathing and more people would have HDTV sets.
I don't know what it is, but most every major "standard" differs between EU and the US, and to be honest, it tends to seem like the EU versions are much better than what we've come up with.
AFAIK, there is a fixed point as set by the FCC when the broadcast signals are to be turned off. I want to say 2006, but I might be wrong. Of course, given such findings as these, and the fact that digital TVs are still $3000 or more, the FCC may delay it until the tech catches up appropriately.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Want evidence?
- VHS beat Beta. Why? Because you could record six hours on a VHS tape. Quality be damned.
- Prerecorded audio cassettes are still selling.
- George W. Bush (ok, maybe that's the lesser of many evils)
- Disney
- E-Machines
- Micro$oft
The FCC is forcing broadcasters to convert to digital, and along with it they'll be forcing us to spend money.Or maybe they are just getting us to throw away our TVs and get lives.
Could be a positive thing after all. (For purposes of this discussion: "People" == The government and/or the manufacturers.)
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
In every city I've been to, broadcast channels occupy well under half of the Ch. 2-69 (formerly 2-83) channel spectrum, even in crowded broadcast areas like San Francisco. So why not have every broadcast station mirror their brodcast on an unused UHF channel? Why cease broadcasting in NTSC? I mean, AM radio did not go away when the totally incompatible and superrior FM radio came out, did it? AM and FM took on different roles. AM for news and talk radio and FM for music. And both continue to happily coexist. Why can't NTSC and HDTV do the same?
Does anyone know what Canada is going to do when the US switches over?
Who cares how they transmit the TeeVee...are they going to make it any better? I think the reason why TV broadcasters are making the transition to digital TV as slowly as they are because they know not everyone's going to spend $4000 for a new set or $200 for a connector to see Digital TV if it's going to be the same old crud they have on TV now...
Funny you should mention that: I saw a ZX/81 (just like my very first machine) in a second-hand store day before yesterday here in San Diego. $16, complete with RF converter and manual, all in a shrink-wrapped box. It was called a Timex, but same machine. If it had sported the 16k ram pack I might have gone for it. (cough). Boy, do we ever get jaded, eh? I'll probably go back tomorrow and snap it up, just for old times sake. Nex
This is rather an aside, but I wonder if they have even considered the effect that this will have on the environment. It seems to me that this will put quite a strain on our waste disposal systems, while taking up a lot of room.
:-) Do such companies even exist?
Disposing of a standard CRT is also rather expensive, and they are effectively proposing that _ALL_ current televisions will become useless and therefore need to be disposed of. Considering the fact that many old televisions are still in use in places due to costs, this could get messy for low income families and not-for-profit organizations.
Anyone considering the purchase stock in CRT recycling companies?
GPL: Free as in will
The FCC didn't didn't just sniff at Sinclair and say that they were wrong. They did a little research and gave some convincing counterarguments. The fact that NTSC reception at this same same sites were considered "not acceptable" makes Sinclair's argument even less compelling, as does the fact that they were using first generation receivers. To see the FCC's entire report go to http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/reports which has a detailed analysis of the situation.
Dont know how feasible this is... but if it is... (c) 1999... :-)
Have the circuitry that handles the decoding as a removable/replacable module which can be "upgraded" to the final DTV standard used. That way most of the new TVs only need a module upgrade when its availible if a standard is changed...
--
Time is on my side
So far the most obvious examples are of exactly the opposite. Besides, US business used to be so isolationist earlier in the century, Europeans hardly had anything to fear.
It seems to me that a cable company could use the bandwidth of a single coax going into someone's home for an unlimited number of channels. All they have to do is use a switching network rather than a hub-based one.
Think about it -- no home ever uses more than 4-5 video channels at one time. So why not just broadcast those 5 channels into the house? The set-top box or built-in tuner could be a 2-way device that transmits a channel request out to the cable company's equipment and then tunes in to the frequency that the cable company's switch assigns to that channel for that household.
The only problems with this are:
(1) The cable company will still need to use fiber or multiple coax cables into each neighborhood to handle lots of HDTV signals. (They might be able to use a wider frequency range on a single coax)
(2) Initial equipment cost might be high.
(3) Lack of standards
This sort of switching system might tie-in well with handling voice traffic on cable. It would help prevent your neighbors from listening in on your phone conversations too.
Hmmm...maybe I should patent this and get rich even though it's an obvious idea. Consider it in the public domain in case some asshole tries to patent it in the future.
I said the 35mm crap people see in theaters, not 35mm in general. But very few theaters properly focus their projectors, clean the film, etc...
Its rare to get a good film experience.
My god, you are demented. Are you actually trying to equate the process of standardization of a new technology that is fraught with tons of issues to how you you treat your "clients"? Who the hell do you think you are?
Gee, someone who usually tries to improve a situation instead of just implementing mindless upgrades just for the purpose of New Whiz Bang Technology(TM).
I'm rather shocked that that isn't the same policy of an entire industry, which has been singing the praises of Digital Television for around half my life now. How interesting that it's only now, when suddenly a new technological solution arrives from Europe, that any news is released that says the American DTV standard is almost completely and utterly useless, and that it'd essentially remove reception from large swaths of the population.
If this observation offended you in some way, AC, I apologize. Feel free to continue this discussion; however I think I'd prefer an actual argument, based on the facts, rather than some pseudo-effective ad hominem flamage.
If you've got a point to make, make it. If you don't, we've all got better things to do.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
You forgot to include #include !! Imbecile, there is NO C+, only C or C++! Argh! Ahh damnit! There, are you happy? I've gone and soiled myself again.
I need to ask...who cares? Like anyone in Europe would pick up the signles generated here anyway. Actually a different standard here might be good..that way maybe we'll produce the stuff in the US, instead of relying on another country. It seems rediculous to me that memory prices rose b/c of an earthquake in one country.
But how could that be? Are you suggesting that there are areas in which a more socialist mix of policies might be preferable?!
I hope I'm very wrong. However, 8VSB seems to be defended by fanatics. 'Nuff said.
Besides the obvious baby-boom in 9 months...
The cessation of all TV tomorrow would not be a bad
thing. Network TV turns your brain to cottage cheese
and it dribbles out on your pillow when you sleep.
Cable programming isn't much better.
If there was cable/satellite service that offered
educational-only programming... I might subscribe.
Even then I still wouldn't watch it that much.
Life is too short to watch fantasies all day.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a book... even if it's fiction
you'll still be working your brain cells more than tv.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
We're looking at next year for the Linux based box, and yes the box will likely have networking, most likely HPNA.
This is why Sinclair are so desperate to have COFDM -- for most of each market it doesn't need a roof antenna. 8-VSB not only needs the roof antenna, but you have to rotate the antenna round to point at different TV towers when you change channels.
Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
I like the idea of buying separate monitor, decoder, etc. Bit like HiFi separates vs. a boom box.
Are any companies doing or planning this?
Nicholas Bodley
The weaknesses of 8VSB vs. COFDM are just as true for broadcast data; in fact, corrupted data will be less tolerable than TV.
Nicholas Bodley
Apart from reception quality, the main difference is that the European DVB standard is a lot more flexible in how it lets you configure the bandwidth and the error correction between different services running in the same 6 MHz channel multiplex.
The bandwidth is there, same as ASTC, to run an HDTV channel. Australia in particular is mandating HDTV content over DVB from its broadcasters. But what the broadcasters in Oz think will make the DVB standard really pay are the possibilities for datacasting over some of the bandwidth -- and there is a huge plus in being able to datacast to people on the move.
COFDM is a much more rugged standard for mobile reception -- remember that very cute thinkpad sized combined TV/data terminal/GSM phone from Nokia. Mobile reception is easy with COFDM, but not possible with 8-VSB; in fact it's hard enough with the ATSC standard even to get good static reception.
This article by Craig Birkmaier does a particularly good job comparing the two standards, and brings out the exciting possibilities for a combined mobile data/TV/phone system.
Broadcast is rapidly losing viewers to things, like the Net, that permit people to pick what they actuall want to see, rather than mass-market garbage that's designed not to offend anybody. The whole idea of broadcast is falling apart as better technology comes to market.
Meanwhile, things that really need the bandwidth, like mobile data services, which obviously can't run over cable, are starving.
The spectrum used by broadcast television should be auctioned to the highest bidders. I doubt those bidder would be TV stations.
Another factor is that DTV reception should not require any significant antenna upgrades.
Nicholas Bodley
Interesting question.
I for one brought the television set out of storage just this afternoon after months of storage out in the garage (wrapped in plastic)
My TV set is a Zenith 19" Black-and-white set (has to be one of the last ever produced) that I paid $5 for at a thrift store.
Oh, I do have one other set that I very selcom use. It's an active-matrix LCD Set with a 2-1/2" screen. It's more of a cool geek gadget than a television set, though.
I have a 19" Sony SVGA monitor that I stare at much more than any crappy television set. I have been thinking about getting a TV card or USB video converter for it... naw, there's so seldom anything worth seeing on Television in color anyway. In the past I've faithfully watched hundreds of hours of "The Simpsons" in black and white.
Generally pretty good scoop. However, the Wired article got way too freaked out about the non-issue of interlacing. Also, from the comment above:
This is pretty much a non-issue as well. The ATSC Table 3 standard basically calls for 5 different resolution/aspect ratio combinations:
- 1920x1080 @ 16:9 (HDTV)
- 1280x720 @ 16:9 (HDTV)
- 704x480 @ 16:9 (wide-screen Standard Definition)
- 704x480 @ 4:3 (Standard Definition)
- 640x480 @ 4:3 (VGA compatible)
My SVGA graphics adapter and monitor have to deal with that many settings. Ain't no strain.The other variation is the frame rate. This is not a receiver issue. The receiver has no need to know the frame rate. It simply receives the data and jams it in the frame buffer.
It's the MPEG encoder which cares, because it must dynamically adjust the precision of the data stream to keep the average frame rate of the encoded data stream exactly equal to the frame rate of the source (24 fps for film, 30 fps for video, etc.).
Although both the MPEG encoder and the receiver need to be aware if the data are being presented in interlaced scan lines, interlacing of the data is unrelated to whether the display is interlaced.
A nice link: Digital Television: The Site(tm) (digitaltelevision.com).
I cannot post this under my own name, or I would, believe me. I am, in truth, an anonymous coward, and must speack elliptically, even under the cover of presumed aninymity. I do not believe that /. readers who follow the personal computer market (especially technology in the Wintel mass market) will need the skills of a professional economic intelligence analyst to project the effects of moving from technology model of the contemporary television broadcast network to the contemporary PC market. The primary distinction between the two industries is, of course, compatibility with older standards. From the view of strict technical performance, Intel (et alia) have been greatly hampered by the promise of continuing backwards compatibility. Similar criticisms have long been leveled at the transition from B/W to color in the existing NTSC standard. From a broader perspective, the spread of color TV and computing as a whole would have been slowed dramatcally if the choices for backwards compatibility had not been made. Non-MMx Pentiums in actual use are only now roughly equal to the 486 (forget MMX, PPro, K2/K3 PII/Celeron/PII). it is hard to credit how recent the crossover from 386 majority to 486 was. This in a market that has been undergoing exponential user grown for two decades. For hardware makers in the US television market, which achieved near saturation decades ago, it is impossible to overestimate the impact of a non-compatible switchover. However, of more concern to the congoscienti are the ancillary effects: what happens to hardware and signal hacking when the entire market shifts from a technology easily tinkered by a bright (and careful! - speaking from experience HV is not for every grader-schooler) 10-year old to a more sophisticated technology? (Future hacking will be more software based) What happens to the CE industry when standards migrate at the speed with which we moved from CGA-VGA-SVGA in all its flavors? (TV has changed little since the CGA era. Aside from age-related degradation, 60's era TV sets are indeed still quite usable for color) What happens to the archival consumer market (the corner video store) when available viewing sets change? What happens to the trackability of signal originators (hacks, amateur surveillance, pirate transmitters, etc.) when signals are mroe clearlydistinguished from background? What are the effects of this transition on the potential for independent initiative transmission in a public crisis (anything from succesful foreign invasion to civil libertarian nightmare) Recall the effectiveness of ham radio, and later internet and celular/satellite telephony in recent crises/wars in Europe, and the role of computer technology (every printer and modem a virtual printing press) Am I making any constructive suggestions? No, I'm afraid not. The best I can do is offer hints in the direction of some productive lines of inquiry. There are several specific lines of inquiry I do not dare raise. These all have little to do with advice for the consumer market as an isolated vehicle for entertainment, but I trust others will pursue them. Am I a paranoid? I don't think so. I simply hope that others will discuss these topics. There are deeper side issues that go beyond seeing Ally McBeal in a high enough resolution that she does not disappear entires when viewed from the side.
Let's face it, the United States may have groups such as the IEEE and ANSI, but when it comes to bandwith allocation, etc., Europe has us beaten. If we look at the fact that one can buy a GSM cellular phone in Europe and use it anywhere else in the world except the US, we notice that the United States has half a dozen different wireless protocols.
I think the real reason that the FCC may not want to switch protocols may be more political than technical. Let's face it, the United States is really into trying to protect its companies -- if the US were to change over to the European HDTV standards, it might give European companies an advantage over US companies. If we were to keep our current HDTV protocol, that would force European companies to create two versions of their TVs, sinking 2x as much initial investment compared to American companies. It's kind of like having a technological protective tariff. Just my $0.02, anyway.
Since one of the purposes of cable is to eliminate poor reception, that reminds me.. how bad does bad reception look with digital TV, such as the proposed HDTV systems?
I mean, slighlty fuzzy analog signals are quite watchable, but how watchable are slightly poor digital signals?
Maybe it's just me but it seems to me that everybody I know who watches more than a couple hours a week of tv gets their tv from cable or satelite. I'd rather buy my tv without any stupid reciever I'll never use and save a few extra dollars. Couldn't we use the airwaves better for short range Internet devices? I'm not an expert on radio waves but I'd assume you can get far more bandwidth out of a given chunk of the radio waves by reducing the distance they need to cover and reusing the waves in each chunk of space.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
http://www.sbgi.net/dtv/support.htm
I take it you don't know much about broadcast signals then.
Set top box.
Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
Nicholas Bodley // nbodley@tiac.net
yeah, i'm sure HDTV is better
THAN 8mm
but that's it
it's not better than 36mm
I was thinking about how this whole thing would work, and I was wondering why anybody would even want broadcast HDTV. Let's face it: most people I know that want a really high quality television picture are using either cable or satellite. Most people I know don't care at all: they only care that the picture looks decent. If the US version of HDTV as it is currently proposed goes through, satellite and cable operators would have major problems trying to implement the system, as satellite systems would need an increase in bandwidth, and cable systems would need other upgrades, such as a way to add commercials to the video stream, etc.
Having said that, I think the current NTSC broadcast system should be left as is, as it has been shown that the current HDTV system would be harder to receive for most people. It should be the satellite and cable companies that handle the high definition variant of TV. Basically what I propose is the following:
Television stations would still broadcast their standard NTSC signal, just as they are now. However, they would also transmit out via satellite a digital, high definition version of their signal. (I think some stations already send out a copy of their signal via satellite so cable companies can get a cleaner version of the signal than the broadcast version.)
Cable and satellite companies would then receive this digital signal and make any necessary adjustments (such as adding commercials.) They could then send out their signal in digital form using whatever method and frequency they want. At the same time, cable companies may also want to send an NTSC version on the cable as well, for older TV sets.
On the home end, the digital signal would be received by some version of a set-top box. Now here's the only place a standard in this whole thing would be required: The set-top box and the TV would need to be connected together in some fashion that would have little or no signal degradation. This interface would only need to handle one channel (like the A/V inputs on the back of your TV) and could be either analog (which would have to be set up to minimize noise and distortion, shouldn't be too difficult) or digital (which would require some sort of encryption or copy protection). An analog link would probably be better, as it could inherently prevent high quality copies to be made. A digital signal could provide a slightly cleaner picture, it could still be copied, even with encryption. (DeCSS ring a bell, anyone?)
Either way, HDTV should be something for cable and satellite TV, not for broadcast TV (especially with reception problems). I seriously doubt people are going to be setting up antennas outside their houses just to get HDTV (assuming they can set up an antenna-- most rental housing such as apartments specifically restrict people from setting up outdoor antennas). Right now, I just hope that the FCC realizes this current HDTV plan is doomed for failure as all it is going to do is piss a lot of people off.
"With my new TV I can see the twinkle in Matthew Perry's eye!"
Sony wouldn't release the Beta standard. Yes, it is/was a better picture, but nobody else was allowed to use it.
uhm, sorry dude but in 6 years all those TVs will be dead beyond repair anyway.
Here're the FCC's Cable Services Bureau Fact Sheets page and the Placement of DBS, MMDS, and Television Broadcast Antennas fact sheet.
A qoute: On November 20, 1998, the Commission amended the rule so that it will also apply to rental property where the renter has exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio. The effective date of the amended rule is January 22, 1999
Hope this helps!
Here in Okinawa, Japan there is only one HDTV channel (NHK - public broadcasting) that can be received and that is from a "BS" satellite dish. This HDTV channel uses the MUSE analog HDTV format. Although the a still picture on this system looks quite stunning, is it said that this MUSE analog system suffers from motion artifacts. Besides that, I beleive that it is much more bandwidth intensive than an equivalent digital HDTV signal.
There are only three other analog NTSC channels on that same satellite, but I have to say that the picture quality on these channels far surpasses any terrestrial NTSC signals that I've seen (both broadcast and cable), and exhibit only a subtle moire effect. I beleive NHK is planning on launching some sort of digital BS system next year. As far as other digital satellite systems go, there currently are two: Sky PerfecTV and DirecTV Japan.
Both 8-VSB and COFDM are designed to minimise co-channel interference -- very much less interference than NTSC (in fact they are being broadcast between existing NTSC channels without upsetting them).
As for switching to COFDM, you can rule that out in the top 11 markets, which have already built transmission systems for 8VSB. I suppose the systems could be modified, but in all liklihood, the cost would be close to purchasing all new equipment. Not gonna happen. Maybe the smaller markets can build agile or go COFDM, which would in fact complicate reception quite a bit.
Many digital transmitters are effectively dual standard (including all those bought by Sinclair, no surprise), and can change from 8-VSB to COFDM at the flick of a switch.
The others would need some hardware modules changed -- but the cost of a switch is only a few thousand dollars. COFDM is a more valuable standard for data-casting, so this would be recouped quite easily.
Or even better the ever so pretty Nokia MediaScreen combined mobile cellphone/TV/Browser (Slashdot, passim). Then you could watch it on the way, too.
Mobile reception needs COFDM.
One planet, one future :)
Yo, Orulz what you want is an HDTV direcTV reciever. Direvtv is broadcast HDTV HBO right now. This box also does over air and cable HDTV. Check it out: http://www.rca.com/product/viewdetail/0,,PI640,00. html? kraemer@hal-pc.org
The is great news. To see worthwhile technical issues become more important than the petty bickering of national politics and the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
A selfish view perhaps, but I'll be able to buy a "state-of-the-art" TV that will actually work when I go back to England.
Now, how long before the US goes GSM..?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
So the FCC has a petition from half the US television stations to reconsider the digitial broadcasting standard; what can we do to encourage the FCC to act? Sure, we can send email, phone them, or even use postal mail, but which methods will they listen to, and which will just annoy them?
Now it seems to me that the European system is definitely better. But regarding general digital transfer of information over the airwaves, I'd like to bring up a point. Anybody who has used a digital "cellular" phone can say that when it works it has much better audio quality than an analog phone. But if you talk to a sales representative, you'll hear that if you live in an outlying area that you'll definitely want to opt for analog or dual-band. This is due to two reasons, obviously the digital networks are not as widespread as the analog networks. However, in addition, the digital towers have to be about 3 times closer together to ensure a signal. I'd imagine that this is because with digital, you are either getting clear enough reception to get a signal, or you're not, whereas an analog phone can deal with weak signals by simply having sound that's less clear. Error correction can probably in some way compensate for this, but obviously it doesn't work as well because the towers still need to be closer.
Now the point of my response - will the same thing be true of digital TV? Will the broadcast area for each station not be able to reach as far? This study on 8VSB vs CODFM does seem to indicate that there is the potential for this problem. I live in a somewhat outlying area, I don't have cable, and half the stations that I get come from about 100 miles away (and over quite a few mountains) so the signal is fairly weak. If digital TV means that I won't be able to get the CBS and NBC stations that come out of the next state, then as far as I'm concerned it's useless.
Really, how many Slashdotters here give a rat's ass about television, digital or otherwise? I for one turn my TV set on during natural disasters (e.g. elections). Maybe this has something to do with me not living in the good ol' U. S. of A.?
Posting as AC
Not willing to take one big
Karma hit. People...
Imagine Having to fork out $6000 for a new HDTV, to be told, sorry you only get to receive 5 channels only, but in 8 years when competition restrictions are lifted, there may be more. Well I think the sweet heart deal done in Australia to make the establishd players transmit HDTV, in return for keeping the cable/satellite players off their backs stinks. Notably the US is clever, - when 80% of consumers have converted... In Australia, no such performance agreement
Digital TV has been here in the UK for about a year now. I've had it for about 6 months. The difference over analogue TV is amazing. Sharp crisp pictures, with no fuzziness or ghosing, and superb sound quality. Once you have it you cannot go back. The extra features of digital TV, allowing shopping, and even games and email through the TV makes it well worthwhile.
I am a professional television broadcaster. I run engineering for one of the major channels on almost all cable systems. HDTV is almost surely doomed to failure.
First and foremost, the majority of Americans watch TV via cable or direct-to-home satellite. There is currently no way for consumers to get HDTV programming this way. There is no benefit to cable companies to send HDTV to cable customers. HDTV uses up much bandwidth and there is no way for cable headeds to insert their own commercials. The VSB vs. CODFM debate is small potatoes compared to the fact that no HDTV is available via cable system.
Second, there are *no* standards for broadcasting HDTV besides transsmission. Broadcasters are free to choose any systems that fits into the VSB transmission system. There is not even agreement on making the system progressive (what computers use) or interlaced (what analog TVs use). This has led to a bad situation for the television set makers. They have to make a choice on the 'native display format' for they televisions. That means that if Sony make a 720 Progressive tube set, all broadcasts not in 720P must be deinterlaced or upconverted to that format. That conversion leads to even more picture degredation
Remember, the base HDTV signal used in post-production is 1.5 GHz and that is squeezed down to 19.4 Mbit/s for transmission. Compression can only go so far.
Lastly, while the VSB vs. CODFM indeed does rage, that is nothing compared to the simple fact that there is no business reason to broadcast HDTV. The only reason broadcasters are doing it is because the FCC is forcing them to do it. No one has been able to demonstrate any revenue plan for HDTV yet.
BTW, what people have in Europe is digital television, it is not High Definition TV. All of the direct-to-home satellite services in America are basically the same as DTV in Europe. I think that Dish Network even uses the DVB (European) format for transmission. Currently, Europe has no HDTV.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
Where I live in Minnesota, our cable company where my Parents live now has changed to new cable boxes, and in all of the info screens in the cable box it says that this is Charter Communications' new "digital cable". Is this a form of HDTV? The change was so current and sudden, and I was shocked by the "digital cable" tagline.
Any information?
Whenever I start fixing a misbehaving system, I always abide by one rule:
Don't Make It Worse.
If I give up on fixing the thing for one reason or another, that's fine. I only have so much time in the day. But I'm not going to leave until I get it back, at least, to where it was before I arrived.
It's an issue of trust, and one of reputation: I can't afford to be known as somebody who you much rather have never walked in the door in the first place.
The revelation now that the present DTV standard doesn't even meet the reliability levels of NTSC is jawdropping. You mean to tell me I'm more respectful of my clients than an entire industry?!
The existence of a superior DTV standard from Europe is not particularly relevant to this foulup--NTSC was around ten years ago, and so were the early development versions of the American DTV standard. How, exactly, could it not be noticed that there were large, vast swathes of viewer who would recieve minimal reception even when NTSC offered perfect picture?
How, praytell, did this avoid any and every discussion of the technology?
My guess is that many an R&D budget went into developing the American standard, and should that standard have been left unadoped, upper management would have had to write it all off as a loss--such a significant accounting would be detrimental to the future of Digital TV, and the jobs of all the researchers.
So the reliability issues were supressed, with the improved quality being the siren call that would get widespread industry support. "Color made people watch more TV. More color and more channels means more ad minutes, means more money!", so were told the networks. "Imagine every American being forced to buy a new TV!", and the consumer electronics industry signed on.
And the consumer? "More channels...more quality...all free! You just need new equipment, or you lose all TV." Note, the lack of any less...any downsides...and apparently some degree of truth.
We're really lucky that the European standard actually does do what the American standard was supposed to.
If it wasn't for it, we'd not have known until it was far too late.
Don't think it's purely selfless devotion to the consumer that's leading that standard replacement alliance...suddenly, a large number of television stations just realized that it's very likely that only the biggest stations with the most skilled engineers and highest quality equipment would actually be able to get their signals broadcast successfully.
Anyone else depending on purely off the shelf hardware would be screwed...maybe, just maybe that was the idea?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
No actually not, it was a political decision by the us, also the independent GSM providers in the USA are growing faster than their tradiditonal counterparts. But mostly the problem with GSM/Cellular in the US is the stupid law that forces the OWNER of the cellular to pay for incomming calls, rather than the initator like in the rest of the world, this hampers the use quite a bit.
Australia have been talking about HDTV for quite a while now, and a standard has been in place for about a year. In 2008 analogue TV will be phased out completely. HDTV are gonna start broadcasting on the first day of 2000, and datacasting will follow soon after Go, Aussie, go, we lead the world in TV technology! PS : NTSC sucks. PAL is so much better. =) d
-
-
I rather like cows.
basically, this is an issue of the US using their own product, even when the other option is inferior. my father is the Senior Director of Broadcast Engineering at WETA (Washington Education Telecommunications Association) in D.C. (quite a title, eh?) he's normally a very patriotic american and was at first in favor of the US standard, but after researching it more, it seems clear that the European standard is better. the problem is, the US is going to use their own standard because it was created here and there's that sense of pride. i find it pretty ridiculous that we're passing up quality for pride.
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
For anyone who hasn't seen HD digital television in person, its hard to appreciate how drastic a difference it really does make in the viewing experience.
The first time I saw HD programming was at the Newseum in Washington DC (great place to visit if you're ever in the area). I was *stunned* and stopped in my tracks when I walked around the corner and saw it.
I'm a geek and a film guy. Film was the field of choice when I was in school. The 35mm crap people see in movie theaters can't hold anything on HD. Night and day. Really, until you've seen it you can't appreciate how amazing it really is.
I hope these issues get resolved quickly so people have more confidence in buying sets, and prices start to drop. The art of video and film deserves to be seen that way. Its good to see that there is finally serious pressure to drop the DTV standard we've got now for a better one.
Funny, during early tests of HDTV in Europe someone remarked on how the superior picture quality made peoples faces look bad. Every wrinkle, spot, zit and what have you stood out in glorious detail on the HDTV set, whereas on regular television such imperfections could easily be hidden by some makeup.
Nonsense. Backwards compatibility means that I don't have to buy a new TV, or new aerial to watch digital TV.
;-)
Indeed, in the UK, digital broadcasters are *giving away* the necessary hardware to get people up and running with digital reception. How much is the hardware in the US?
Actually, having said that, maybe it is time for the US to dump NTSC and use a real system...
Not to sound arrogant, but no. Backwards compatability is a baaaaaaad idea. Way back when, when color television was being developed SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and the IEEE went to the FCC and said, "Look, we can give you a really really good picture with this signal that is not backwards compatible, or we can give you this other one, which is of the same quality as the B&W NTSC you have now, but is backwards compatible." The FCC said, "Do the latter." SMPTE has been cursing ever since. So, when the time came for a new standard, this time SMTPE and IEEE told the FCC (or got them to agree) to this digital signal that was not backwards compatible. What does all this mean? It means that within the next 5-10 yrs. everyone will have to buy an HDTV television. There will be a grace period during which Stations will be REQUIRED to broadcast both the NTSC and HDTV signals, but after that is up, it's gonna be pure HDTV. Now, why not the backwards compatibility? Well, I hate doing this, but unless you want a (several hundred pages long) explanation of A/D conversion, block and channel encoding, Y/C video and lots of other stuff it will have to suffice to say that the cost of making a digital signal usable by analog equipment is astronomical for the television stations. So, we get our grace period, they get to not go bankrupt, and everybody goes home happy.
In the UK there is intense competition between digital satellite (SKY) and digital terrestrial broadcasting, so much so that set top boxes for either system are free provided you subscribe for 12 months.
Hopefully competition wouild sort out the winners in the US too.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
What of the millions of people who can't *afford* new HDTVs or the little box to convert down to "normal" broadcast signals of today? Do they get told, "Sorry, you're fucked"? There are plenty of people out there that simply will not stand for this, if the options are either buy a new television or give up TV.
Let's see, the poor can't afford the new televisions, so they're forced to no longer watch TV. This results in a massive amount of culture and independant thinking amongst the poor, sort of re-emergance of the "Harlem Renaissance". Suddenly, millions of people realise that they don't need television, and that they can create their own entertainment that is beyond almost anything ever put on the boob tube.
And meanwhile, the rich and middle class are watching reruns of "Seinfeld" in beautiful HDTV quality.
So, what's the problem, again?
Michael Chisari
Nicholas Bodley
When, Jim?! I'm leaning toward Directv because they're already downloading and have a settop box planned for Dec. I'd much rather have a linux box with direct access to the MPEG stream! (hint: ethernet port)
tcboo
I haven't seen digital HDTV, but what I have is a tape based system called W-VHS. It's an extrememly high-end system based on Japanese High-Def technology. That means that the outputs are the Y, Y-Pb, and Y-Pr signals. The system is an AmPro projector with RGB inputs, so it even went through a transcoder to convert the signals, plus switching (autopatch), etc as it is part of a complete system. The picture was almost unintelligible from looking out the window of the helo it was filmed from. Another thing I noticed right away was the contrast. You could easily pick out tiny details in the windows of buildings in the foreground, and the sun in the background was too bright too look directly at for more than a few seconds. I'm not sure how exactly the digital system stacks up to this (that VCR alone is $20k and the tapes are $200), but if it's anywhere near as nice I'm gonna love it (and I don't even watch TV that much). I don't think most people realize the difference between this and the NTSC standard. Unfortunately I won't be able to afford a system like that one unless I save up for a few decades or more.
Also some of the VHS quality issues are due to avoidance of Sony's Beta related patents - e.g. the L-loading scheme, which presents more tape to the tapeheads at any given point in time, and a noise cancellation scheme.
Yup, I've posted some other messages in this thread. However, I'm knowingly hiding behind the A.C. cover for this message.
While I'm far from being an expert, I've been sent some "insider" posts to the OpenDTV mailing list, read up on the topic to a fair degree, and the End of Analog could make the Russian Revolution seem somewhat tame (kidding).
Same A.C. as before...
Thanks for that.
It saved me a lot of time hunting around the net for information.
Iggy
Next thing is that in the time before the FCC HDTV mandate goes into effect the boxes for converting HDTV signals to NTSC standard signals will be very inexpensive. An example of this is that fact that Hauppauge, and other computer TV card vendors, are in the very near future going to be offering HDTV cards for the PC at around $300. At that price a company would easily be able to embed a chip like that into a converter box and those boxes to the cable companies, and they in turn, could rent them to you, just as the ordinary converter boxes of today. Look at the price of the chips and all, it would not be too hard to see that it would not be prohibitively expensive to have one of those for every every tv.
To answer the question about wether you will be able to use your current cable ready TVs, the answer is yes and no. Just hooking the cable up from the wall into the tv will not work as far as I know. But, there are actually a couple of ways that you could make it work, a)hook the converter box up to the TV and turn the TV to channel 4 (or 3) and use the converter box to change channels OR b)there may be a way (I haven't seen this technology yet) to have a converter box convert all of the signals all the time so that your cable ready TVs would not be able to notice a difference between that and an ordinary NTSC signal OR c)cable companies may offer a special service where they would convert all of the channels at the head end and then send a set of signals out that could be recieved natively by the old NTSC TVs.
I feel, to a certain extent, that the things that you are worrying about not go to be that bad. I know that in many areas, the cable companies are starting to offer digital cable. This requires a converter box even for you normal everyday NTSC TVs,(same as the HDTV plan that you are worrying about) but the thing is that it offers better picture quality and audio. I know many people who love this, and feel that the trade off for the converter box is worth it.
This was not really the driving force behind the movement. I think that the advantages of HDTV HEAVILY outweigh the disadvantages of it.
All in all, I think that HDTV is an EXTREMELY worth while technology. I feel that once people move to HDTV, they will never ever come back to standard NTSC.
Some clarifications. I worked in cable and broadcast tv for 2 years and was also present for some similar testing of piping digital signals such as these inside a standard 6mhz channel. As for compression, you can fit anwhere between 1 and 8 channels in standard aspect ratio in the 6mhz you used to fit one analog video signal. You can fit upto 6 HDTV signals into 6mhz I believe. You change the compresion of the the channels depending on their subject. Stuff with fast action gets less compression.
As for the system that gets used it would not suprise me at all if we the American People use the one that doesn't work. I know I sound cynical but look at it, we still use systems of weight and measure that have no reference in reality. An inch used to be 3 grains of barley end to end. Who cares! There is no rhyme or reason.. 12 inches = 1 foot but only 3 feet = 1 yard.... HUH? and why don't we as a NAtion use the metric system? Beacuse "thats whut dem dare europeen freeks use". So if the FCC settles on somthing american that doesn't work as well... dont be suprised!
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Digital TV rocks. Well the technology does, much of the content sucks hard. I work for Sky, developing an application for digital TV, but wouldn't actually watch Sky TV out of choice. Some of the stuff that we have in R&D will blow your sox off when it's released. Not saying any more, but there are some great set top box apps being developed.
(tip - if you're thinking of getting Sky Digital, hold out for the new silver Panasonic STB)
There's also a new article on Linux Planet about Linux being used bu the BBC for digital broadcasting, particularly for their new digital text service. I know where my CV (resume) is going next.
I hang out at Digital Theater to keep up with Digital TV happenings. They've had many discussions on this topic, and recommend reading the FCC report, DTV REPORT ON COFDM AND 8-VSB PERFORMANCE. The summary of which is
8-VSB was choosen over COFDM during the 9 year period in which the DTV standards were created. One of the major benefits of 8-VSB is it covers a much larger area which is a very important benefit in the US. It also carries more data than COFDM, which means a better picture can be received. In Europe, where everything is much closer together and multipath is a bigger problem, COFDM was choosen as their broadcast standard.
The 8-VSB reception problems shown by Sincliar were exhibited in 1st generation HDTV sets. The manufacturers of the sets have already come up with better ways of cancelling out the multi-path interference that plays havoc with HDTV reception. The newest sets work much better than the 1st generation, and it is expected this trend will continue.
The general consensus at Digital Theater is that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.
In 6 years, I imagine most of the televisions in our house will still be in service. TVs last a long time, and I'm not concerned with the "latest and greatest" stuff as long as I can watch the occasional show or Yankee game.
What I want to know is, what happens in 6 years when stations quit broadcasting in their current format. Will my non-cable-box-connected, normal, cable-ready televisions still be fine? Or will I have to toss them and buy new ones, something that'll probably end up costing a couple thousand dollars if I have to replace 5 or more sets. If the latter turns out to be the case, I can assure you that I and *millions* of other Americans will be incredibly pissed off.
I'm not sure this whole thing was planned out right, except maybe with the question, "How can the electronics and television industries make a shitload of money in one fell swoop?" being the only objective. What of the millions of people who can't *afford* new HDTVs or the little box to convert down to "normal" broadcast signals of today? Do they get told, "Sorry, you're fucked"? There are plenty of people out there that simply will not stand for this, if the options are either buy a new television or give up TV.
Do I have my facts messed up? Is this really what's going to happen in a scant 6 years' time? If so, it's going to backfire bigtime. Expect to see common analog signals being broadcast far into the future alongside HDTV signals, until the marketshare of people with older, "inferior" TVs is such that ignoring them and turning off the analog broadcast towers for good is more cosf-effective than not.
If I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Because of the low transmitter powers, and the inherent vulnerability of any `quart-into-a-pint-pot' modulation scheme to impulsive noise ('cos of Shannon's Law), I get a lot of two-second freezes of the picture during thunderstorms, even though the signal strength is a good 12dB above threshold in normal conditions. Electrical interference can be a problem for the same reason, so you need a good outdoor antenna and double-screened (e.g. RG6 or CT100) co-ax cable. Having done that, it works very well most of the time.
Here in the UK, all TV is on UHF. In countries which use VHF, multipath is likely to be a bigger problem: COFDM is really neat at tackling it.
There's some good background material on COFDM on the BBC Research Department web site.
Note that Echostar (Dish/TV) is broadcasting high resolution HDTV now from their satellites. You can check it out at various retaliers such as Sound Track. I believe the feed originates from HBO and is a test feed only, but it shows that the technology is already there. With additional satellites going up all of the time, you should be able to get High Res HDTV all over the United States. I don't think that Europe has anything comparable.
:-).
Note also that Echostar will be using Linux for at least some of their HDTV set-top boxes, and that's why I work there
You're quite correct. We *do not* have HDTV here in the UK, and i don't think they do in most parts of Europe either.
Even taking this into account, the picture from digital is still considerably better than standard analogue broadcast television. The most benefits seems to be come with films, the better AC3 (5.1) sound, better picture quality etc.
Getting back to the point, i thought that Japan was one of the only places to have had real HDTV for a while, although i believe that this was analogue HDTV. Maybe i'm wrong.
Anybody from Japan like to contribute and let us know how good/bad you're system is.
Iggy
Yes, the technology exists to use DTH for HDTV. But are the recievers available to the public?
How many HDTV signals will be broadcast with Echostar's plan to broadcast local NTSC stations in the top 30 markets still moving forward? There's only so much transponder space.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
Everywhere you look around here, you see direct broadcast satellite dishes. Those are all digital TV. In most major markets in the US, digital TV is also being broadcast now. That's DTV, not HDTV, which many TV salesmen can't distinguish. I agree that if you have a nice TV set, the image improvement is significant, even if you're not watching HDTV.
The only thing I was intrested was the improved signal quality. The grater range. But that turns out to be vaperware.
Oh well..
I don't care if the picture quality improves I just want to be shure I get a picture under harsh conditions.
I don't actually exist.
Some of us really old farts on Slashdot remember the color television standards war in the early 1950s.
Once upon a time... The FCC accepted a non-compatible "sequential" color standard that was IIRC supported by CBS and some others. The three color component images were transmitted one after the other instead of simultaneously, and you got your color picture by sticking a synchronized rotating color wheel in front of a standard black-and-white picture tube. (I am not making this up!) Later, when RCA (which, at that time, owned NBC) came up with the compatible NTSC system, the FCC threw out CBS's standard and adopted RCA's. [Digression: The key technological advance was RCA's development of the shadow-mask picture tube, which could display multiple colors simultaneously. A bonus was that, because the standard was compatible, people didn't have to get rid of their old TV sets right away. The problem with this was that because color sets were so expensive, only the very well-off bought them; thus it was a long time before production quantities rose to the point that economies of scale were achieved. (My family's first color set was a 1964-vintage Emerson with about 25 tubes costing >$600.)] Anyway, my point is the precedent for overturning an already-accepted standard exists.
Was I the only one who expected to see an announcement of a £99 digital TV of questionable quality, when reading about the "Sinclair effort".
It seems rediculous to me that memory prices rose b/c of an earthquake in one country.
It seems ridiculous to me that there are still people in this world too stupid to realise that the economies of each contry inter-relate with one other.
Also that the products sold in one contry might be produced in another...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
One thing that deserves mentioning about digital TV is that the same problems that we've seen associated with the DVD format will be associated with it as well:
(1) In trade magazines discussing digital TV, I have seen numerous references to encrypting the signal a la DVDs and CSS, in order to prevent "pirates" from copying movies off TV. The networks want to be able to control whether or not you should be allowed to tape a TV show. They will attempt to do this by using an encryption system on the signal, and by forcing all VCR manufacturers to make sure that their products obey a special "copyright" signal in the broadcast.
(2) For the reasons stated above, it remains to be seen whether the transmission format will be an open standard or a secret one like DVD. (okay, DVD is "open" in the sense that you can pay $15,000 for the standard and sign a non-disclosure agreement)
Want to watch digital TV on Linux?
(3) Digital TV is compressed for broadcast with MPEG encoding. All the patent issues relating to MPEG will be in full play once digital TV enters common use.
Basically, it remains to be seen whether anyone will be allowed to _make_ digital TV programs. The owners of the MPEG patents often license them depending upon use, i.e. they may decide that it is okay to sell camcorders compatible with the digital TV standard for $1,000, but if you want to use them for professional use (maybe you are an independent video producer), they can jack the price up as high as they want.
This is the case with MPEG audio equipment today, for instance.
Most people take it for granted that today's television is an open format. Over the past 20 years, the number of channels as well as the number of people able to communicate through the medium has greatly increased, thanks in no small part to the steady introduction of new and cheaper technology. All I am saying is that, due to the above legal issues, I wonder whether digital TV will return television to a very tightly controlled medium, which only a very small number of people will have access to.
Basically the Cable companies and the governement have consipired to create an extremely inefficient use of the bandwidth they do have.
In my area, the gov't mandates thatstandard cable contains about 10 UHF channels that I couldn't get with rabbit ears if I tried, three of which are really bad QVC ripoffs. On top of that, there are several "community access" channels, whose only programming seems to be really ugly videotext announcing various public library programs with the radio playing as a soundtrack. Add to that the two channels which do nothing but promote pay-per-view movies, the four slots for showing PPV, the scrambled pornography, and the standard free over-the-air channels, there is only about 12 slots left for normal commercial cable programming (TNT, USA, CNN, etc), which besides pro wrestling, is nothing to write home about. Internet and Phone access can only be cutting into the limited bandwidth ppol
My fear is that an expanded digitial spectrum is going to be used this way also - as an effort to maximize pay-per-view profits (and kill the corner video store) or 'extended services' over "the public good" of better picture quality or more free entertainment, such as princess diana death dirges and wrestling. (And, no, I'm not a mark - I don't buy the PPVs or commerative plates.)
Then again, my TV is a Commodore 1702 monitor, so maybe I'm not the target market for these ploys.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
If they could make color TV signals compatible backwards compatible with black and white TV sets, they they ought to be able to make HDTV backwards compatible with current sets. If they' can't then they aren't trying hard enough.
Cable tech was developed in the 70s, when the government was telling cable cos to come up with a system that carried a great many narrow-bandwidth channels. It excels at that. HDTV would mean changing that to a few huge-bandwidth channels.
Cable cos are very busy spending $ for internet and landline phone access, so don't expect this change to happen anytime soon.
Anyway, which digital standard are we talking about, anyway? There are 18 of them, mostly mutually incompatible, and each requiring a different TV, and only some of them are HDTV. My Crotchfield catalog lists but one digital TV, a Panasonic, for 2 grand. It's only SDTV, a lousy 480 lines.
The thing you don't mention is something that will doom HDTV - it requires a roof antenna! Who was the goof that came up with that? Sounds like an Ira Magaziner to me. The last thing anyone wants to deal with is one of those turkeys. And besides, the best HDTV won't be half as good as DirectTV is today. Hooray for the pizza dish.
Let ABCNBCCBSPBS spend their bucks converting me to HDTV. They'll go broke trying, and the sooner the better.
Just what we don't need. A new "standard" being chosen and the forced expiration of the old standard such that everyone is forced to buy all new hardware or be left out. Of course, only the wealthy will be able to afford to switch to the new tech. The poor will not and when the old standard is dropped, the poor will find themselves further separated from the upper classes. HDTV is a stake that will drive classes into further disparity because TV is currently something near all can enjoy right now. HDTV takes that away from some. Guess who?