The article is talking about over the air (OTA) digital broadcasts which are unrelated (other than they are both bits) to digital cable. You are right, all of the digital cable I've seen has been way over-compressed, making the picture generally worse than the analog equivilent. OTA DTV in standard definition looks better than any analog cable and highdef shows like CSI:Miami and RHD look absolutely gorgeous.
Or maybe its just that most of us recognize that until we own a Congresscritter or three, it doesn't matter what we think. As for writing my Congressmen, I have, several times, about this as well as about the Internet Radio issue. Each time I got back polite letters basically quoting from RI/MPAA press releases. As always, money talks.
The design of many of the DVD decoder chips has the region set either externally or programmable at "build" time. It's straight forward to allow it to be changed (my Creative Labs DVD drive can be programmed. It's suppose to "stick" after 5 changes, but early models had a bug). Hacking DVI will require that a new component analog output backend be glued onto the decryption frontend. This assumes that you can get hold of a supply of decryption chips (if such things even exist). Otherwise you have to reverse engineer the chip and then get it fab-ed. Either case will require that extra components be added to existing designs which will drive the cost up. How much the added cost will offset the savings from building in the far east will have to be seen.
Sure, just as it is possible today to buy DVD players that don't support region-coding, it may be possible to buy an HD-DVD or HD-STB that outputs analog component video. But they will likely be expensive and hard to find.
Another thing to note. This encryption applies only to HD-DVD/SAT/CABLE, not to HD over the air signals. I suspect that the FCC will frown on stations using their free bandwidth to send encrypted signals since the broadcast format is already locked in and recording OTA signals has been found legal years ago. I also suspect that stations will object to having to replace $100,000+ transmiters.
As for me, I'll boycott HD-DVDs and just keep buying "lowdef" DVDs. I believe the likelyhood of the industry being able to force everyone to upgrade their brand new DVD players by not producing new media is about as likely as their being able to force us to upgrade our CD players. It may happen, but not in my lifetime.
It's nice to believe that, but in this case it just won't be possible. A recordable signal, analog or digital, won't ever exist where you can get at it. The monitor will take the encrypted signal (via DVI) and convert it into appropriate CRT deflection information for the monitor drivers either via a single chip or a potted module. I suppose if you are willing to risk frying your $3000 HDTV monitor and are REALLY good at desoldering surface mount chips, it might be possible to put in a mod (assuming someone actually makes a mod that you can afford).
Wow, 300+ comments and someone finally gets it. The real story here isn't about JVC trying a last ditch effort to use their VCR patents, its about the first player to use HDCP/DVI. Encrypted firewire output from the receiver, encrypted on the tape, and encrypted firewire to the monitor. Real encryption, 128 bit+, digital signatures between the devices, the ability to "black-list" certain device signatures (updated via either the pre-recorded tape or over the air). Plus the player will only record if the signal says its allowed. This is the future that the studios/networks envision for all digital television, not just HDTV.
Right now there are no HDCP/DVI receivers, only 1 player (JVC) and only 1 monitor (also JVC). The existing firewire equipped monitors don't support the HDCP protocol. So screw the early adopters, they'll just have to start over.
Both the Toshiba and Panasonic 34 inch direct-view sets are 16x9 native 1080i. Best Buy carries both for less than $2500. The Toshiba HD receiver up-converts everything to its native 1080i format and is available from BB for $600. So for $3100 you can get a great looking, true HDTV setup. So you are technically correct, only silly people spend tens of thousands of dollars on HDTV.
First, check out HDTV Galaxy for lots of good information.
I bought myself the Toshiba 34" wide-screen direct-view (tube) monitor and the matching HDTV/DirectTV receiver for Christmas. Total cost around $3000 from Best Buy (you can save at least $500 if you buy off the web, but do you really want to mail back 200 lbs of glass if it doesn't work?)
If you only watch TV and your existing set works fine and you either get satellite or good cable, it's probably not worth the money now. If you just have bad cable, get DirectTV or Dish. If your TV set needs to be replaced but you are happy with your existing TV, get one of the new true flat screen sets (flat as in flat picture tube, not plasma); for $500 you can get a really good picture. On the other hand, if you watch a lot of DVDs, an HDTV set coupled with a progressive-scan DVD player must be seen to be believed. From a normal viewing distance it's hard to tell it's not film. Absolutely gorgeous.
As for actual HDTV content, DirectTV currently carries both HBO and HDNet in 1080i, Dish (I believe) carries HBO and Showtime. HDNet is a startup HD-only channel that carries a mix of movies and "non-mainstream" sports (this week it seems to be mountain biking) and will be carrying several hours/day of tape-delayed Olympic events. The image quality varies from great to amazing, all 3 providers claim to not broadcast any up-converted materials.
As for over the air broadcasts, most major markets seem to have digital broadcasts from PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. However, this doesn't mean that they are broadcasting HDTV, most of the shows are simply up-converted from NTSC. Many of CBS's night-time lineup are in 1080i, some of ABC's is in 720p (NYPD Blue and Alias). NBC claims Jay Leno is in 1080i, but that doesn't seem to be true in Boston. Fox is all 480p
Bottom line, if you watch a lot of movies on DVD (or just want a cutting edge toy), you can't beat an HDTV monitor. If you just watch TV, there isn't enough on yet to make it worthwhile.
Ok, now lets pretend I'm a pilot. Do I let the terrorist kill a few hundred passengers or do I let him in the cockpit and potentially kill thousands. Having a secure door at least allows the pilot to make that decision. The rules of how to handle a hijacking changed on 9/11.
Which would be fine if Shirky had a clue. He insists on talking about micropayments being $0.05 or $0.10 when true micropayments are $0.005 or $0.0005. As Walmart or any supermarket can tell you, profit comes from volume. If you disagree, ask Bradlees, or Ames, or Zayres, or your neighborhood department store.
Secondly, we all use a form of micropayment system on a daily basis: the telephone. We pay some fixed amount each month for access to the phone network and get some number of local calls for "free". Beyond that, we pay a small charge for each additional minute. Growing up, I remember being told I could talk with my grandmother until Sunday night because that's when the rates are lowest. Now that phone rates have fallen into the micropayment range, most of us don't worry about that anymore.
Your conclusion is correct, but your hypothesis is wrong. The point of the web is content distribution. The web is free due to a happenstance of birth (we are talking about the WWW here, not the Internet). It was created by college students who used it to post their resumes and favorite song titles. As it grew companies began putting up their "resumes" and some individuals with too much time on their hands started creating unique content. Companies followed suit, paying for the content by running ads. Unfortunately, due to a lot of reasons (some technical, some procedural, some just plain greed), ad banners are no longer a viable means to pay the actual cost of a web site (server+bandwidth) let alone pay the content creator their due. Why is it that we expect/. or time.com to pay real money to provide us with free content? Yes, when content costs, a lot of people will go back to watching TV and reading the sunday paper at McDonalds. The rest of us will begrudingly pay a bit more and enjoy all that fast bandwidth now that the spectators are gone.
At my company we constantly get asked by our clients about charging for their content. The first answer we give them is that they can't charge for repurposed content that can be obtained elsewhere. If they create custom content that is unique and interesting, maybe they could think about charging. Then we run into the "If I get $12/month for my print version, I can get the same for the on-line version. And make sure that it's really hard to download and use by wrapping it in really complex digital rights management software so no one steals it." I'm still convinced that micro-payment based content will happen, but we've a long way to go yet.
People won't pay for content because they're already paying for access - why pay twice?
Because the access provider and the content provider are different. Lots of people pay for both cable tv (access) and pay-per-view (content).
Make it easy to do a micropayment, a simple one-click thing, and you'll see more people do it. I know I can't be bothered to enter payment info for a few cents...
This is the key. And don't think a few cents, think fractions of a cent.
An interesting quote re Bush:
On the 12th month of the year of the millenium, in the seat of greatest power, the village idiot shall come forth to lead. -Nostradamus
Its off-topic, but this "quote" is a hoax. There is nothing in any of the quatrains even close. Check out the Nostradamus Repository for details (and a cool quatrain search engine).
Everyone here seems to be missing what this actually is. This is not a plan to sell fancy encrypted monitors to plug into your computer to allow you to play streaming video over the web. This is an integral part of the data chain to be required for next generation video. That means HD-DVDs, HD-Cable, HD-Satellite, HD-VCR/PVR, etc. In order to get a license to manufacture a player, the player will be required to only output analog video (probably Macrovision encoded) or to use this encrypted digital bit stream (most likely over firewire). Which means that you the consumer get a choice of watching hi-def programming down-converted to play on your existing TV set or you get to buy a new "licensed" monitor. And oh, by the way, those of you who have already bought HDTV monitors, you are SOL, thats the cost of being an early adopter.
This doesn't require an act of Congress to mandate or any strong arm tactics against the manufacturers. It is an integral part of the evolution of video. And for you audiophiles, both DVD-Audio and superCD (or whatever Sony calls it) are already encrypted on the media.
And before you think I see this as either a good or neutral development, I don't. This is another step in the entertainment industry's plan to strip we consumers of all of our rights and force all media into a "pay-per-view" scheme.
So let's see... My company's headquarters are in a large office tower. The company on the floor below me decides not to pay their electric bill. The phone company, knowing that they might be next, asks the building owners to evict this company (who is paying their rent on time). When the owners refuses, the phone company turns off phone service to the entire building. Their response, and yours, is "You shouldn't do business with a company who allows their renters to not pay bills. Move to another complex if you don't like it!".
MAPS was a good idea when they were blocking IP addresses of spammers. They crossed the line when they started blocking ISPs and affecting businesses which have done nothing wrong except "consort with known spam sympathisers". Are you now or have you ever been a spammer...
Nice theory, but the reality seems to be a little harsher: Check out this article (and the related ones) at
The Register. Seems more like WB is going after anyone who even comes close to their "property". The Register also reported that when the studio is asked by the operator what domain name can be used, it replies that it can be anything that doesn't refer to Harry Potter or the books -- leading The Register to comment: "What the hell are you supposed to call a Harry Potter fan site, and how would anyone find it?"
Second, there is no widely-used personal identification system in place to keep e-books in the hands of those who purchased them. Plus, in the 'real-world', it's not exactly wrong to lend a book to a friend to use (or a thousand friends for that matter.) Who's going to stop me, the copyright police?
And why should they stop you? Under section
109(a) of the US Copyright code, the owner of a particular lawfully obtained copy is allowed to sell, give away, or loan for free their copy without the copyright holder's permission. Section 109(b)(1)(A) takes away the right to rent or lease your copy of a sound recording or computer program, but not a book (I assume this is a DMCA addition). IANAL, but I'd say that Microsoft's copy protection prohibits you from exercising the rights granted under 109(a).
And lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is not the bad guy here. They are just doing what the publishing industry wants. All of the competing commercial e-book standards have heavy copy protection. It has been a thorn in the side of the industry for years that I can buy a book and then let my wife read it without paying for it a second time. What they (and the music and movie industry) really want is "pay-per-view". Until all PCs/PDAs/etc contain fingerprint or retinal readers, the best the industry can do is to lock the content to the device.
Ahh, but the patent is not on you or I chaining *nix commands together, but on doing this in a business context, hence the term business method patent.
Far worse than it sounds. First a little background. This patent was filed in October 1997 for work done in late 1995 and 96. Juno was at the time offering a free, dialup e-mail service before Internet/Web use was widespread. That explains the via a modem phrase.
As for it being obvious, yeah, probably. As Architect for FreeMark Communications (a Juno competitor at the time), I "invented" the same thing in early 1995 and we applied for patents prior to Juno's application. Unfortunately, FreeMark folded before our patents were approved, so Juno got it by default.
Note that Juno's patent covers on-line delivery of ads for off-line viewing. This means it applies to anything that "dials-up", downloads e-mail and ads, then "hangs-up". Services like WebTV fall into this category as possibly do TV devices like the ReplayTV or Tivo PDRs.
This is just another in a long line of bad patents. And its only getting worse. Check out Mercata's
patent on Dynamic market equilibrium management system, process and article of manufacture (ie, co-op buying), issued just yesterday.
Is your point 5mb of disk usage or bandwidth? Even on an older PC with a 5 or 10 gig hard drive, 5 meg is nothing. The MS Word.exe is 8.5 meg and that doesn't include all of the.dll files. Visual studio was something over 38 meg last time I installed it. And as for bandwidth, at 5mb, 5 users trading say 12 files/day with a 1mb network (anyone still using 1mb networks?) will "use" 40 minutes; with a 10mb network, 4 minutes; and (obviously) with a 100mb network, only 24 seconds.
Mis-use of company resources has always been nothing more than an easy way to fire someone. If the companies were to say it was because employees were trading "illegal" mp3s, they would be open to having to prove in court the illegality of the MP3s.
But as you said, we are reaching conclusions based on 2 sentences from (of all people) whoever is using the Robert X Cringely alias this week.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Buy XBox and game
2. Plug in XBox
3. Insert game
4. Play game
Where's the hassle?
The article is talking about over the air (OTA) digital broadcasts which are unrelated (other than they are both bits) to digital cable. You are right, all of the digital cable I've seen has been way over-compressed, making the picture generally worse than the analog equivilent. OTA DTV in standard definition looks better than any analog cable and highdef shows like CSI:Miami and RHD look absolutely gorgeous.
Because the story isn't on the front page?
Or maybe its just that most of us recognize that until we own a Congresscritter or three, it doesn't matter what we think. As for writing my Congressmen, I have, several times, about this as well as about the Internet Radio issue. Each time I got back polite letters basically quoting from RI/MPAA press releases. As always, money talks.
Funniest damn thing I've read in months. You can find the original article by Matthew Callan at Freezerbox.
The design of many of the DVD decoder chips has the region set either externally or programmable at "build" time. It's straight forward to allow it to be changed (my Creative Labs DVD drive can be programmed. It's suppose to "stick" after 5 changes, but early models had a bug). Hacking DVI will require that a new component analog output backend be glued onto the decryption frontend. This assumes that you can get hold of a supply of decryption chips (if such things even exist). Otherwise you have to reverse engineer the chip and then get it fab-ed. Either case will require that extra components be added to existing designs which will drive the cost up. How much the added cost will offset the savings from building in the far east will have to be seen.
Sure, just as it is possible today to buy DVD players that don't support region-coding, it may be possible to buy an HD-DVD or HD-STB that outputs analog component video. But they will likely be expensive and hard to find.
Another thing to note. This encryption applies only to HD-DVD/SAT/CABLE, not to HD over the air signals. I suspect that the FCC will frown on stations using their free bandwidth to send encrypted signals since the broadcast format is already locked in and recording OTA signals has been found legal years ago. I also suspect that stations will object to having to replace $100,000+ transmiters.
As for me, I'll boycott HD-DVDs and just keep buying "lowdef" DVDs. I believe the likelyhood of the industry being able to force everyone to upgrade their brand new DVD players by not producing new media is about as likely as their being able to force us to upgrade our CD players. It may happen, but not in my lifetime.
It's nice to believe that, but in this case it just won't be possible. A recordable signal, analog or digital, won't ever exist where you can get at it. The monitor will take the encrypted signal (via DVI) and convert it into appropriate CRT deflection information for the monitor drivers either via a single chip or a potted module. I suppose if you are willing to risk frying your $3000 HDTV monitor and are REALLY good at desoldering surface mount chips, it might be possible to put in a mod (assuming someone actually makes a mod that you can afford).
Wow, 300+ comments and someone finally gets it. The real story here isn't about JVC trying a last ditch effort to use their VCR patents, its about the first player to use HDCP/DVI. Encrypted firewire output from the receiver, encrypted on the tape, and encrypted firewire to the monitor. Real encryption, 128 bit+, digital signatures between the devices, the ability to "black-list" certain device signatures (updated via either the pre-recorded tape or over the air). Plus the player will only record if the signal says its allowed. This is the future that the studios/networks envision for all digital television, not just HDTV.
Right now there are no HDCP/DVI receivers, only 1 player (JVC) and only 1 monitor (also JVC). The existing firewire equipped monitors don't support the HDCP protocol. So screw the early adopters, they'll just have to start over.
Both the Toshiba and Panasonic 34 inch direct-view sets are 16x9 native 1080i. Best Buy carries both for less than $2500. The Toshiba HD receiver up-converts everything to its native 1080i format and is available from BB for $600. So for $3100 you can get a great looking, true HDTV setup. So you are technically correct, only silly people spend tens of thousands of dollars on HDTV.
I bought myself the Toshiba 34" wide-screen direct-view (tube) monitor and the matching HDTV/DirectTV receiver for Christmas. Total cost around $3000 from Best Buy (you can save at least $500 if you buy off the web, but do you really want to mail back 200 lbs of glass if it doesn't work?)
If you only watch TV and your existing set works fine and you either get satellite or good cable, it's probably not worth the money now. If you just have bad cable, get DirectTV or Dish. If your TV set needs to be replaced but you are happy with your existing TV, get one of the new true flat screen sets (flat as in flat picture tube, not plasma); for $500 you can get a really good picture. On the other hand, if you watch a lot of DVDs, an HDTV set coupled with a progressive-scan DVD player must be seen to be believed. From a normal viewing distance it's hard to tell it's not film. Absolutely gorgeous.
As for actual HDTV content, DirectTV currently carries both HBO and HDNet in 1080i, Dish (I believe) carries HBO and Showtime. HDNet is a startup HD-only channel that carries a mix of movies and "non-mainstream" sports (this week it seems to be mountain biking) and will be carrying several hours/day of tape-delayed Olympic events. The image quality varies from great to amazing, all 3 providers claim to not broadcast any up-converted materials.
As for over the air broadcasts, most major markets seem to have digital broadcasts from PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. However, this doesn't mean that they are broadcasting HDTV, most of the shows are simply up-converted from NTSC. Many of CBS's night-time lineup are in 1080i, some of ABC's is in 720p (NYPD Blue and Alias). NBC claims Jay Leno is in 1080i, but that doesn't seem to be true in Boston. Fox is all 480p
Bottom line, if you watch a lot of movies on DVD (or just want a cutting edge toy), you can't beat an HDTV monitor. If you just watch TV, there isn't enough on yet to make it worthwhile.
Ok, now lets pretend I'm a pilot. Do I let the terrorist kill a few hundred passengers or do I let him in the cockpit and potentially kill thousands. Having a secure door at least allows the pilot to make that decision. The rules of how to handle a hijacking changed on 9/11.
Secondly, we all use a form of micropayment system on a daily basis: the telephone. We pay some fixed amount each month for access to the phone network and get some number of local calls for "free". Beyond that, we pay a small charge for each additional minute. Growing up, I remember being told I could talk with my grandmother until Sunday night because that's when the rates are lowest. Now that phone rates have fallen into the micropayment range, most of us don't worry about that anymore.
Your conclusion is correct, but your hypothesis is wrong. The point of the web is content distribution. The web is free due to a happenstance of birth (we are talking about the WWW here, not the Internet). It was created by college students who used it to post their resumes and favorite song titles. As it grew companies began putting up their "resumes" and some individuals with too much time on their hands started creating unique content. Companies followed suit, paying for the content by running ads. Unfortunately, due to a lot of reasons (some technical, some procedural, some just plain greed), ad banners are no longer a viable means to pay the actual cost of a web site (server+bandwidth) let alone pay the content creator their due. Why is it that we expect /. or time.com to pay real money to provide us with free content? Yes, when content costs, a lot of people will go back to watching TV and reading the sunday paper at McDonalds. The rest of us will begrudingly pay a bit more and enjoy all that fast bandwidth now that the spectators are gone.
This is perhaps the best reason for a pay model that I've ever heard!
At my company we constantly get asked by our clients about charging for their content. The first answer we give them is that they can't charge for repurposed content that can be obtained elsewhere. If they create custom content that is unique and interesting, maybe they could think about charging. Then we run into the "If I get $12/month for my print version, I can get the same for the on-line version. And make sure that it's really hard to download and use by wrapping it in really complex digital rights management software so no one steals it." I'm still convinced that micro-payment based content will happen, but we've a long way to go yet.
Because the access provider and the content provider are different. Lots of people pay for both cable tv (access) and pay-per-view (content).
Make it easy to do a micropayment, a simple one-click thing, and you'll see more people do it. I know I can't be bothered to enter payment info for a few cents...
This is the key. And don't think a few cents, think fractions of a cent.
Its off-topic, but this "quote" is a hoax. There is nothing in any of the quatrains even close. Check out the Nostradamus Repository for details (and a cool quatrain search engine).
This doesn't require an act of Congress to mandate or any strong arm tactics against the manufacturers. It is an integral part of the evolution of video. And for you audiophiles, both DVD-Audio and superCD (or whatever Sony calls it) are already encrypted on the media.
And before you think I see this as either a good or neutral development, I don't. This is another step in the entertainment industry's plan to strip we consumers of all of our rights and force all media into a "pay-per-view" scheme.
I'm sure there are more but here is one source.
MAPS was a good idea when they were blocking IP addresses of spammers. They crossed the line when they started blocking ISPs and affecting businesses which have done nothing wrong except "consort with known spam sympathisers". Are you now or have you ever been a spammer...
Nice theory, but the reality seems to be a little harsher: Check out this article (and the related ones) at The Register . Seems more like WB is going after anyone who even comes close to their "property". The Register also reported that when the studio is asked by the operator what domain name can be used, it replies that it can be anything that doesn't refer to Harry Potter or the books -- leading The Register to comment: "What the hell are you supposed to call a Harry Potter fan site, and how would anyone find it?"
And why should they stop you? Under section 109(a) of the US Copyright code, the owner of a particular lawfully obtained copy is allowed to sell, give away, or loan for free their copy without the copyright holder's permission. Section 109(b)(1)(A) takes away the right to rent or lease your copy of a sound recording or computer program, but not a book (I assume this is a DMCA addition). IANAL, but I'd say that Microsoft's copy protection prohibits you from exercising the rights granted under 109(a).
And lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is not the bad guy here. They are just doing what the publishing industry wants. All of the competing commercial e-book standards have heavy copy protection. It has been a thorn in the side of the industry for years that I can buy a book and then let my wife read it without paying for it a second time. What they (and the music and movie industry) really want is "pay-per-view". Until all PCs/PDAs/etc contain fingerprint or retinal readers, the best the industry can do is to lock the content to the device.
Ahh, but the patent is not on you or I chaining *nix commands together, but on doing this in a business context, hence the term business method patent.
As for it being obvious, yeah, probably. As Architect for FreeMark Communications (a Juno competitor at the time), I "invented" the same thing in early 1995 and we applied for patents prior to Juno's application. Unfortunately, FreeMark folded before our patents were approved, so Juno got it by default.
Note that Juno's patent covers on-line delivery of ads for off-line viewing. This means it applies to anything that "dials-up", downloads e-mail and ads, then "hangs-up". Services like WebTV fall into this category as possibly do TV devices like the ReplayTV or Tivo PDRs.
This is just another in a long line of bad patents. And its only getting worse. Check out Mercata's patent on Dynamic market equilibrium management system, process and article of manufacture (ie, co-op buying), issued just yesterday.
Mis-use of company resources has always been nothing more than an easy way to fire someone. If the companies were to say it was because employees were trading "illegal" mp3s, they would be open to having to prove in court the illegality of the MP3s.
But as you said, we are reaching conclusions based on 2 sentences from (of all people) whoever is using the Robert X Cringely alias this week.