Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Using Bandwidth Of HDTV 149

Posted by CmdrTaco from the what-a-mess dept.
the coose writes: " Got an HDTV set yet? Wait before getting one; here's why ... " Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Bandwidth Of HDTV More

Using Bandwidth Of HDTV

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Why do I want HDTV? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    HDTV is necessary so that all the geeks that read this site can go out and buy another version of Phantom Menace from George Lucas, and then bitch about it.

    And HD Porn -- once you exactly how scaggy those girls, you'll turn gay and that's progress.
  • But it's 480i, not even 480p. That's less rresolution than a DVD with a decent PC-based deinterlacer. The real attraction of HDTV is in the 720p and 1080i modes. (Of course, 1080p is also theoretically possible)
  • This is exactly what Nicolas Negreponte said would happen in his column in the back of Wired. Seriously, I like nice screens, but my problem with TV isn't the brightness, it is the intelligence, and HDTV does nothing to fix that.

    And if you were going to have big huge barrels of bandwidth available, would you waste it on a high-quality video feed of Jeopardy?
  • of course, the legality of this protection would severely break under the supreme court's ruling that time shifting is legal. but this is approximately the same thing that the decss fight is involved in, so there's some hope.

    (besides - do you really think that sufficiently smart vcrs will allow commercial editing? dvds already play commercials that you can't fast forward through or skip, without a modified player)
  • no, monoliths are 1 x 4 x 9 (and presumably more in higher dimensions)

    maybe you're thinking of the import models.
  • See, to my mind the thing is this:

    Copyrights are only granted for a limited time. Public domain works should not suffer from conditions which prevent them from being used by the public in any manner whatsoever. This harms the public domain, and the first amendment (use of p.d. materials is protected speech) as well as anyone who holds a copyright on the materials that would be encrypted indiscriminately.

    These sorts of schemes would deny the exercise of legal copyrights to anyone who wasn't a major media corporation.

    Clearly it's time for the government to lean towards the side of the first amendment - better to have some infringing speech if that's the cost of having lots of free speech. Restricting speech to spare a few people screws everyone right up the ass.

    Additionally, when it comes to TV, given that tv stations are tightly regulated by the government, allowing this sort of thing could be interpreted as the govt. attempting to circumvent the first amendment.

    No sir, I don't like it.
  • "Once HDTV signal is sent via optical cable,..." it isn't broadcasting anymore and what we are talking about here is broadcasting and the way that broadcasters think that they have some God-given right to spectrum space that's actually public property (although the politicians are trying their best to screw us out of it and hand it off to their rich buddies, instead of just making them pay rent on it).
  • Agreed. With the current quality of programming, I'm down to about 6 hours per week of television watching. (That's up from 2 now that my Tivo is grabbing stuff for me.)

    Personally, I'd gain much more from datacasting than I ever would from a clearer image on my TV.

    Of course, YMMV.
  • Even hooking up a regular NTSC TV to a digitial receiver should give you an image quality improvement. There's two reasons for this. One, you don't have as many noise problems 'cause the broadcast signal is digital (no more ghosting, yeah!). Two, now analog resolution losses. Imagine having all your broadcast stations at better then DVD quality.

    Now, for the average Joe, they just need to start making cheap digital receivers, or including digital receiving abilities in current low quality (i.e. NTSC) sets, and everyone should be able to switch over to the new system.
  • If HDTV hucksters really want to ramp up sales, they need to stop packing in features and LOWER THE PRICE, just like they were taught in ECON 101. $6000.00 is too much for teevee no matter how clear it is -- I'm waiting for it to hit $600 or lower.

    Yeah, yeah, recovery of development costs and all that. But it's not going to move in volume until the price comes down. (Like Dvorak's Law: no computer, no matter how sexy, will appeal to the mass market until it goes below $2500.)
  • Yeah, the TV stations are really crying about this one -- All they need to do is beta test High Definition broadcasts for a couple years, declare it a failure, and then start rolling out paging and data and other services in that extra bandwidth space. Or better yet, broadcast 4 standard definition channels, quadrupling their ad space they have to sell.

    Meanwhile, when Analog TV is about to be killed, all they need to do is roll out some little old ladies who watch PBS all day and can't afford a $100 converter box. Congress loves little old ladies, and Analog TV won't be killed for another 10 years.

    So, where they once had 1 analog channel, they soon will have 1 analog, 1 digital, and some additional channels and services to make money on. And all for free. Poor guys, Congress has been so mean to them.
    --
  • They probably could support 480i today for only a small extra cost.

    The big cost is large, high resolution tubes. Of course, this gives the TV manufacturers a huge opportunity to upsell. I wouldn't expect 1080 (or whatever the high definition res is) to be a standard TV feature for some time.
    --
  • I hear that... sometimes I just want to throw the fucking radio right out the window! And since the big corporate interests and national public radio are fighting LPFM [counterpunch.org], don't expect things to be changing any time soon!

    In the past, you could just turn the radio to another station if the one you were listening to had too many ads. But now of course since every station is owned by a nationwide corporation (such as Clear Channel) you get the same 15 minutes ads / 5 minutes content on EVERY station.

    However, I do not think the web will ever be like that. Why? Simply because how cheap it is to create and maintain a web site. On the airwaves there is only a limited space available (87.5 to 108.0 I think), but on the internet there is unlimited space. For example, if slashdot starts putting up 5 ads on a page I can just stop visiting it and go to a similar site like Kuro5hin to get my news. The web offers the user a vast amount of choice, and I don't see how any corporation can prevent it.

  • It's too late. Really. If we start mucking with the HDTV spec now, sales of existing televisions and existing broadcast equipment will fall through the floor. We'll be back to square one again. And, if you've been following the HDTV effort you will know that maketing HDTV a reality has been a long and painful process.

    And, it's not like you can just change a cheap component and be done. OFDM is significantly more complex than 8VSB. And end user equipement will need to support both. 'Does wonders for the cost model of already too expensive HDTV receivers.

    BTW, in the wired world, OFDM is called DMT. Alcatel's version of DMT is the standard for ADSL.
  • Did anyone else notice that the aspect ratio(16x9) of these HDTV things is the same as the aspect ratio of the black monoliths from 2001, a Space Odyssey? We've found the secret of human intelligence -- HDTVs showed up at the dawn of humanity to teach us how to make tools, then disappeared, only to be rediscovered by us in...2001!
  • Those are not the only bad numbers. How about this example from the article:
    The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions...

    According to this article, HDTV has six times the resolution [pbs.org]. 1920 x 1080 vs. 720 x 486 (2,073,600 pixels vs. 349,920 pixels).
  • no, monoliths are 1 x 4 x 9 (and presumably more in higher dimensions

    Yer right. Sorry. I'm an idiot today.
  • So, is this illegal, or just un-ethical? It seems pretty obvious. They got the bandwidth for free to use for purpose A. They are now opting to use it for purpose B; possibly opting to use it for purpose A in the future.

    What exactly can be done? The government isn't going to want to piss off the media to this great an extent, it'll hurt re-elections. By the same token, they can't just let this go, can they?
    -Jer

  • The Feds and consumer electronics wasted their time on HDTV.

    Video over IP is what we need. Then we won't be held to the same 75 channels of shit. There will be as many video sources as there are websites today- any we'll be able to watch anything ANYTIME. Not just Wednesdays at 8pm.

  • The above poster is correct, choose the best resolution in your monitor, that is 720 progressive, not 1080 interlaced.

    The current production gear is now making 1080 progressive pictures, but I know of no consumer sets able to display this.
    -----
  • While the datacasting model is neato and all, the plan is a bit flawed for the home user. With the current transmission technology, a user MUST place a DIRECTIONAL antenna on their roof to pick up these signals. That means that as you change stations, you must turn your antenna with a rotor to pick up the new station.

    For those of us that can't wait three seconds for a page to load, it ain't just going to cut it. Furthermore, if you can't place an antenna on your roof, you are SOL. Indoor antennas for HDTV do not work. The proposed alternative plan of CODFM modulation does solve these problems, but the FCC just killed the proposal to use it in America.

    I work for a large trans-national entertainment company, and believe me we are trying to figure out how to make money off this, but without cable carriage, it just won't work.

    I've seen HDTV and it does rock, especially the sound, but watching the local news in HD isn't too impressive. If you have to have it, buy the DirecTV box and see the movies as intended.

    HDTV is a huge political tarball that no one wants to touch for fear of getting dragged down.
    -----
  • Using excess HDTV bandwidth is exactly the same thing that current cable providers are doing with traditional cable systems. IMHO this isn't a bad thing as it is adding value to something that would otherwise go wasted AND it gives consumers more options.
  • Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon. What are you smoking, rob? I guess that memory I have of watching the US (tennis) Open on HDTV was just a hallucination. It is a reality, you've got the money; turn off your reality-distortion field and go buy one. Please moderate down for defiance of the infallible Malda. Umm, not exactly. Unless you live in one of the top markets in the country, you don't have HDTV. We haven't even begun thinking about the conversion to HDTV yet- I truly see us just upconverting our NTSC broadcast to HD and leaving it at that for a few years. I haven't heard about the other stations in this market (92nd, Tri-Cities TN/VA) so I'm not exactly sure. But here, HDTV is definitely not a reality.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    Commodore 64 Democoder
  • Damnit...what's up Rob? Not flaming you or anything, but I previewed my post and it checked out good, hit the Back button, saw the post with correct formatting and the tags still in the comment box, then hit Submit. When the post came up, it had absolutely no formatting (and yes, I did have HTML Formatted selected. Anyway, without formatting, here is the post the way it should have been (Rob, can you please check this out? This seems to be a serious bug that I have just come across now.)

      • Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.

      What are you smoking, rob? I guess that memory I have of watching the US (tennis) Open on HDTV was just a hallucination.

      It is a reality, you've got the money; turn off your reality-distortion field and go buy one.

      Please moderate down for defiance of the infallible Malda.
    Umm, not exactly. Unless you live in one of the top markets in the country, you don't have HDTV. We haven't even begun thinking about the conversion to HDTV yet- I truly see us just upconverting our NTSC broadcast to HD and leaving it at that for a few years. I haven't heard about the other stations in this market (92nd, Tri-Cities TN/VA) so I'm not exactly sure. But here, HDTV is definitely not a reality.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
    Commodore 64 Democoder
  • Someone involved with that article seriously screwed up some of the numbers. A trivial example: Your average DVD movie takes 4.5 Gigs to 5 Gigs. Yet they say 75.6 Gigs = 75 DVD quality movies. Sorry. More like 12.
  • Actually, 1.5 Mbps to 2.5Mbps is certainly not DVD quality. 1.5 Mbps is the rate that VCDs use for MPEG-1 and is considered only slight better than VHS quality. MPEG-2 isn't an improvement in compression technology, it's an expansion of various datarates and resolutions and options. A typical scene encoded under MPEG-2 will use a significantly higher bitrate. I know from personal experience that 60 minutes of 4:3 TV aspect ratio DVD takes in the area of 3 gigs. So no you will not fit 75 dvd quality movies into 75 gigs. It's just not going to happen.
  • The following information is from the book:

    Electronic Communication Techniques, 4th Edition, By Paul H. Young, ISBN: 0-13-779984-5

    Quote: In late 1992, the FCC released a channel plan whereby existing broadcasts of the standard NTSC television format will be assigned a second channel for high-definition TV (HDTV) broadcasting. Thus, TV broadcast stations that want to transmit HDTV in the next 10 years will be required to broadcast simultaneously using the NTSC standard and the HDTV standard on a seperate channel. However, near the year 2007, the NTSC standard will be phased out and the channels allocated to NTSC will have to be given back to the FCC for HDTV allocations. End Quote

    (The following are NOT facts. If anyone can counter them, please do.)

    From my understanding, a standard format for HDTV has yet to be agreed upon and SET IN STONE. A number of TV manufacturers are selling HDTV's under what they assume the agreed standard will be. This leaves the consumer with the possibility of buying a current HDTV that will NOT work when the FCC reallocates the bandwidth. Personally, I'm going to wait until 2005-2006 before I even consider buying an HDTV.

  • which doesnt mean anything. you still have to shell out $$$ to buy a HDTV convertor box or even more $$$!!! to buy a HDTV set.
    of course, since theres nothing worth watching on TV anyway...
  • Because the broadcasters only decided digital TV was good when they lobbied the FCC enough to let the broadcasters decide if they wanted to use all of their bandwidth for digital TV or not.

    The incumbent licensees were automatically assigned the HDTV bandwidth, because the FCC wanted to move to HDTV and reallocate the existing VHF spectrum. No quarrel there.

    But the broadcasters immediately decided they wanted to use their allocated bandwidth for anything they wanted...so they could send a lower quality TV feed (than full HDTV), and add subscription based services to bring in more revenue. _That's_ the part that's annoying. The incumbent broadcaster can now pursue other money-making ventures not associated with "serving the public interest", as their broadcast license requires, without paying for that bandwidth like everyone else has to.
  • You wrote:
    get a Hauppauge WinTV-D , its a $250 HDTV tuner card, works in win/beos/linux, and probably others

    It decodes 480i to 1080i signals but renders it as a 480i picture.... There's no major benefit.
  • HDTV is just too 31337 for the average Joe's pocket book. And with gov't mandated HDTV rollout, you're screwing over the little guy because broadcasters won't want to maintain two parallel broadcasting signals for very long. Once viewership reaches some percent level, they'll dump NTSC TV and implement their data plans or whatever on the old channel spectrum. They already can't wait as the article implies.

    So mfgs MUST cut the price of the sets of the format won't take off. Period. And rollout the smaller HDTV sets. 13" and 19" 16:9 TVs are needed too. And don't say "but that defeats the point of HDTV". Gotta be there so us poor plebs without $thousands to burn or a palace with room to hold a 60" set can watch the mandated HDTV signals.

    16:9 aspect TVs are much cheaper in the UK than in the US. Why?

    Also, this whole HDTV thing smacks of an MPAA copy protection scheme. I see a few HDTVs for sale, but... Where are the HDTV VCRs for sale so I can record HDTV programs? HDTV is a view only format. The MPAA must be thrilled.

  • They are doing a beta roll-out here of sending data through the Digital TV streams. You get a digital TV antenna and a card that goes in to your PC to watch Digital TV on your PC as well as receive other information at the same time. Check out http://www.dtvplus.com. Could be interesting.
  • That's what I'm screaming. I've stopped watching TV- I'd rather entertain myself than be forcibly entertained by something as one-way as TV. What I'd like to see is broadcasters hooking me up with a piece of that 17Gbps bandwidth... But only if I could get it going at a nice high speed in _both_ directions. Don't think that'd work too well, since I can't have a VHF tower in my backyard.
  • " Got an HDTV set yet? Wait before getting one; here's why... "

    Let's say someone answers "yes" to the initial question. Then you go and tell them they shouldn't have bought one. That doesn't make any sense!

  • Your average DVD movie also contains a bunch of other stuff besides the movie -- and generally has more than one copy (angle, etc) They are refering to the space requred to store 1.5hr of MPEG-2 content (which is usually about 1.5Mbps to 2.5Mbps -- that's 48 to 80 movies on a 75.6G drive)

    "75 DVD quality movies" does not mean "75 DVD's"
  • GSM is a better cellular system too, but I don't see many telcos dropping CDMA systems.

    Beta is better than VHS, but we all know where that ended up...
    1. so why do all of these VCDs look like crap?
    Because the VCD standard is 320x240 MPEG-1. Plus, 90minutes of video+audio has to fit on a 74min CD. (translation: destructively compress the hell out of it.) Oh, and the MPEG data is stored on the CD more or less just like a regular audio CD -- with most of the error correction codes turned off to get more space; this is ok as MPEGs can live with some bit error.
  • Indeed. I know several people who have been "testing" the system. And as fate would have it, I was at WRAL one afternoon when that stuff was being installed (for a completely unrelated reason :-)) This sorta thing will kick ass if they can get it to do what they intend.

    [I'll have to go see the new transmitter tower.]
  • Technically, it is rented... TV stations can (and do) loose their broadcast license.
  • Should we buy an HDTV? YES!!! But I'm just talking about the TV, not necessarily the receiver. On the very same day I bought two projector TV's, both around 50-inch, and one of them is HDTV (only $2400; Toshiba is awesome!). The difference between them is night and day. What do I watch on it? DishNetwork, SVHS, and DVD. I don't have an HDTV decoder yet. I _never_ watch local channels, so I probably wouldn't use it if I had it. The TV already looks gorgeous with the programming I have.

    The important part to keep in mind is that DishNetwork and others will soon start to broadcast using HDTV (initially pay-per-view, later everything). So a high-end receiver will be able to do it. In fact, for a couple of years I've had their digital version of a vcr, and I will soon be able to not only record digitally right on my satellite receiver but be able to record HDTV right on my receiver (yes, better than DVD!).

    Yet another advantage is that some video card makers will soon have units that can handle the resolutions of HDTV, so you could play your favorite games at 720P or 1080I on a bigscreen. Sweet!
  • I don't see how I could get an image of that quality out of my SD TV, the pixels are just to damn big.
  • This shows how absurd the goveremnt foray into the market is. Congress was set up to be slow.. slower than market. It cant predict market forces. the Reasons for an FCC are long gone. tech moves at pace that if your compeditor crowds him out you inavate around him. Just look at the end of the article expected 750 million for auction of airwaves...i guess that excludes me an some guys in my garage. The less goverment the better.
  • Well, standards in video are a little strange. The standard for color television in the US (NTSC) was never ratified, broadcasters just started using it, manufacturers (RCA) just built sets and production equipment the way they (RCA) wanted, and next thing you know, we have a color television standard. However, there is nothing that says a broadcaster MUST transmit NTSC video, just accepted practices.

  • It is not necessarly ready for HDTV. Some of the newer boxes (that will be released by GI/Motorola this summer) will decode just about anything you throw down the pipe.

    That being said, it does decode an encripted MPEG 2 signal that has been multiplexed on a 6MHz carrier of some sort. Much like a standard def HDTV stream. However, the RF section is completely different (HD uses 8- or 16-VSB modulation, Digital cable uses QAM-64).

  • No, most cable companies are concerned with "must carry" rules and HDTV. The .gov has stated that broadcasters have 2 channels available until 2006/whenever there are "enough" sets out there. The concern of cable companies is one of bandwidth.

    1) Who decides when there are enough sets to turn off the analog signal? How is the verification process going to work? Maybe a question on the 2010 census?

    2) Do cable companies have to carry both signals (A and D)? Can they prefer one over the other? Can they convert the digital signal to analog?

    3) Can the broadcaster specify which signal they want transmitted? In other words, can they force cable to carry the analog signal, even though most people are watching the HD signal?

    4) Do cable companies have to provide all feeds from a broadcaster (in the case of multiplexed signals), or can they just carry the main feed?

    5) Assume a cable box provided by the cable company is able to decode the HD signal from the broadcaster. One of the functions of this box is impulse PPV (just click on the 'buy' button, and the box sends purchase back to cable company. Now the broadcaster decides to offer PPV content (which they are able to do under the rules). Who becomes the collection agency? How does the box figure out where to send the information?

    Now, one can argue that 'they' will figure it all out when the time comes, but there has been very little response from anyone when these questions are raised. Cable wants to see HDTV as much as anyone else, they know that digital signals are going to be the norm, and it will make their systems much better, but they need a few answers from the broadcasters or FCC first.

    BTW: HDTV uses the same 6MHz as analog video. It is just compressed digital. The modulation format is 8 or 16 VSB. 8VSB is used for over the air broadcasts, 16VSB is for cable. And, cablemodems are not the same as digital cable. They use similar technology, but are not related in any way.

  • There is an unwritten rule in Washington when it comes to the television press: Don't piss 'em off. There is a very real concern that the broadcasters have way, way too much power over the political landscape. Congress doesn't want to piss off anyone in the media, especally television, because they are in charge of picking who gets elected. I'm not trying to sound like one of those crazy people who call in on AM talk radio, but there is some truth to the idea that TV can make or break a candidate (or elected official).

    As a theoritical example: Congressman complains about the HD land grab. Network news doesn't like his comment, so they make sure they only get his "bad" side, the one with the mole. And, they screw with his lighting a little bit. On a subconcious level, people think he's not someone they want representing them.

    Now, when election time comes along, they find every little mistake on the campaign trail and make sure it gets on the air. They continue to point their cameras at every one of his physical flaws. Third party candidates get a lot of coverage. Next thing you know, he's looking for a job.

    Don't think this hasn't happened before. Think about the last presidential election. One candidate was loved by the media, one hated. Who won? Why didn't the media like the one guy? Could it be that he thought broadcasters should have to pay for the second channel?

    Pay attention to the lighting on 60 minutes this week.

  • You want an HDTV because making every television currently in use obsolete is good for the economy!

    Personally, I suspect analog television broadcasts will continue side-by-side with HDTV for quite some time after 2006...

  • Does anyone know how well video game systems will use the HDTV technology? Does the DreamCast or PS2 output video that will take advantage of HDTV sets?

  • To convert to COFDM will require changing only one component of the transmitter, and a new set-top box for the few people who currently have them. Act now before there are too many people using the existing, inferior system. (Plus If You Act Now... that even has its own acronym -- PIYAN :-)

  • I had a full reply to your post, but Mozilla crashed right as I was about to hit "Submit" :-(.

    First, your link doesn't work.

    Sinclair is not doing independant research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard.

    Okay, and research like that is what Sinclair asked for in its petition to the FCC. For more information, see the link in my first post.

    In order to attempt to be impartial, the advantages that are often given to 8-VSB are an increased bitrate (19.4 Mb/s instead of 18.6 for COFDM) and less transmission power requirements. The latter is given extensive discussion in the FAQ I referred to in my first post. As for bitrate, it's only a 4.1% reduction, hardly a reason to abandon a format. The bitrate determines the maximum quality of the transmitted picture, so this would translate into a 4.1% worse picture. On the other hand, many people have to look very hard to see a difference between 480p and 1080i. Remember also that the amount of extra coding in COFDM is variable, allowing tuning of the bitrate to reliability ratio to match expected viewership.

    Although Sinclair's first tests were done using first generation receivers, newer receivers have been tested by Sinclair and others, and although ease of reception was improved, the promises of "solving the 8-VSB multipath problem" have not yet materialized enough to convince Sinclair, NBC, and other broadcasters to jump back on the 8-VSB bandwagon.

    Sinclair does not sell transmitters at all. Acrodyne, in which Sinclair owns significant stock, does make and sell transmitters, but a transmitter does not carry with it the requirement to transmit only a certain format -- the exciter does. There should be no concerns of Sinclair or Acrodyne that do not apply to all companies in their respective markets.

    Kenneth

  • What might get me to buy a HDTV is if it were also capable of handling computer resolutions. If you can do 720p and 1080i, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to handle 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc. If my big-screen TV can also be a big-screen computer display, then I have a use for it right now, and I can wait for the broadcasts.
  • For computer animation HDTV is real. For a gadget guru it's real. For high resolution live action it sucks. The current CCD technology only utilizes 1/3 of the total pixel count. All the live action HDTV looks more like standard definition 20 years ago because the technologies are at equivalent stages of development.

    Sample HDTV image:

    http://lds.org/med_inf/gen_con_pho/gen_con_sun_a ft/5-14_HR.jpg
  • DVDs already have more resolution in them than a normal TV can display. Maybe VHS can't do HDTV, but saying that the source detail "isn't there" in movies is silly. If your eyes can't tell the difference even between DVD and VHS, you should probably start wearing glasses.

    The question is easy ("How can I make video look better?"). When the answer (HDTV/broadcasting) actually gets here is a bit trickier.

    The source detail is definitely there, so far we simply lack the tools to view it.
  • Sony's new 53HS10 and 61HS10 sets look appealing, at least on paper (anyone bought one?). 1080i-capable, $3000 and $3500 respectively at Best Buy. My plan is to wait until Best Buy sends out their 10% off "Customer Appreciation" coupons and get another 5% off using my Sony card [sony.com] (normally 3% kickback, but 5% from May 1st thru June 30th). Of course, then I'll get whacked by Michigan's 6% sales tax, but what can y'do. Dish Network [dishnetwork.com] is alledged to have integrated HDTV satellite receivers coming out Any Day Now (can't find anything on their site currently, mostly because their search engine is broken). I've been a Dish Network customer for over 3 years so I'm looking forward to upgrading receivers ($500 is the rumored price).

    Then again, if Hauppage [hauppage.com] would make PC HDTV decoders that displayed full 1080i (only 480p currently), my new Sony G500 21" monitor displays 1920x1440 @ 75Hz quite nicely...

  • This may be a first for hdtv but the practice of using extra channel bandwidth for data is nothing new. WebTV sends urls of webpages in the extra lines of the closed caption data, Intercast is a technology that allows web pages to be sent in the actual tv signal. WaveTop is trying to be a portal by sending webpages, news and software durring PBS broadcasts.

    Chances are your local cable system is already sending out out this extra content, all you'd need to recieve it is a pc with a $50 tv card and some windows software (wavetop is proprietary and there are no good specs on how to decode intercast) or some linux software [freshmeat.net].
    - MbM

  • In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.

    Let me second this. Before the widespread use of videotape and satellite downloads as distribution media, networks used to film their television shows on 16mm or 35mm film and ship the film prints to the television stations, where they were broadcast by projecting them through a telecine projector into a video camera. Many series, such as Buffy and NYPD Blue are still shot on film, but distributed on video, so film prints of recent shows don't turn up on the collector's market, but episodes of shows like MASH and I Love Lucy were discarded by television stations by the truckload, and now turn up regularly on eBay. Try a search on "16mm TV" if you're interested.

    The film prints are generally full cinema quality, since they were shot on film, just like movies. Seeing an episode of "Love, American Style" on a 12 foot diagonal screen in razor sharp resolution is, um, an experience ... I'll leave it at that.
  • The first color television sets were very expensive, $1295 in 1954. That is approximately $8200 in today's dollars. The price dropped through the 1950s and the early 1960s, but they still were not cheap. The early color television sets also had reliability problems (all those vacuum tubes) and the picture quality was terrible by modern standards.
  • Can't you still broadcast a HDTV network feed even if you have no HDTV production equipment?
  • The point is that never before has the US tried to implement a broadcast standards change that wiped out the functionality of existing equipment.

    The FCC killed the 42-50 MHz FM broadcast band at the behest of "General" David Sarnoff of RCA. Sarnoff finally succeeded in crushing Major Armstrong, the pioneer of FM broadcasting, who committed suicide after losing too many battles with RCA.

  • My TV works just fine. The purpose of my TV is watching the TV shows I like, and it has that feature fully implemented and bug free. Why upgrade to a newer version if the current version works fine?

    Yes yes, HDTV is digital, and it's a different (not necessarilly better, but different) screen ratio, but so what? X-Files isn't fuzzy when I watch it anyway.

    I suspect the bulk of consumers have similar feelings toward HDTV. No one has given us a reason to buy into the idea, so no one is doing it. Most people don't just rush out to buy new stuff because it's new and "cool". If they want me to buy into HDTV, they're going to have to offer me some radically new features that make it well worth converting.

    Trying to use it for data is a noble attempt, but it doesn't really appeal to me. I use my computer for browsing the web, not my TV. It'll take something else to make me switch over anytime in the near future.
  • You can always feed it anamorphic widescreen DVDs and get a picture better than anything a standard TV can produce. Plus DSS systems are starting to broadcast HD signals for select channels now. Go for it.

    You can get the Toshiba TW40X81 [toshiba.com] for about $2500. The OTA tuner will be about $1k. About 2x the cost of an equivalent standard TV setup, not the $6k they are claiming in the article.
  • Upside Today had a good report on this awhile back. I found it again, and you can read it here [upside.com]. It's called "Digital TV: What a mess", to give you an idea of the slant. :) The article talks about data delivery from a slightly different angle, in terms of interests and profit motives, and gives an overview of all parties involved: cable, broadcasters, FCC, consumers, equipment makers and policy makers. It has an obvious bias, and the typical Upside sensationalist tone, but taught me a lot of new things about how we got to where we are with HDTV.
  • Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.

    There is a huge amount of content, such as movies and old television shows, on 35mm film that could be broadcast in high resolution.

  • The FCC and Congress did not force HDTV on the television broadcasters. The FCC was looking into the reallocation of unused UHF TV channels to the land mobile radio service. When the NAB heard about it, they went ballistic. Looking for an excuse to hold on to their valuable frequency allocations, they found high definition television. Not only did it make use of unused TV channels, the original proposals used more spectrum than the 6 MHz needed for an NTSC channel. It boiled down to "Let us keep our huge, poorly utilized, frequency allocations and in return we will deliver HDTV to the American public in <mumble> years."
  • I think the original plan was to reclaim the VHF channels (2-13), but many broadcasters have been lobbying to keep their VHF channel assignments, saying that they can't replicate their current coverage on a UHF channel.
  • The high definition and wide screen features are nice, but for me, the most important feature is the fact that it is digital video.

    I've seen how good NTSC can look when displayed on a studio monitor in a TV station. Unfortunately, that bears no resemblance to the noisy, ghost ridden, ugly NTSC signals delivered by the idiots who run the local cable system or available over-the-air in my area. A end-to-end digital signal, even if it is only SDTV, would be a major improvement over the current situation.

  • I can remember spending $4000 for a 386 system right after they came out. Too bad computers never got any cheaper as time went by and production increased, eh?
  • A number of articles have mentioned that it's a good idea to get a tunerless HDTV right now, and buy tuners and things to hook up to it.

    Is there anywhere that has a list of tunerless HDTV's? All I use my TV for right now is to watch DVD's and play console games. So really, a tunerless display sounds great to me...
  • I'm pretty sure I remember reading at a number of game sites that the PS2 supports HDTV sets - I know I saw a picture from Japan of a game running side by side on a normal TV and HDTV (and unlike the US, they have small HDTV sets in Japan that are at least sort of affordable!). Ahh, here's a list of the ports on a PS2 that shows the AV Output [dailyradar.com]

    The games have to be written to take advantage of the different aspect ration though - I'm not sure which ones currently support HDTV aspect ratios.

  • Not sure about that plan. From the article: "But HDTV has been slow to take off. Reception is spotty..." Does that sound like the kinda thing you'd want to trust your data to?

    "Sorry dear, no email during the thunderstorm."

    Hotnutz.com [hotnutz.com] - Funny
  • My cable company is Adelphia. They provide "Digital Cable", and require you to buy a special box to decode it. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a standard. And, unless the BTTV people have worked some amazing magic, their cards will definitely not decode this signal.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • consider the Pinnacle hdtv card, they have a comparison of their card with the Hauppauge card on their website. One of their advantages is that the Pinnacle card supports a resolution of 1080 while the Hauppauge downmixes everything to 480


    _______________________________________________
    Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well-done.
  • An HDTV channel is 6 MHz wide, as well.
    --
  • It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).

    The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.

    Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.
    --
  • sacdelta wrote:

    Many cable companies already use a digital signal. I don't know how compatible that signal is with the HDTV programming however.

    I don't know what other cable companies use, but around here Warner Cable is using MPEG-3, like the satellite companies. While higher resolution is possible with MPEG, it's not at all compatable with any of the HDTV standards (and there are a BUNCH of those.)

    I suppose that one could get one of those receiverless HDTV's (at roughly 10 times the cost of a decent NTSC television with receiver) and use it to display HDTV resolution stuff transmitted over the satellites or cable, but the real point of the matter is this:

    sacdelta also wrote:

    Signal quality is essential to HDTV. The advantage of a digital signal is that if you receive it, you get pretty much perfect reception. With an analog signal, you get more static as you lose reception quality. With a digital signal it is pretty much all or nothing.

    This is why I don't have digital cable any more. By the time they'd repaired the cable enough to receive any digital cable, our analog cable reception (digital cable transmits all of the old analog cable channels using an analog signal) was simply fabulous Sometimes, we'd get hit by line noise and it would absolutely wipe out all of the digital channels. Turn to one of the analog channels and there wouldn't be enough static to notice. (If it wasn't a P5, it was certainly a P4.99.)

    When I think of all of the times that I've watched P3 or worse analog signals, I'd have to say that HDTV over terrestrial broadcast channels is a really incredibly stupid idea. It can't possibly work. (Think of how many people you know with perfect off-air reception. I don't know any except for W4KFC who does ATV so has all these marvelous antennae.) The fundamental characteristic of NTSC television signals is robustness and HDTV throws that away in favor of benefits that few truly appreciate. (Who, after all, wants to see Jay Leno's makeup flaws? Does that help you understand the monologue?)

    HDTV may be the thing to send over cable or satellite (although I think there already is broader acceptance of MPEG over those media and others as well) but for terrestrial broadcast, it's not the best choice.

  • The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions, led Congress to mandate that all broadcasts be digital by 2006 and impelled the FCC to give broadcasters extra airwaves for free

    So I own a 26" color analog Television set. I paid $250 for this baby back in 1996. I don't have cable. I get my reception from a pair of rabbit ears or an attenna on my roof. Sure the image is fuzzy every once in a while, but I don't care. This setup works great for me. Unless the TV breaks, I have no intention on replacing my set. There's a very good chance that my TV set will last through 2006 and later.

    Maybe I'm mistaken, but according to what I read (In this article and elsewhere), I won't be able to receive analog broadcasts past 2006. I will either need to replace working television with a new Digital capable one, or I will need to buy a Digital-to-Analog converter. How much will this box cost? Probably a couple hundred bucks in the begining. I don't want to spend that (and alot of families can't afford this). But if I don't buy this converter, I won't receive any broadcasts, right? Yay, excluded from information because of economics.

    Even though 90% of the stuff on TV is crap, television is still a useful medium. From news about tropical storms to the State of the Union, most people get their news through TV. Don't we have a right to access this media without spending more money?

    Alot of people have told me that "well, you need to spend money on a Television anyways, which isn't that much different then spending money on a converter box." But the difference is that I can pick up a used television at any Thrift Store for $20, and it works well enough-- it's got sound and an image. Enough to receive useful news.

    So why do I want HDTV?

    The broadcast spectrum is supposed to be "Free" as in "Democracy", not free as in "High Resolution+ THX sound".

  • I can't stand this. When I pay for a service nobody should be able to spam me with ads. I think this includes pay cable tv stations. I remember how cool HBO was and all the rest of the cable stations were when it first came out. I cannot believe how much advertising is done through the media today. I turn on the radio in my car on the way home from work and all I get is ads. I'm in the car for 15 fscking minutes and not a single song plays. So radio and tv are in the crapper. Our lovely web is nearly there. This is all done to make some corporations insanely rich. I get spam, everyone gets spam, you can filter it, but many times someone has sent me and important forward or a document that I needed and It got filtered out. If I pay for broadband I want disgustingly fast access, not more complex advertising. Samething with HDTV. If I pay 6000+ bucks for this tv I better not even see one commercial. But that wont happen. We ARE going to see more complex targeted advertising on the net, tv, magazines, radio. It will never stop. There are only 3 sure things in life death, taxes, and avertising. You will consume what we tell you to. See FIGHT CLUB. nuff said
  • The FCC mandated every TV station must be broadcasting a DIGITAL signal by 2005 -- that was later dropped back to 2006 and could drop back even further -- or they would lose their broadcast license. They've given away the necessary spectrum for a full HDTV signal. However, a great deal of content is currently "up-converted" from NTSC, so there's little point in shipping it out as 1080i. The HDTV signal can support _4_ programs plus a bit of data -- not T3 volumes, but some. PBS is interested in sending multiple programs and streaming computer "interactive" content along side the program; for example, transmitting a "side bar" for Nova.

    The FCC is making broadcasters move away from NTSC to HDTV. They haven't said what resolution or ratio of "TV" to "data" one must transmit. [Give them some time. They are part of the .gov]
  • Very few cable companies have warmed up to HDTV. The signal take a fair amount more bandwidth than a standard cable channel -- and the bandwidth can vary. Cable companies are quickly throwing digital hardware down so who knows what's on the horizon. [One of the reasons for digital cable is signal quality. The other is cable modems -- analog cable was never designed to be bi-directional; in fact there are laws against putting signals back into the public cable network.]

  • T1s are not fiber, my company has a T1 coming in and all it is is ordinary twisted pair copper wires. Of course the line has been tested and is guaranteed and all, when you follow it back to the CO there's a lot of difference, but the wire coming through the wall is indistinguishable from the twisted pair coming into my house. (Which supports a regular telephone together with cheap 64/256 ADSL, but my house line tested OK for up to 768/768 DSL.)

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • This response [slashdot.org] to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.

    Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.

    By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.

    Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?
  • This article talks so much about the bandwidth capabilities of this new "data-streaming"...but, as a consumer and developer, what I care most about at this point (which may possibly change in the future) is better resolution, not more bandwidth! Of course the two are forever intertwined, but HDTV directly has a much better resolution than my old crappy NTSC TV, and that means so much more to me than having interactive content, more channels, etc. etc.

    I will never, ever buy a console gaming system, for example, until one comes out that can match the resolution of my PC! What's the point, otherwise, when I can play the exact same game on my computer at 4 times the resolution of this crummy NTSC game on my TV?

    This is, IMHO, one of the most important sentances in this article: "Multicasting or datacasting is fine, as long as they don't abandon HDTV," he said. So very true...so don't buy an HDTV yet?...no, please do! Support the standard, so I don't go blind by the time I'm 60!

  • One of the problems for DTV, and the major reason that reception is currently spotty, is the current transmission standard. 8VSB, as the current standard is called, is flawed. See my earlier article [slashdot.org] for some information, and find more thanks to Google [google.com].

    COFDM is clearly the better solution. This was a major topic of discussion at this year's NAB, and a demonstration by Acrodyne of a COFDM signal transmitted from ~17 miles away being received in the convention center without any problems showed this quite well, as did Sinclair's earlier testing in Baltimore, which I discussed in my article; see above.

    This is seriously not a troll, but instead, I think, a wake-up call. Another poster asked if you would want to trust your data to spotty reception. There is no reason to. With superior "ease of reception" in metropolitan areas, or other areas with a lot of multipath, or "ghosting", and equal or better reception outside of the city, there is no reason not to go with COFDM.

    A bit of the science behind it: 8VSB uses one carrier that carries all of the information, which is typically MPEG-encoded video. COFDM carries the exact same information split up into many carriers across the 6 MHz spectrum given to a television station. If one of those carriers is somehow damaged, other carriers containing duplicates of that information can be used. The amount of duplicate data can easily be adjusted at the transmission side, allowing for the most data during non-peak hours (for use by data and multiple virtual channels), but increased signal reliability during prime time.

    By the way, some xDSLs (which?) use (C)OFDM. Many mobile communications systems either are currently or will in the future use a multi-carrier system like COFDM.

    For a bit more information, see Sinclair's COFDM FAQ [sbgi.net].

    Kenneth

  • I have noted a few errors in my first post that I wish to correct.

    First, the signal that can be carried using COFDM is not exactly the same as the signal for 8-VSB. In fact, the bandwidth is adjustable up to about 20 Mb/s, but sacrificing some signal reliability. As I said, this can be tuned for the specific scenario.

    Also, there are reasons not to go with COFDM as a single standard format. But there are no technical reasons not to consider it as an alternative. A major concern is that adopting COFDM even as an alternative system would slow DTV reception. Possibly, but do we want an inferior system?

  • Its slow coming, but its coming.

    I am about to become a test subject for trial HDTV broadcasting [dtvplus.com] later this month. Of course rather than just issuing us a box, they are providing a computer board to do the same thing (and a high-end graphics card if we don't have one), so that we have the HDTV signal pumped directly into the computer, from where we can route it to the TV. Best of all, after the test is over, we get to keep the goodies for free. =7)

    On the set side, I was in a Circuit City store a couple of months ago looking at big screen TVs. I wasn't really considering one of the grainy beasts very seriously until I saw a 61" HDTV. WOW! The only question is, how long do I have to wait until I can pony up the $8k the thing costs? Definitely no later than the end of this year, and depending on the stock market (and my stock options), it may be considerably sooner.

    As far as misuse of airwaves as described in this article, these things have a way of catching up with the misusers. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the picture.


    Gonzo
  • Isn't it that old tech that was around before the Internet? I figured it would have ended up in a museum by now.
  • I can't believe this! Congress just gave the extra bandwidth for HDTV to broadcasters for free with no strings attached, and trusted them to use it only for HDTV, then sat there dumbfoundedly as they (gasp!)... used it for other purposes!

    #ifdef DRIPPING_SARCASM

    Hmm... let's see. While we're at it, why not give small children handguns to protect themselves from child abuse! It's not like they'd come up with other ways to use them!

    Why not give North Korea large supplies of plutonium? I'm sure they'll only use it to make cheap electric power, and maybe recharge their flux-capacitors!

    Why not release criminal psychopaths from the asylums and give them hammers and chainsaws? I'm sure they'll use their newfound freedom and tools strictly to build houses for the homeless!

    Why not give Microsoft a tiny slap on the wrist and let it off the hook? I'm sure it'll use its world domination exclusively to promote Quality $oftware(TM)!

    Why not elect 535 random politicians to Congress and expect them to make smart decisions! I'm sure they won't use their power to... to... gee, what is it that they get done, anyway?

    Oh, that's right. They improve our viewing experience to ensure that C-SPAN comes in digital crystal-clarity. Can't have our elected representatives lookin' shabby in Lo-Rez, can we?

    God bless America®.

    #endif

  • From my observation most new technology which suceed depends on its 'leap' in technology which can be felt by normal consumers. I don't see why anyone would want HDTV when their Cable or Satelite works just perfect as they are. People are happy with TV just they way it is. The higher resolution offered by HDTV is just not enough of a 'leap' from conventional TVs - not enough for normal users to really appreciate it. Here are some major technological leaps (for consumers) which succeded in the market : Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed. Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventioal 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a sucess. - ISDN 128K...ho hum. HDTV vs. Conventional TV I don't see how normal consumers would really feel the 'significant' benefit in their daily viewing if they were to use HDTV instead of the conventional TV. Lesson to be learned here is that in order to gain wide acceptance of a new techology, it has to have some form of quantum leap over the previous technology. HDTV just don't have the edge that cable modem have over conventional modems. Gary Note : I am applying what I said to TYPICAL CONSUMERS.
  • So what happens when HDTV does come out ... does IBlast just die. Then what do you do with those sill $300 boxes?

    My other question is ... why is this any different then wireless networking or advertised paid paging?

    Seems like a gimmick that costs too much to get off the ground and no one will really use anyways. Ohh well.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @09:54AM (#1118592)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why HDTV? (Score:3)

    by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @10:04AM (#1118593) Homepage
    I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies.
    --

  • Re:White Paper on Haupage DTV cards (Score:3)

    by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @10:24AM (#1118594) Homepage Journal
    This paper [hauppage.com] (pdf format) gives some technical info on the WinTV-D card and also on DTV data casting in general.

    BTW, the Slashdot and ABC headlines are only helping to increase the confusion of DTV and HDTV. The spectrum is reserved for DTV which can include HDTV. If it were for HDTV only, then there shouldn't so much left over spectrum when broadcasting 1080i.

  • In case people don't want to load the pdf file, here is the Glossary:

    GLOSSARY OF DTV TERMINOLOGY

    AC-3: Also known as Dolby Digital, a coding and compression method for surround audio capable
    of driving 5 speakers and a sub-woofer.

    Chroma, Chrominance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the color overlay information.

    DBS - Direct Broadcast Satellite: The generic term for the small-dish digital systems in popular
    use today.

    Downsampling: Reducing the information content (detail) in an image in order to allow rendering
    to a lower resolution display.

    DTV - Digital Television: The generic term for broadcasting of any of the approved digital
    formats.

    DVD - Digital Versatile Disk: A data encoding standard for CD-ROM-like disks, capable of storing
    data at the higher densities needed for recording movies.

    HDTV - High Definition Television: The term which refers to those approved digital formats with
    resolution higher than SDTV, namely those with 720 or 1,080 vertical lines of resolution.

    IEEE 1394: Also known as Firewire, a high-speed serial interconnect capable of transferring up to
    400 Megabits per second.

    Luma, Luminance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the black-and-white detail
    information.

    MPEG-2: A "compression" method for reducing the bit rate needed to transmit a series of images.

    MSO: Multiple Services Operator - a cable TV company.

    PSIP - Program and System Information Protocol: The data stream within a DTV broadcast that
    describes the various video, audio and data streams that are present.

    QAM - Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: A method of encoding bits using multiple analog levels
    to represent bit patterns - often used by the cable industry.

    SDTV - Standard Definition Television: The term which refers to those of the approved digital
    formats with resolution comparable to today' s DBS and DVD systems, namely those with 480
    vertical lines of resolution.

    Transcoding: Converting from one modulation method to another, for example, from VSB to
    QAM.

    USB - Universal Serial Bus: A medium-speed (12 Megabit per second) local communication bus.

    VSB - Vestigal Side-Band: A method of encoding bits used primarily by the television broadcast
    industry.

  • Re:a cheap alternative (Score:3)

    by ostiguy ( 63618 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @10:02AM (#1118596)
    The WinTV-d only support 480i, the lowest of the low HDTV resolutions, in fact, so low that that res it typically referred to as D(igital)TV, cuz the rez aint all that high. Hauppauge is going to have a full out, ahve you cake and eat it too, completely HDTV card within the year, but this sure aint it.

    matt

  • Neither is movies? (Score:3)

    by rogerbo ( 74443 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @10:20AM (#1118597)
    Um, neither is movies? What sorry?

    Movies (and even most high budget TV shows) areshot on film. It's a relatively simple matter to run an edited film print through a high definition Telecine. Bang, all of a sudden you have a HDTV film master for broadcasting. The effective resolution of film is greater than 2048x1920 so there's plenty of detail there for HDTV.

    In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.

    And yes when you see HDTV you will know the difference, remember the first time you saw a DVD versus a VHS tape?

  • Auctioning off spectrum (Score:3)

    by kenf ( 75431 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @10:01AM (#1118598)
    Our dear government should never have started the great spectrum auctions.


    Instead of selling it, they should have rented it out, and evect any renter who doesn't actually use it as indended.

  • The hidden dangers of HDTV (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @12:29PM (#1118599) Homepage Journal
    Once they start broadcasting in digital, how long will it take them to insure that your VCR can't record anything? With the DMCA and the MPAA trying to encrypt everything, it won't surprise me when they start building something like CSS into the TV itself. Encrypt the signal right up to the point where it hits the TV and bang! The VCR suddenly becomes useless.

    On the plus side, assuming you can munge the digital signal based on your own parameters, filtering/editing out commercials should become a lot easier. I'm sure they'll figure out how to prevent that too...

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @09:52AM (#1118600)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 10^12 channels and nothing's on... (Score:3)

    by Alien Perspective ( 171882 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @09:52AM (#1118601)
    So congress gives away all that HDTV bandwidth, a very valuable commodity, for free to the broadcasters, with the understanding that the broadcasters will convert to HDTV and release their old frequencies for other uses.

    Naturally, the broadcasters reneg...going for $$$ using the HDTV bandwidth for other stuff while continuing to hold the old bandwidth too.

    Does anyone else see this as a blatent spectrum theft? Of course, we can't expect our elected representitives to do anything about it; pissing off the broadcasters is electoral death.

    When one industry gets a veto on who gets to be our government, you should be worried.

    Personally, I was looking forward to everyone having to toss their old TVs...maybe it would wean people from sucking on the glass teat, and that would raise the collective IQ of the country.

  • HD (Score:5)

    by sik puppy ( 136743 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @09:59AM (#1118602)
    HD is wonderful - if you haven't seen it, its like a great flat 21" monitor with resolution set to 1280x1024. (only in 16x9 ratio)

    What little programming that is available so far really looks good. The superbowl was outstanding, except when the ntsc camerman walked right in front of the HD camera, so you got a really great picture of the back of the SD camera.

    Waiting for the set is a toss up. If you do have the bucks, even regular tv looks really good on the set. The two most important things are native resolution and the set top box.

    Do not get a set that is not native 1080. Otherwise, any 1080 signal will be downcoverted to whatever the native mode is - a cheap set might be 480 native, in which case you have a fancy regular tv.

    do NOT get a set with an integrated box. The linked article is a perfect reason why. Until there is enough HD programming, broadcasters are looking to fill their pipe with some source of revenue. The new broadcast pipe can carry 5 SD signals and change or one HD, so sending 1 SD leave about 14 mb/s of available pipe.

    There are a lot of revenue generating things you can do with 14mbs. Given the cost of going digital (1-1.5 Mil for a transmitter; a new antenna, tower space, microwave, etc can tack on another mil or so)(not to mention another 5-15k/month for electricity) broadcasters are in need of income asap.

    There is a great opportunity for someone to come up with new business models to take advantage to this distribution medium. Any ideas? Any Takers?

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close