Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

FCC Pushes Digital TV and Digital Restrictions 360

Posted by michael from the tune-in-drop-out dept.
Mansing writes "The Washingington Post has an article describing the FCC's new push to move digital TV more into the homes of consumers. While this sounds like a good thing, read on. The Congressmen who are "helping" this to happen are none other than Senator Fritz "Disney" Hollings and Representative Billy "Baby Bell" Tauzin. And why do you think they want digital TV rolled out faster? Can you say Pay to View?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Pushes Digital TV and Digital Restrictions More

FCC Pushes Digital TV and Digital Restrictions

Comments Filter:
  • forgive me, but why would a baby bell (i assume you mean phone) want you to have digital tvs in my home?

  • One day in the not-so-distant-future..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ASyndicate ( 159990 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:47AM (#3290026) Homepage
    One day in the not-so-distant-future..... Everything will be a vending machine: Television, Roads, Your own computer, printers, car radio, your car.

    Everything will be a pay-per-use thing and it is disgusting. Full of greed and corruption.

    You can thank your corrupt (puppet) senators for providing us with this wonderful new system.
    -s

    • City of Columbus Water & Sewer Department
      700 Main Street
      Columbus, Ohio 43201

      Mr. Smith:

      We regret to inform you that due to the non-payment of your bill for the past three months that access to your toilets has been suspended. When sufficient payment has been remitted to our billing department, we will unlock the lids and allow normal operation to recommence.

      Sincerely,
      U. Needa John, Head of Accounting
    • Our politicians will have pay per vote. Wait a minute ...
    • Well, eventually all those mergers will result in one global company. You'd work for them, because they're the only employer around, and charges for the shows you watch, the books you read, the air you breathe, etc., will simply be deducted from your paycheck.

  • Same in UK (Score:2, Informative)

    by lxmeister ( 570131 )
    They're trying to push digital in the UK too but the cost to consumers to convert is pretty steep considering how close the deadline is.
    • Yeah, but the UK is way ahead of the US on this one. Ahead of most of the rest of the world in fact. The problem is, being the first in the world, we got to develop most of the technology. This means, it's not as good as other countries will be, kinda like the US with colour TV: the UK implemented it afterwards and had higher quality analogue TV as a result.

      What really rankles is US protectionism though. For instance, their digital terrestrial trials were rigged to come out in favour of VS8 (I think that was the name) over COFDM which is what the UK and most of Europe use (they are both ways of encoding digital data on radio waves). They repeated the trials in face of massive international criticism and found that COFDM was superior, but decided to go with VS8 anyway because the American electronics manufacturers wanted protection from European companies that already had established bases in the technology.

      The UK basically kicks the ass of every other country in the world when it comes to digital TV, with 3 different platforms all highly technically capable. The recent ruckus over ITV Digital doesn't change that - by all rights the US should be at an equal level with us or further ahead, but they are still bitchfighting over what standards to use.

  • We already "Pay to View" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Innominate Recreant ( 557409 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:50AM (#3290035)
    The prediction of failure for "Pay for Napster", or some other digital music distribution service, has been based mostly on the premise that people won't pay for something that they're already getting for free.

    This is true, unless value is added.

    Not too many years ago, all television was free (as in beer). Then along came cable. The added value was the additional choices in programming, and people bought it. If a "pay to view" model develops from digital television, people will buy it adds value.

    • Re:We already "Pay to View" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JWW ( 79176 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:27AM (#3290181)
      It doesn't have ENOUGH value. Cringely wrote an article a couple of week ago and stated an axiom about how "Creating something 10X cheaper that does what you current equipment does or creating something 10X faster for the same price will enable you to take over the market."

      HDTV fails both these principles, it is orders of magnitude more expensive, and the quality is not the same orders of magnitude better. It can't use price or quality as leverage, because its too expensive and although better quality, not enough to justify the expense for most people.

      Look for digital TV to fail and for increasing consumer unrest until Digital TV's are only twice as expensive, or less, than regular TV's. Then expect a big blow up over pay-per-view. The only way to add enough value for me to pay per show it to 1. Allow me to watch it anytime and pause and resume it. 2. If I pay for it it will have NO COMMERCIALS, the public will not pay for the privelege of watching commercials. 3. It better be good, a lot of TV nowdays it background noise, or whatevers on, people won't pay unless they really want to see the show.
      • > 1. Allow me to watch it anytime and pause and
        > resume it.
        > 2. If I pay for it it will have NO COMMERCIALS,
        > the public will not pay for the privelege of
        > watching commercials.
        > 3. It better be good, a lot of TV nowdays it
        > background noise, or whatevers on, people won't
        > pay unless they really want to see the show.

        I had this once. Onset from DIVA. Order movies, watch them, pause them, fast forward, rewind. No commercials (except for "coming attractions). They maintained a good selection of movies (with some being dropped & some being added every month). All using a set-top box & a remote. It was the greatest thing ever.

        Then Adelphia announced that the "trial run" was over and terminated the service. That was the first I knew that it was a trial run. Up until then, it was just a service they were providing.

        I guess I'm the only one who thought it was great.

        Cost about $7/month for the box & about $3.50/movie.

        I still miss it.
      • I wish this were the case, but...have you ever been to a movie lately? 4 or 6 commercials BEFORE the trailers...then product placements throughout the movie...then an advertisement for the soundtrack at the end credits. TV is 10x worse, where the average prime time television show is now 21-23 minutes out of 30. Even The Simpsons are heavily cut in syndication to add MORE commercials.
        • For me trailers don't count, as I'm one of those twisted people who actually like movie trailers. And product placement doesn't bother me, what does kind of bug me is generic labeling like a can that has "pop" printed on the side that the actor is drinking, sure its not product placement, but it looks dumb.

          As for TV that is exactly the issue, people will not pay for the show AND the commercails.
      • Good point. But people are pretty dumb sometimes. For example, there are certain people I know, who when they see the "High-definition 16:9 aspect ultra sweet widescreen version available" at the bottom of the TV screen when they're watching Boston Public or PBS are like, "I totally can't wait for that! I hope the FCC gets craking so we all have HDTV sets next year! Even if it costs 1,000 for a set! And I can't record the shows!"

        Personally I couldn't care less about higher quality TV; there is a handful of shows I watch (Family Guy, O'Reilly Factor, Daily Show), and the quality of the picture and sound is good enough for me. I don't need Dolby Digital in commercials so they can make them 10x louder than the shows, either. I can't stand watching most shows because of the commercials.

  • HDTV / DVI situation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tweakt ( 325224 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:52AM (#3290046) Homepage
    What I'm concernec about is the situation of HDTV and what happens if the CBDTBA (or whatever it's called right now passes). It basically outlaws unencrypted digital (or ANALOG hi-def) media. What some are pushing for is that only encrypted data enters your DTV, and there is no access to the anlog output at any point.

    THe problem is, that means all us early adoptors of HDTV are basically being told to go fuck ourselves. My set has three connectors (Component) which are basically Hi-Def analog inputs. It requires a box to tune the HDTV (or even just DTV) signals in (so in 2006, I'll *need* to have a box).

    Well if some have there way, then basically no box can ever be made that decrpyts HI-def signals and outputs analog. Since it would be outlawed. They want a DVI port on the back of DTV sets, and thats it. Encrpyted stuff goes in, nothing comes out.

    THe situation with OTA (over the air) is worse. Since you can't encrypt a broadcast, they won't likely show movies OTA in Hi-Def (the FCC mandate is for DIGITAL tv, and does not say anything about High-Definition), and so what will happen is whenever someone isn't comfortable with the signal being unencrypted OTA, then can choose to downconvert it back to DTV resolutions (so you don't have such a high quality to pirate).

    This all makes me sick. I don't know where this will all end, but there's going to be some serious backlash if this keeps up. Consumers will NOT tolerate this kind of abuse. Fair use rights are being destroyed. HDTV will never catch on light this.

    Ahh well, at least my DVDs look REALLY nice now, thats all I really wanted. Hopefully the dust will settle on this mess within the next 2 years (when my TV's warranty expires and it blows up). ;)

    • Re:HDTV / DVI situation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @11:36AM (#3290562) Homepage
      • I don't know where this will all end, but there's going to be some serious backlash if this keeps up. Consumers will NOT tolerate this kind of abuse

      Damn right! We'll never buy system with increased quality at the cost of built in encryption targetted at squarely at stopping fair use casual home copying (because it's trivial for commercial pirates to crack but just hard enough to flummox Joe Sixpack).

      Yes, it's a good thing that white elephants like CSS encrypted DVD's will never take off, right?

      </sarcarm> aside, what's your basis for thinking that there'll be any kind of "backlash"? What's the single action that's going to spark this huge wave of protest, and what's going to sustain it for days, weeks and months?

      I rather fear that we're going to keep going right on with this DRM crap, a little nibble here, a tweak there, a watered down bill, a few arrests, nibbling and cutting a tiny bit at a time, adding a couple of dollars a month to the bills of the average citizen (not consumer, dammit). A little carrot here, a little stick there, all done so gradually that only us reactionary geeks notice or care. And who listens to us? We're all pirates and (evil) hackers, right? To paraphrase a Salon cartoon:

      • Citizen: I have some reservations about this bill in the Senate.
      • Government: Why do you hate America so much?

      I can see your fingers hovering over the "troll"/"flamebait" buttons, but instead of that, I really would like to hear what the one single event is that will actually effect enough Joe Citizens at the same time to wake them up. I thought it would be DVD region coding, but it wasn't, because Region 1 gets all the goodies. Then a lot of us thought it would be the DMCA passing, but that barely registered on the mainstream radar. The DeCSS case passed the people by: nobody cares that you can tell people how to make bombs, but you can't link to DeCSS code. When I wore my "Free Dmitri Sklyrov" shirt at work last Friday, one coworker - one - knew what it was about. In a software development house. CDBpthhhhpptpp... see, I can't even remember the name, post SSSCA (let's just call it the Hollywood Retirement Fund Bill). Even if that monster passes, it'll be years before the effects are seen at retail level, and (I'm sure) there will be enough compromises that it won't force everyone to go out and buy new (crippled) hardware all at once, it'll be a little carrot, a little stick.

      So - and this is a 100% genuine question - what on earth is the trigger going to be for this "backlash" that I keep hearing about?

      • The backlash is going to happen when John Q. Public and Joe Sixpack have to fork several hundred dollars per TV that they want to watch Friends or Survivor on. They are going to have to buy a converter to recieve the digital broadcast and convert it down to something that their current TV/VCR can record. And for this couple of hundred dollars, they will get crisp, clear reception in all it's digital glory...none of which their TV will use since it was designed for plain ol' analog signals.

        Of course, we can upgrade all of our TVs to HD/DVI /whatever for an even greater expense. But then the studios can still control what we see/when we see it...or we can just record it at "off-air" quality, defeating the purpose entirely of spending 1000 bucks for a DTV.

        That is when I think the backlash is going to happen. It hasn't happen yet because everything so far hasn't affected the mainstream public. Many people still don't have DVDs, so region encoding doesn't play a roll. Many people are quite happy with just a plain CD player. They don't want to rip every CD with super duper bit rate quadraphonic sound. They just want to watch the nightly news. But when they can't since everything has gone digital and it's gonna cost them money for something that they have always been able to do for the longest time, that is when it will happen.

        Personally, I am anxiously awaiting 2006. I think it is going to be funny when they throw the switch to turn off the analog signal and hundreds of thousands of TVs will instantly become worthless/obsolete.
      • Damn right! We'll never buy system with increased quality at the cost of built in encryption targetted at squarely at stopping fair use casual home copying (because it's trivial for commercial pirates to crack but just hard enough to flummox Joe Sixpack).

        Yes, it's a good thing that white elephants like CSS encrypted DVD's will never take off, right?

        That's not an entirely true analogy. The value-added aspects of DVDs far outweigh the value-removed aspects for most people: random-access scenes, bonus materials, alternate audio tracks, 5.1 sound, increased picture resolution, and more durable format. The main drawback is region-coding and CSS which are not intrinsic to the format but an add-on included by MPAA members. Besides, most VHS tapes already prevented fair-use home copying with a little something called Macrovision before DVDs ever hit the market.

        However, the value-removed aspects of HDTV will far outweigh the value-added aspects: degraded signals for recording, recordings time-stamped to expire (which means no archiving!) or restricted altogether and planned obsolescence of TV hardware with changing standards. All of this for increased picture resolution?

        No, you will see backlash in this case - particularly if Joe Sixpack is forced to move to HDTV.

    • IIRC, it is possible for programming to be tagged so that it is not output on component ports in an analog format. If this is true, then it may be possible for a STB to downconvert the resolution of such HD programming to SD and output it on the component ports.

      Of course, there may be YAB (yet another bit) that determines if even this is permitted.

      As for consumers not taking this kind of abuse, I doubt there will be an uprising: the fraction of HD set owners is tiny, so our voices don't matter. Most people will probably be happy with the crappy ubiquitious CH 3/4 RF connections for VCR time-shifting. As long as they can time-shift SOMETHING, the higher definition for live broadcasts will be perceived as added-value that makes the whole proposition worth it (once HD set prices drop to say, a 50% premium over analog sets).

      Personally, I don't mind DRM, per se., as long as traditional fair use rights are preserved. We know this isn't the case with the DMCA, or SSSCA (er, renamed the phbbbt-CA, or whatever), and that's my biggest beef with these laws. I have no objection to DRM per se., as a means to fight copyright infringement, and, given a decent PK trust infrastructure, you can have DRM and fair use. Implemented properly, and with reasonable limits on copyright terms (something we don't have), the equipment could automatically even release exipring copyright material to the public domain (Lessig's "Code is Law" mantra can work beneficially as well as restrictively).

      The difficulty stems from a rejection of any form of DRM by technophiles because of the pushing of a particular (bad) form of DRM by Hollings, and his media cronies. However, like all technologies, DRM is not inherently evil -- how it is deployed and used makes all the difference. As much as I am opposed to insanely long copyright protections, I do not object to the notion of copyright per se. to permit creators of artistic works to control their creations for a sufficient period to provide an incentive to create them in the first place. With reasonable copyright terms, and DRM that enforces them, with due deference to fair use, I'd be a very happy hacker.

  • Voluntary or Mandatory? (Score:3, Informative)

    by bunyip ( 17018 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:52AM (#3290047)
    Consider these two statements:

    Additionally, he wrote: "The plan is purely voluntary but, as you can see, contemplates that each relevant industry will play a significant role. I intend to seek commitments along these lines in the near future."

    The FCC said the chairman does not have specific enforcement measures in mind if the participants do not meet his goals.

    Reminds me of Compulsory Voluntary Service (CVS), a term I learned in high-school (Hurlstone Agricultural). The boarding students would "volunteer" for 5AM dairy duty or suffer the consequences.

  • Mixed bag (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:54AM (#3290052) Homepage Journal
    On one hand, the so-called public airways need to be returned and reallocated (not to the "public," tho). On the other hand, it is increasingly clear that the entertainment juggernaughts are not interested in (or unable to) finding an alternate solution to increased perception of fair use.

    I'd really like to utilize my HDTV -- heck, I'd settle for DT only, but I'm not willing to fork out $500-600 for a tuner, especially with the lack of content today. Tuner prices won't come down until the demand goes up, and---sing along with me---there won't be any demand until there's content, which won't happen until demand goes up.

    One wonders what would have happened if these guys treated TV and radio in their infancy the same way they treat P2P or any other digital alternatives today. We'd probably still be going to small black and white movies, and there'd be no TV, radio, cassettes, CDs, blah blah. Oh, and the entertainment industry wouldn't be as big as it is today.

    Idiots.

    • Re:Mixed bag (Score:5, Informative)

      by liam193 ( 571414 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:23AM (#3290161)
      You analogy is not valid. Both the B&W/color and the VHF/UHF enhancements to TV occured because of market pressure not because of gov't involvement. VHF/UHF: Originally there were only 12 channels (2-13) available in any area. Since VHF signals travel so far and tuners were not great, the area was rather large. This meant that large cities had VHF stations and the suburban and rural area around them could not have any because they were in the "overlap area" of 12 stations. As a result, people in these areas picked up 12 channels of 50%+ snow. Enter UHF. UHF was specifically put in place to allow more channels for use in smaller cities. Tuner attachments were sold to allow a 2-13 TV to pick up UHF stations and the inherent demand for TV in these areas forced the issue. B&W/Color: This was NBC's big thing. Remember the NBC proud as a peacock slogan? You know how NBC has the logo with the peacock? That's because NBC was a pioneer in color. They got with manufacturers like RCA... said, "we think this will sell in color if people actually see it." So they started broadcasting some shows in color and when they did they put the logo in the bottom of the screen. They also had TV stores put color TVs on display and did a marketing campaign to explain to viewers that everytime you see the logo that show was available in color and you were missing it because you didn't have a color TV. People saw what they were missing and saw that it was worth to them what the cost was so they bought color TV's. Now an explanation of HDTV. HDTV is perceived by the general public to be superior; however, it's not perceived by the general public to be worth the cost. As a result, the market demand doesn't exist right now and the product should be delayed at this point. However, lobbying and so forth has produced gov't intervention to make TV stations broadcast in HDTV by certain deadlines. As a result, some stations will probably disappear most will actually do the upgrades but not because of true demand. Most consumers will need to go get a new TV and/or other equipment and the end result is that the TV manufacturers who lobbied for it get a guarantee on equipment sales in the near future.

      • Re:Mixed bag (Score:2, Informative)

        by DannyO152 ( 544940 )
        Minor quibble: NBC was RCA.

        CBS also made serious investment in engineering and r&d. Whether it was radio, music recordings, or television, technological advances were introduced, generally, with a CBS solution and an RCA/NBC solution.

        Incidentally, there were issues about competing implementations of color broadcasting. IIRC in the early 60s or late 50s, the FCC reviewed proposed color technologies and selected a b&w compatible standard broadcast.

        Also, it was the FCC under Congressional authority that created UHF bands for television broadcast and which licensed operators and assigned frequencies. If that isn't government involvement...

  • TV hasn't changed since Milton Berle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:54AM (#3290053)
    Its ironic that Milton Berle died last week, yet the TV broadcast standard is still the same as when he started in the late 1940s, with the exception of a color overlay. When I look at NTT six megapixel or IBMs nine megapixel computer displays and compare them to broadcast TVs quater megapixel resolution, I am sadly disappointed in TV's lack of progress.
    • The single biggest problem is the vast number of existing television receivers.

      Video technology has made astonishing leaps in the past 10-15 years. We currently see the highest resolutions ever via our existing NTSC receivers.

      In order to take advantage of higher resolutions and other technologies, the basic receiver has to undergo changes. Which ultimately means that all existing sets have to be replaced... or at a minimum, an external receiver must be added.

      This was, and still is, the dilemna facing broadcasters, manufacturers and the regulating authorities.

      I've made this statement before and stand by it today: broadcast television serves a much less useful purpose than ever in this day and age. With the ubiquitous cable or satellite receiver, more and more of the population is served by means other than direct over-the-air reception.

      Local stations are on the air, broadcasting the same programs as every other station in the country. The only thing that differentiates one station from another is local advertising, and in some cases, local news. Even there, so many stations don't even do local news.

      The "broadcast" networks are seeing their news viewership erode constantly - witness the recent willingness of ABC to remove Nightline in favor of entertainment programming (Letterman, if they'd gotten him).

      Remember that anybody who wants to put up the $$ can have a "local" television station - buy the equipment, the programming, but don't buy a transmitter. Buy a fiber loop to the local cable headend(s). Work out your deal with the cable company to get on their system. You're "on the air" and done right, people watching will never realize the difference between your station and a broadcast station.

      Time-Warner Cable has done this in the Raleigh-Durham area themselves with their News 14.

      Slick production, fairly relevant local news and information. Live trucks running around the Triangle with the News 14 logo - in fact, the first time I saw one, I didn't know about the cable channel, and I wondered who was on the air on channel 14.

      I have two points in this long and rambling post... one is that it's a daunting task to change out the huge installed base of television receivers... and that task is exclusively consumer driven. If people don't perceive added value from whatever new technology, they aren't going to drop the $$ on new receivers. In my own case, I'm hoping my 10 year old Magnavox holds out long enough for some of this to shake out (and prices to come down a little more)

      My second point is that the electromagnetic spectrum currently allocated to television could be put to better use. Let existing broadcasters provide their programming to cable and satellite providers via fiber loops or microwave.

      Thanks for letting me ramble - sometimes I get annoyed at the confusion generated by all this, when it seems so simple and clear cut to me.
    • Its ironic that Milton Berle died last week, yet the TV broadcast standard is still the same as when he started in the late 1940s

      Maybe the technical standards are the same, but the programming quality standards have regressed to incredibly low levels since then.

    • When I look at NBC's lineup, or CBS', or ABC's, that's when I'm disappointed in the lack of progress.

      A billion pixels of crap is still crap.

  • Dig TV = "Digital Rights Management", EFF Alert (Score:4, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @09:55AM (#3290056) Homepage Journal
    It's explained very well in this EFF alert [eff.org]
    After 2006, the FCC will require all over-the-air broadcasts to be digitally encoded. Under the pretext of preventing the "Napsterization" of their video signals, the MPAA has convened the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) of the Copy-Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG). The BPDG's "standards," developed in concert with a group of arm-twisted representatives from major technology vendors, will specify flags controlling the public's ability to store, copy, and share digital TV signals.
    See also the Copy-Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG) homepage [cptwg.org]

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • Digital is not HD.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 )
    as indicated by the multi-cast of the NCAA. Four standard definition broadcasts squeezed into one 6MHz channel is no better than DirectTV or Dish, which already broadcast "digital" TV.

    The lack of discussion about High Definition in favor of digital is dissappointing. Digital looks only marginally better than properly transmitted and received analog - worse in some cases. Talk about being duped. Joe Sixpack is gonna plunk down $2000 just to find a picture that's just 480 lines - not much better than he had. It's missing the entire opportunity to maximize the clarity of the picture.
    • Joe Sixpack might not be as stupid as you think. It sure doesn't sound like he's out there in force pluking down $ 2000 for a TV.

      Consumers may be stupid, but their not that stupid, and word of mouth on HDTV is that they're only good for DVD's and that there is no HDTV out there to watch.

      Government got involved just enough to make HDTV a collosal failure.

      If they get their way with the CDB??FDAEDD?? or whatever the hell its called now. They're going to make the economy a collosal failure. As other posters have noted if Hollywood had gotten what they wanted in the past, they'd be making a whole lot less money now, this new push to control digital is no different, only now they will take the computer industry down with them.

  • Disney and your cable company. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:02AM (#3290079)
    Other than owning their Disney channel, they also own all the ESPN channels. What you might not know is that these channels are on *every* cable providers 'basic' cable. Not extended like they used to be. Disney has made contracts with everyone that they MUST carry these channels on their basic subscription. This amounts to around 4-5 channels. Every year they raise the cost of these channels by $2-4 per subscriber, which means you foot the bill for channels you probably dont even want to watch.

    Pushing Digital into homes is even more bad news. Will they force people to use even more Disney channels to pay more premiums on? This sucks.

  • Digital TV
    Pushed by politicians seems
    Like a bad idea

  • Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cleetus ( 123553 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:06AM (#3290093) Homepage
    If we are forced into a "pay to view" regime, Americans will watch less television. Perhaps they will talk to their neighbors, take up a hobby, read a book, exercise (gasp!)...perhaps this is not a bad thing at all.

    cleetus

    • Can anyone explain to me why reading a book is better than watching TV?

      I can think of hundreds of books which are worse than (above) average TV and lots of programs which are better than an average paperback.
      • How many TV shows are there? How many shows are there that suck? How many shows are there that don't suck?

        Now ...

        How many books are there?

        Do the math.
      • Even the simplest books engage your intellect. TV is in general an entirely passive medium. Books require eye tracking, TV does not. Books can make you think, they take time to read giving you time to process the information. TV rarely does the former and never does the latter.

        People who read invariably have a better vocabulary and are more prone to thinking. The latter is something corporations and politicians positively hate - there's nothing worse than customers or constituents who think.
      • Because when you read a book you think and use your imagination. When you watch TV you sit there and drool as all of that is done for you.

        And what books are you reading that are so bad that TV is better? They must really suck.
      • Can anyone explain to me why reading a book is better than watching TV?

        Reading is to watching TV as drinking from a glass is to drinking from a garden hose.

        To some degree each experience is fungible (they put water in your body), but one is more pleasurable than the other.

      • "Can anyone explain to me why reading a book is better than watching TV?"

        It's not automatically better. The ratio of bad books to good is, from what I can tell, actually higher than the ratio of bad TV shows to good.

        Personally, I think most of the "turn off the TV and read a book" crowd are just elitists who've found something that not everyone wants to do, but has the appearance of something "better". :)
      • At home, we get probably 60-some channels on cable. If you want to watch TV, pick one of those 60-some, or go to the tape store and pick one of probably a few thousand tapes. Most of the tapes are more-recent, more-popluar.If you want some older classic stuff, you're down to a few hundred selections.

        Go to your library or a bookstore and you'll find a better selection. Or go to project Gutenberg and find some true classics, and one of the great values of the Public Domain.
    • I'd love pay per view as I don't watch much now (about 4 hours a month -- couple of shows once a week) BUT I'm not paying to watch ads nor will I pay 2k to be able to pay $5 per hour to use it.

      Yup.. $5 per hour is pretty cheap entertainment. No ads, no upfront fees, and absolutly no monthly. It also has to be on demand -- I'm not missing the first 5 minutes of a show.
    • Yes, but as TV is addicting, will we be allowed to sue if we ruin ourselves watching it now? With more restrictions should come more rights.
    • Theater is a wonderful and underutilized form of entertainment.

      I've seen the big time productions -- Le Miz and Miss Saigon, but while they are fine occasionally, they have the soul of a hollywood blockbuster -- which is to say none at all. They're fine occasionally, but in truth I've had much more entertainment out of local community theater, college and even high school productions (this also points out that there is probably a lot more theater, and a lot more affordable around than you think). The mega hits have the flavor of corporate authorship -- uncontroversial, safe and bland. By rights, George Bernard Shaw should be a geek icon.

      Theater is fun, it gets you out of the house and out with other people. It is also interactive in a subtle way; no two performances are ever exactly the same.

      Soon, entire movies will probably be shot with entire digital casts. Songs will be sung by computer generated singers. I don't have anything against this, but isn't the same as listening to a singer go for a long high note and wondering if his voice will crack. There is a drama to being in the presence of human skill used with risk that you can't. Would you watch the olympics if the athletes were digitally generated?

  • Are we going to see (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 9633 ( 570325 )
    Commercials like those stupid "it's the static" cell phone commericals? I hate digital cell phones. At least with an analog I can here the person or somewhat watch the program. With digital I won't see anything under marginal signal conditions just like I can't here who I'm talking to with marginal digital cell phone connections.

    I already see problems while watching "Enterprise" on the local UPN station and there digital feed unsyncs.

    • Re:Are we going to see (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 )
      Yeah, I hate how they try to make everyone think that digital tech makes things automatically clearer all the time, unconditionally.
      Of course, at least nowadays most all phones negotiate a digital connection when the signal seems to be in pretty good shape (i.e. errors are minor enough to be cleaned up by the error correction mechanisms and sound better), and failover to analog when digital encounters too many transmission errors to be effective, and then let the human perceptive system take over to correct....

      It might be nice for places with *almost* perfect signals (content delivered by coax/people very close to transmission towers/satellite in an area that is clear most of the time), just to clean up the little fuzz here and there. Of course their descriptions of the possiblities of digital that aren't possible with analog are ludicrous. For example, saying that digital technology makes it possible for a channel to show 4 shows at once a viewer can switch between, it isn't due to the digital, it's due to the extra bandwidth, if they had equivalent bandwidth they could show 4 channels. Maybe they can't provide convenient labels to each channel, but still....
      • For example, saying that digital technology makes it possible for a channel to show 4 shows at once a viewer can switch between, it isn't due to the digital, it's due to the extra bandwidth, if they had equivalent bandwidth they could show 4 channels. Maybe they can't provide convenient labels to each channel, but still....
        Are you sure that it isn't that losless compression can achieve anywhere from 2 to 4 times compression, on average, and lossy, but still good, such as MPEG-2, can achieve better?

  • No sir, not me sir (Score:4)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:13AM (#3290113) Homepage
    I'm not buying a TV like this.

    I want all my fair rights use of anything sent into my home as I do today with analog.

    If not, I'm not interested. I'm not going to buy a new TV, a decoder, a new VCR, a new *everything else* and then be saddled with a restriction that I can't tape what the Networks don't want me to.

    I mean, welcome to 1969.

    Vote with your wallets folks. That will kill all this nonsense faster than any government decree.
    • I'm also a "wallet-voting" adept, but this works only if there is an alternative - a legal alternative, that is.

      But if SSSSCA gets voted, it would make unencripted broadcasts illegal.
      What will your choice be then?
      • No television.

        Not that interested. I'm pretty much down to watching a 1/2 each night before I go to bed. I can do with out that 1/2 hour as well.

        I'm not alone, either.
        • but not the majority, thus voting with your wallet won't work, and it will be too late.

          This is too big of a deal to just say I won't buy it. The ramifications are too far reaching.

          Just IMHO.
      • I want all my fair rights use of anything sent into my home as I do today with analog. Vote with your wallets folks.

      Just checking... you don't own a DVD player, a post-Macrovision VCR, or any software with an EULA that says that you can't make backups or reverse engineer it, right? If so, how many other people do you know who are as adamant about "fair use or nothing" purchases?

      I keep hearing about consumer backlashes, but all I'm seeing is that the majority of consumers pull out their wallets and vote a resounding "yes!" to compromised, restricted systems. Doesn't that mean that crippleware is fully santioned according to the democratic process?

      Not a troll, an observation. The majority might be morons, but (in a capitalist democracy) we either have to accept their decision, or think about changing the system.

  • Just maybe when people realize they have to pay real money to see [insert your least favorite show here] they'll think twice about watching it. They might even notice that shelf of books decorating their wall.

    It's easy enough to watch drech when it's free. I suspect most people won't pay for it though. This might improve the quality of programming overall and get people to only spend time on worthwhile TV (pick your definition).

  • I've said it before and I'll say it again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nochops ( 522181 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:19AM (#3290138)
    This is the perfect time to consider furthering *analog* technologies.

    The way things are headed, all media will soon be distributed in digital form, and include the inevitable DRM and DMCA hooks. We need to stop fighting a losing battle, and start working on analog technologies.

    We should be working on making the highest quality analog copies of music and video. Studies have shown that human ears can't detect the differences between (for example) CD quality digital audio, and a high quality analog copy. Many people even prefer the "warmth" of analog recordings. On the other hand, I doubt that the anamolies that are considered "wamth" on an audio recording would be considered the same on a video recording, but that's just another reason to further analog research and development.

    Since so many so-called "pirates" like to point out that they are only making "backup copies" for their own use, the quality loss due to an analog format would be negligable, even with today's mainstream technology.

    This is definitely pushing the world towards a retro, Mad Max type of existance.

    A lot of people don't seem to realize that if you can see it on your TV, it can be copied. If you can hear it on your speakers, it can be copied.

  • Our secret weapon in the war against stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:21AM (#3290147) Homepage
    It's called the OFF switch. Once we start using it, the Disney droids will go into full retreat.

  • Who asked them? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by catfood ( 40112 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:28AM (#3290186) Homepage

    Let me get this straight. "Consumers" aren't buying HDTV gear, advertisers aren't supporting HDTV broadcasts, and networks aren't putting all their shows on HDTV. It seems that nobody cares enough about HDTV to pay for the change from analog.

    I'm really to see the compelling state interest here. Hasn't the market spoken? How did this become a federal issue? What exactly is the problem the FCC is trying to solve?

    • Re:Who asked them? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rtaylor ( 70602 )
      Advertisers WANT HDTV.

      I know for a fact that some rather large companies (car mostly) would not sign renewals with their current advertising agency unless a %age of the content was high definition.

      They believe it can sell their products better if they have more screen realestate to flash data and make the stuff all bright and shiney.

      My understanding is that the reduction of internet advertising funds has basically been transferred over to high definition tv ad funding for many advertisers.

      Much like radio, I'd expect a crappy low quality show with crisp clear high definition ads coming your way before anything else.

      • Advertisers WANT HDTV.

        I know for a fact that some rather large companies (car mostly) would not sign renewals with their current advertising agency unless a %age of the content was high definition

        All right then. So let the advertisers pay for what they want. If the market is willing to produce more HDTV shows and willing to price HDTV receivers cheaply enough in exchange for all that advertising revenue, super, everybody's happy. If the market is not willing to do that, who is Congress to intervene? Isn't this a solution in search of a problem? Why the mandate?

    • And we're suprised? I for one, am glad. FOr the past few years people have been so caught up in new technology, they never stop to think if a given technology is necessary.

      Do I really want my fridge on the network? Hell no. I want it to keep my beer cold while using the least electricity and I'm smart enough to tell when I'm running out of beer. I don't need some door mounted scanner to try and tell me when there's It comes down to realism and unfortuantely many technical people don't get it. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you should! I pay $50/month for satellite sure - but I also get hundreds of channels - vs the 5 or 8 you used to get in teh 80's via antenna - its worth it. Am I gonna shell out thousnads for HDTV to watch the SAME stuff AND be blocked fr9om taping it for later - hell no. Just like I don't need my desktop PC controlling my AV system (though I WILL have a Linux/PC based A/V server for content - unecrypted content ;) )

      Pay per view was supposed to be this major cash cow - but what happened? It only worked for niche markets (fights, WWF nuts, soccer fans, etc)

      I will NEVER pay for shows - its not worth it. Especially if they have ads. I will never allow a device in my home that is under the control of outside vendors.

      Its rather funny when you think about it. All these content companies are workin so hard to prevent the minorty from pirating, they're gonan drive the majority away. The 90's made companies think consumers didn't care about value anymore - well they're gonan learn. I'll laugh my ass off if things get so heavy handed that people just give up and fidn somethign else (ie turn off the TV) and the networks go bankrupt as the advertisers bolt since nonbody sees their ads anymore. There are maybe 2 or 3 shows a week I'd pay for, but you can bet it wouldn't be more than a dollar a week :) and that's without ads!

  • From the article: "...pay to view..."

    ..Excuse me, but don't I already "pay to view" television?

  • Can I ask a naive question? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scenic ( 4226 ) <sujal@s u j a l .net> on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:36AM (#3290231) Homepage Journal
    I understand the greed motivations of Disney et al in moving towards a charge-for-every-movement-of-a-bit system. I also understand why laws such as the SSSCA/CBDTPA. So, don't jump down my throat for this question.

    My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?

    For example, advertisers tend to like shows that are non-controversial (unless it's sensationally controversial, like Temptation Island or The Bachelor) and inoffensive. Regardless of their precise preferences, their preferences tend to more directly impact on what shows make it on the air than our own preferences.

    Aside from that, wouldn't it be more efficient for me as a consumer to directly pay the producer of the content?

    Anyway, I'm just curious about what people think about this. Is it really better to have an advertising driven TV industry or not?

    Sujal

    • What's wrong with pay-per-view is the following:

      1) Do you know what you're paying for? Do I get to see the script before I watch the show? If I pay for a sitcom and don't laugh, do I get my money back?

      2) I still haven't seen any guarantee there _won't_ be advertising anyways. But regardless, when I see advertising the company in question is trying to convince me to buy their product: I have agreed to listen to their pitch in exchange for free content. The key is I am in control of if and when I spend my money. Sometimes an advertisers pitch works, sometimes it doesn't, but we have a mutual understanding to this effect, not a relationship in where one party controls all the resources and drops little morsels if I'm lucky.

      3) I don't have a lot of money. Maybe it's just me personally, but with the economy the way it is, it simply doesn't make economic sense for me to pay to watch a Seinfeld re-run. When I already have a system in place that works seamlessly and has benefitted both viewers and advertisers for decades I get upset when they try to coerce my money from me.

      All in all, pay per view would most likely only have restrictive effects without offering anything new to the consumer.

    • My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?

      I think the problem isn't necessarily with the pay-per-view concept in general. After all, /. is kind of going to a pay-per-page-wiew model, itself.

      The problem is the fact that content distribution companies are using legislation to make pay-per-view the only option, and that legislation makes it illegal for private citizens to use content or technology not sanctioned by the content companies.

      Right now, if you buy a DVD, you can watch it as many times as you like on your DVD player, yielding a very low price-per-view. If you don't want to shell out the cash to buy the DVD for a movie you'll only see once, you can rent it or watch it pay-per-view, for a much higher price-per-view, but less than you would have spent on the DVD. Right now, it's your choice. The future, according to these people, is that you will no longer have a choice - you pay for every viewing. If you protest, you are a Commie Pirate Hacker that wants to take money out of the pockets of Starving Artists, just because you think you have the right to record an episode of "The Simpsons" to watch later. And once pay-per-view becomes universal, do you think prices per view will drop to anywhere near DVD levels as a result? History says otherwise -- prices were supposed to drop on music CD's once they gained market acceptance, and we're all still waiting. The net result is more money out of the pockets of movie buffs, with no measurable benefit gained.

    • Pay-per-view is far more maligned than it should be. Every time you see a movie in a theater or rent a video, that is essentially pay-per-view, but nobody complains about that! You do however expect higher quality and/or a better viewing experience.

      With regular TV, you're paying with your time and possibly your attention. Even if you don't watch the commercials there's not much you can do in 2-3 minutes besides get a snack or go to the can. And you're still paying many bucks a month for stuff you never watch anyway.

      I only watch a handful of shows with any sort of regularity, and I generally only want to watch them once and not with any re-runs. If they were reasonably priced per show or (no more than $1 since this is television quality, not movies) or better yet per series (with free sample episodes), I would buy them and it would probably be CHEAPER than the $45 I'm paying now just so I can get Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Discovery and Sci-Fi, not to mention getting shows on the premium channels which are out of my price range.
    • Would they be willing to accept say.... $.10 per episode per viewer? That's what they'd have to do in order to stay in business thanks to the expectations on price created by cable and satellite.
    • The problem with legal endorsement of a technological solution is that business models don't have to change. In other words:

      Pay-per-view will NOT decrease advertising.

      Without regulation:
      1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV.
      2) People are willing to spend more money if there are fewer or no commericials, the picture quality is better, and they can watch at any time.
      3) Pay-per-view offers fewer or no commercials, better picture quality, and flexible viewing schedules to justify the expense.
      4) TV viewing options improve and media companies make more money.

      With regulation:
      1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV.
      2) Regulations specify that pay-per-view systems have to be adapted, irregardless if consumer interest.
      3) Pay-per-view becomes the normal viewing experience.
      4) Because there was no competition, view options don't change though prices go up.

  • I can see it now (Score:4, Funny)

    by jhines0042 ( 184217 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @10:41AM (#3290263) Journal
    Digital broadcast signals paired with digital televisions would allow viewers to watch high-definition programs, see more channels and use their sets in interactive ways, such as clicking their remote control to buy products shown on the screen.

    Consumer: "Lookit, who'd by that $8,000 cubic zirconia lawn chair/bowling ball washer/cooler/hibachi thing. It ain't got no cup holder!"

    TV: "Thank you for purchasing the slothmaster 8000 lawn bowling chair"

    Consumer: "What? ... what!.... aw... $#!^... sis, you sit on the remote again?"

  • Possible a warning to the US FCC if they try and get a bit carried away with the whole "wow its
    digital it must be good" marketing BS. The truth is that your average Joe doesn't give a damn
    whether his TV signal is analogue , digital or gets send via carrier pidgeon , as long as he can
    watch football / soaps etc and the picture isn't too crap (in fact in a lot of cases an analogue
    signal gives a superior picture but thats another
    argument)

  • I'm a little irked.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Asprin ( 545477 )
    Ultimately, the reason HDTV isn't happening isn't the fault of the manufacturers or the broadcasters - it's because consumers don't really want it. What pisses me off is that it's being forced down my throat like forced bussing to desegregate schools! (And all of you in the Cleveland area in the 80s know how that went...)

    Why is this necessary? Why am I not being allowed to vote for this with my wallet? How does entertainment (especially idiotic entertainment like TV) get to be this stinkin' important?

    The Facts:
    1) The quality isn't nearly as earth-shattering as I was led to expect, at least not on the demo TVs at Best Buy. (I suspect they aren't really showing a real HDTV signal, but some kind of enhanced analog simulation)
    2) With the possible exception of sports, the improved quality certainly doesn't make the shows any better.
    3) The set/tuner will cost >$1000.
    4) Programming will include DRM and will be PPV.

    Which item in this list makes me want to run out and buy one of these beauties? THIS SUCKS! It's my money, I want the control and I'd rather do without than pay my hard earned dough for this cheese.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - new stuff do not replace old stuff because it's better, but because it's cheaper. The market does a great job of figuring that out on its own without the government intrusion, thank you.

    The esteemed senators can go to h-e-doublehockeysticks.

  • This is crazy talk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @11:09AM (#3290427) Homepage
    Digital broadcast signals paired with digital televisions would allow viewers to watch high-definition programs, see more channels and use their sets in interactive ways, such as clicking their remote control to buy products shown on the screen.

    Why is this our government's business? I thought that the idea around here was that businesses could do what they wanted, within certain basic guidelines, and the government would act as a watchdog to protect the consumer. Now the government is acting like that annoying nosy mother that tries to get the bashful boy and the timid girl together for a date which neither of them is eager to consumate. Sure, the two may eventually have a relationship but they have to get their on their own terms! The government shouldn't be in the role of putting customers and businesses together in ways that the market hasn't already worked out yet!
  • These devices would then need DVI in's to accept the encoded signals, then decode them, record them, then re-encode them and send them to a DVI out - still encrypted??? Is that right? I'm not sure, but I do know that if a VCR/PVR has to decrypt the video stream to record it, we'll soon find someone who has hacked their VCR/PVR device to direct unencrypted video streams somewhere other than where the broadcasters intend.

  • This is good for our rights! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr.Sharpy ( 472377 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @11:22AM (#3290488)
    This is good for our rights because up till now the encroachment into fair use and the increase in pay per use type delivery systems has mainly affected geeks and tech people. With this move to push digital media with DRM into the everyday lives of consumers, the loss of fair use rights is going to be much more apparent to the general public.

    This is good because, up to this point, there has been only a relatively small group trying to prevent these schemes from taking root. Legislation like the DCMA doesn't really affect the majority of people in a tangeable way. They may break the law without knowing it, but it doesn't interfere with their lives much. But with things like this and the SSSCA or whatever it is called now, DRM and the like will be intrusive on the lives of people.

    People will be much more aware of the usurpation of their rights at the hands of the government and corporations, and I don't think they will like it too much. The good Sen. Hollings may change his tune when he feels the wrath of stay at home soccer moms when they find out they can't watch their favorite soap opera because of his actions.
  • Although Microsoft, RIAA and Hollywood claim a different intent; if the methords are the same - so eventually will the outcome be the same.

    From Richard Stallman "Copyright Vs Community in the Age of Computer Networks" (PDF) [www.cai.ie]

    Copyright today no longer has the effect of an industrial regulation. It's now a restriction imposed on the public at large. As a consequence of this it is no longer painless. It is also no longer easy to enforce; in fact, you see increasingly draconian measures being proposed in the name of copyright enforcement. Prison sentences of years threaten for those who make copies and hand them out to their friends in order to be helpful.

    In fact the US today is more or less imitating the Soviet Union in its effort to stamp out forbidden copying and distributing of information. The Soviet Union made great efforts to stamp out a practice that was known as samizdat--people making some copies of a work and passing them on to their friends, who would then make more copies and pass them on again, an underground activity in the Soviet Union. To stamp it out, they used a series of different measures.

    One was every piece of copying equipment had to have a guard to watch what was being copied, and make sure that it wasn't used for forbidden copying. (This is why people had to do it using typewriters and multiple carbons.)

    The second part was punishment for people caught doing forbidden copying. They would put you in prison and send you to Siberia.

    Third, to help catch people, asking for informers: asking people to rat on their neighbours and co-workers, to the information police, which I suppose was the militia and rather than the KGB.

    Fourth, also to help catch people, collective responsibility: "You, you're going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison -- so watch them carefully!"

    Fifth, propaganda starting in childhood, teaching everyone that only a nasty enemy of the people would do this forbidden copying.

    These same methods are now in use in the US.

    First, guards watching copiers -- well, in copy shops, there are human guards watching for this very reason. But, because it costs too much to have humans watching all the computers, instead they are installing robot guards -- that's the idea of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that software goes into your computer to restrict what you can copy, and it is a crime to by-pass that software or even tell people how. This information is being treated as even more dangerous than how to make an atomic bomb, and that is perfectly understandable, because an atomic bomb could only be used to kill people, whereas this might endanger the profits of the corporations which the US Government exists to serve.

    And then, harsh punishments. Well, a few years ago, if you made copies of something and handed them out to your friends, just to be nice, this was not a crime and this had never been a crime. Then they made it a felony -- you could be put in prison for years now in the US for doing this; even, I think, 10 copies of some popular software packages is enough to put you in prison for years.

    And, third, to help catch people in the US, there have been ads on the television asking people to rat on their co-workers to the information police, which there is known as the software publishers association. And then, collective responsibility. In the US, this has been done through Internet Service Providers, who have been conscripted into watching their customers and enforcing these rules on them. In fact, the only way the ISP can avoid being held legally responsible for whatever its customers publish, is to have a uniform and invariable policy of always taking down any material within 2 weeks of the first complaint, so that today, if someone objects to your site, claiming copyright infringement -- you don't even get your day in Court, you just get unplugged.

    Then, finally, propaganda starting in childhood -- that's what the word "pirate" is all about. It is a way of saying that copying something to share it with your neighbours is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.

  • The last thing I want is an interactive tv which I can buy things with the remote controll. Sure, I'm all over having a better picture for watching movies, but don't force feed me please. I know, I am a consummer, and my job is to consume, but please, let me choose if I want to have an interactive TV. All I really want is a hidef tv monitor (not computer monitor, the TV's with no speakers). Leave the consumer choice as to when and how to consume, we all need personal interaction, or we will go crazy.
  • Not to troll, but it's not like the majority of content out there is actually worth protecting. Soap operas? Censored, cut , full of commercial movies? Sitcoms (although the simpsons might be worth it)? Tampon commericals?
    Stuff that is worth watching (like the sopranos, other hbo stuff) has normally been encrypted in the past, so it not like that is much of a change, but when you can buy a season on dvd for $60, its not that big of a deal)
  • ...who knows for sure though.

    First of all, I see TV in a similar light to "smoking." It's a bad habit to get into. But I guess that's where the similarities end.

    I watch TV but usually, it's just to watch "Friends." That's just about it. The closest I get beyond that is to download Star Trek Enterprise episodes from a P2P sharing network... almost have the whole collection. :) But other than that, I don't watch TV... just DVDs I might rent or buy. (And I have the first four volumes of Best of Friends!! :) hehe)

    It could mean that in the future people will not watch nearly as much TV as we do now. It's kinda hard to say but I'm hopeful.

    Back to smoking, though, the increase in cost of cigarettes hasn't deterred too many smokers and I'm sort of at a loss as to why that is. How much is a pack these days? I have no idea, but when I was a kid my brother had me run to the store and get them for him at $1/pack... gives you some clue about how long ago that was... I've not bought a pack since those days so I don't know.

    In any case, maybe now's the time to ween yourselves from the 'idiot box' as I've heard many people call it. There's a whole world out there... check it out before it's gone.
  • 2006 is four years away. Do they really think they will get everyone who has a tv set to switch in four short years, when pretty much nobody has thus far? If the analog channels are turned off on schedule, I will eat my hat with lox and cream cheese.
  • The tag-team hit of no content, high cost, no demand is what's holding all this back. Trying to legislate through it isn't going to work, especially considering it's not that much better than what we have - and never will be. HDTV may have more megapixels, but that doesn't make the shows any better, which is what really matters. The key is content, and there's no way to improve that significantly, right?

    Wrong. You can vastly improve the way that content is delivered. The key is (as I mentioned in my last post, check my list) Personal Video Recorders. You know, Tivos, PVRs. A properly designed digital system integrating a storage device and programability can draw consumers into the fold with a combination of digital quality; personal time-shifting so that you never miss a show; multi-source delivery methods including broadband for delivering personal videos, amateur productions (the ultimate public access), re-runs (so you don't have to keep watching just to find one show), and low-demand content (like international television); better ways of finding and recommending shows (even the small ones) via interactive methods, on-line communities, and playlists; enhanced playback with dubbing, subtitling, commenting and so forth allowing a broad audience and user-tailored delivery; less FCC censoring with integrated ratings systems; and even novel content like interactive television and games.

    At the same time, it gives the broadcaster and producers many advantages including: better-targeted and more effective advertising; better options for pay-per-view delivery; a more efficient distribution system; a more forgiving and less directly competitive environment enabling smaller producers and less flashy shows to find their audience; and simpler, more effective wide distribution.

    Essentially, what will drive user demand for digital TV is not digital quality, but digital flexibility. DVD isn't beating VHS just because it's a better picture, but because of all the bells and whistles that come with the disk, its' more robust storage medium, and yes, even the ability to make perfect copies and distribute them.
    • Just one more thing... the content and delivery industries have demonstrated their close-mindedness and unwillingness to take risks or eat costs. Waiting for them to fix it may ultimately be futile. But everything I mentioned can be effected individual companies. The satellite companies like DirectTV are particularly well suited to start integrating PVRs into their delivery scheme, since they handle such a large and broad audience - but while they may be able to provide low-demand content in clever ways, the other advantages broadband has they cannot provide. On the other hand, digital cable systems can integrate broadband content with no difficulty at all, except with the comfortable lack of competition in markets they have little incentive to do so. It may take an upstart third company, like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, to make the killer set-top box/computer system integrating intelligent multi-source delivery and broadband to shake up the status quo (and legal infrastructure) enought to force the TV/entertainment industry into the 21st century.
  • Because here all the broadcast channels are at best fuzzy, and some are unwatchable even by MY standards. Cable doesn't exist here (nearest being 15 miles away).

    So, how is HDTV going to help that?

    And why would I want to pay more for "content" just because it's digital? What's on the air these past few years isn't sufficient to motivate me to go out and buy a satellite dish, or even a big antenna. I doubt I'll be any more motivated to go forth and buy a new digital TV when the time comes.

  • Encryption not permitted on local broadcast (Score:3, Interesting)

    by terrymr ( 316118 ) <terrymr@@@gmail...com> on Friday April 05, 2002 @01:03PM (#3291262)
    The FCC has made it pretty clear that they will not allow enrcyption on local broadcast HDTV channels - Their argument being the spectrum is a public resource and as many people as possible should have access to the signal.

    Congress has also made it plain in the past that they won't go for systems that prevent time shift recording of tv programs.

    Most of this assumes that Mr Holling's bill doesn't pass - I don't see it passing as a simple matter of economics - the electronics industry is worth much much more than the entertainment industry - they just haven't got their lobbying effort organized yet - but they will if they see a serious threat to their business.

  • A brief history of HDTV (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Argyle ( 25623 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @01:44PM (#3291498) Homepage Journal
    For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:

    Here's how it went:

    Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
    FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
    FCC says "What standards?"
    Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
    FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
    Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
    Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
    FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
    Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
    Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
    Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
    Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
    FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
    Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
    Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
    FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
    Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
    Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."

    Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.

  • Bread and circuses - how much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pyramid termite ( 458232 ) on Friday April 05, 2002 @03:43PM (#3292288)
    In 2006, if the analog signals are turned off, there's going to be a millions of people who can't afford the tuners and probably would find a pay for view model difficult. There will still be millions of functional TV sets that won't be getting any signal. It's not politically possible to shut these sets off - aside from the anger and protest from those who are used to getting their entertainment for at most, the price of a TV and possibly a few bucks a month for cable service, there's going to be another problem - if these people aren't kept quiet in their homes in front of glowing boxes, hypnotized by fantasy worlds, and entertained into willing submission, what are they going to be doing instead?

    They're not shutting analog down in 2006. Consumers don't really want digital, and the people who most "need" to be pacified and brainwashed by our media system are the ones who can't afford it.

    I'd find it very amusing if one of the side effects of this would be a less docile, more awake populace.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close