High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource (https://www.highdefforum.com/index.php)
-   High Definition News & Informative Articles (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-news-informative-articles-12/)
-   -   Bad news for digital (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-news-informative-articles/8348-bad-news-digital.html)

oblioman 05-25-2005 11:43 AM

Bad news for digital
 
It's a sad day when congress has to mull the idea of subsidizing digital tuners. The industry has had almost 10 years to phase out analog tv's and sell digital. Guess what,,they are still selling analog tv's today. The industry should be held accountable, even to the tiny degree of putting a label on the tv that, for some people, will become useless in the very near future. Unfortunately, that very near future will most likely be pushed back because congress will have the wrenching decision to either fund school lunches or digital tuners.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8587164

rivertrance 06-01-2005 03:04 PM

what about component output ??
 
most HDTV STBs have both digital (DVI etc) and component/RGB output. Perhaps with an analog HD to Digital HD converter box... Hmmmm ;)

dumpsterlad 06-02-2005 12:47 PM

The lack of a government subsidy didn't seem to hurt the proliferation of cell phones. I haven't seen too many economically-challenged folks that didn't have a cell phone. (Usually they've got the fanciest, latest models.)

The other factor to consider is what will a digital receiver cost a year and a half from now. Frankly, we're talking about a "reverse" digital receiver capable of receiving a 1080i or 720p signal and converting it back to a 480i signal. A "no frills" digital stb today is only c. $150. A year and a half from now, they'll be sixty bucks. If you can't afford $60, then how'd you get your TV in the first place? (Maybe we don't want the answer to that, after all.) And, uh, what about the antenna? Are we going to subsidize them, too?

The next thing you know, we'll be subsidizing the cost of Viagra for convicted sex offenders.



...no kidding?!!

retorq 06-02-2005 03:40 PM

Digital is NOT high def, there will be 480i digital broadcast for a LOOOONG time.

RSawdey 06-03-2005 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivertrance
most HDTV STBs have both digital (DVI etc) and component/RGB output. Perhaps with an analog HD to Digital HD converter box... Hmmmm ;)

No, the issue is TUNERS, not inputs. And complicated by copy protection, since analog HD will likely be downrezzed.

RSawdey 06-03-2005 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dumpsterlad
Frankly, we're talking about a "reverse" digital receiver capable of receiving a 1080i or 720p signal and converting it back to a 480i signal.

Converters will have to receive all 18 formats of the ATSC standard, all must, ranging from 480i to 1080p, narrow & widescreen, and framerates from 24 to 60. Output connections will likely be ONLY analog NTSC on the cheapest units.

CatManDoo 06-04-2005 07:30 AM

Catch up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oblioman
Unfortunately, that very near future will most likely be pushed back because congress will have the wrenching decision to either fund school lunches or digital tuners.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8587164

Perhaps they can do both because it won't be too expensive; remember, ketchup is a vegetable.... :D

ovredcoat 06-04-2005 07:53 AM

Directv sd is digital and look how bad it looks..........

oblioman 06-04-2005 09:34 AM

You all knew the MPAA would get involved but it looks as if "the boys on the hill" are giving them the cold shoulder.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,67712,00.html

rikmeister 06-06-2005 06:18 PM

I have some sad news for you
 
you already are paying for viagara for them. yes your tax dollars is at work again in the wrong way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dumpsterlad
The lack of a government subsidy didn't seem to hurt the proliferation of cell phones. I haven't seen too many economically-challenged folks that didn't have a cell phone. (Usually they've got the fanciest, latest models.)

The other factor to consider is what will a digital receiver cost a year and a half from now. Frankly, we're talking about a "reverse" digital receiver capable of receiving a 1080i or 720p signal and converting it back to a 480i signal. A "no frills" digital stb today is only c. $150. A year and a half from now, they'll be sixty bucks. If you can't afford $60, then how'd you get your TV in the first place? (Maybe we don't want the answer to that, after all.) And, uh, what about the antenna? Are we going to subsidize them, too?

The next thing you know, we'll be subsidizing the cost of Viagra for convicted sex offenders.



...no kidding?!!


CatManDoo 06-06-2005 08:08 PM

Sad, but true
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rikmeister
you already are paying for viagara for them. yes your tax dollars is at work again in the wrong way.


Yes, I think "dumpsterlad" knew about this recent scandal when he wrote that. It was a very funny (but sad) tongue-in-cheek commentary.... :D

Scandal

Dale Cripps 06-07-2005 12:11 AM

It is never as it looks
 
I am no apologist for Congress, CEA, the manufacturers, or broadcasters, but I have been around long enough to know that this issue is very complex and not very well understood.

The entire reason you have HDTV today is because Eddie Fritts, CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters sold Congress on the idea that free television is essential to our democracy. Free broadcasting provides entirely free signals to anyone who can receive them, be that in their home or in some group home, or whatever the scene is. The point is that an informed electorate is essential to democracy and Eddie convinced the FCC and Congress in 1987 that free TV was threatened until it could compete in the HDTV arena that was just starting to show itself. HDTV was much better fit to cable and DBS (when it would come), and, if wildly popular, could walk away with the power that free TV has to buy original programming and to run a free news service which has accountability (public airwaves-public service) to the govenrment, which the cable news does not.

A petition to the FCC was made by 57 broadcast groups asking that agency to freeze on any broadcast band allocations to any other petitioners until such time as HDTV could be technically be sorted out so as to be made available by broadcasters should cable and DBS competition with it arise... even if that required more spectrum.

At that time broadcasting was analog and if you wanted more information in the signal it looked like you would have to have more signal, i.e., bandwidth.

The FCC caused the Advisory Committee to be formed, which, in turn, called upon industry from here and abroad to make proposals, build hardware for the five selected proposals, test them, and then submit to the FCC a H/DTV standard suitable for broadcasting.

On the way to doing that digital broadcasting was discovered (with its power of compression). That meant less bandwidth would be needed than first thought. But another thing also happened.

Much of the broadcast spectrum that could not be used for anything but guarding (so called taboo channels) against interference was now usable for transmission. Over half of the spectrum assigned to the broadcast industry could now be used in the future and sold to any service and broadcasters could still compete with HDTV or DTV (as they liked).

That would take a transition from the old analog channels to these newly liberated channels, which had been miraculously mined from the broadcast band with precise new components and the digital technology.

The FCC made a transition plan to close down NTSC, but only after enough people had moved to digital reception of some kind in each market. It was clearly understood what that meant at the time. I wrote about it extensively. What was recognized then, as it is now, is that the tail end of the transition could prove difficult. Not only were the poor likely to resist being pushed into a new format at their expense--one they had nothing to do with creating or popularizing-- there are many people who simply do not have the vision to appreciate any difference. They suffer from a variety of ailments, like macular degeneration, and so would have absolutely no motivation to buy a new TV when they were mostly listening to the old one in the first place. TVs last 20 or more years. This was not an easy situation to overcome without some inducement or incentive.

But you and I still got our HDTV. We are pretty fancy pants characters for the most part and we don't give a damn what hardship we bring to the elderly or wounded as long as we get our big fancy HDTVs! Screw um if they don't like it. Let them eat some of that cake the French have left over from their revolution.

Well, I know we are far more thoughtful than that or this nation would have no further appeal to the world. We are a nation of deep understanding and we don't want to hurt anyone just because we got something nice in the bargain.

And here is the good news.

Any subsidy that will help is all coming from the sale of this spectrum we liberated...as soon as we can get it back. This is all free money to the government resulting from technical advances of the times spurred on by a Japanese initiative (NHK first proposed HDTV) and realized though our acceptance of it. We are NOT taking from the general fund for any subsidy, nor is any of it out of my pocket or yours: We are drawing from future auction receipts for the spectrum that was never before usable (the taboo channels). If there was ever a win win, it is this one.

I feel very badly when I hear anyone charge the public with knuckle dragging apathy and the manufactures with malfeasance and the broadcasters with god only knows what crime. The fact is that for very little cost to us we got a very wonderful and beautiful new TV system that we are going to enjoy every hour it is one for the rest of our time on earth as well as will all the generations to come. I don't think we should begrudge a few unfortunate people (and even the cheats that always are their with their hand out) for accepting a decoder on us, thank you, because it is not on us. It is on the future bidders of that spectrum for they are going to supply all of the subsidy money.

But that is not all. It takes only a modest insight to see the new advertising potential in a subsidized decoder. One of the big discussions going on inside the industry now is the idea of branded TVs. This is where someone like ESPN markets their own TV and every time it is turned on a message for ESPN comes on for a few seconds. You can bypass it, but there is value added to keep you glued to the opening screen--that is the responsibility of the advertiser.

The same thing can be done in these decoder boxes so that the subsidy comes from the presale of this advertising "space" and maybe a few dollars from the future auctions. It is not going to be costly. The power supply is the most costly item at $6 (china or $9 from Taiwan). Does any of this come out of your pocket? Not a nickel as long as you see that the spectrum being sold in the future for billions of dollars was completely liberated and made usable because you chose HDTV.

Dale Cripps
HDTV Magazine
www.hdtvmagazine.com

oblioman 06-07-2005 11:08 AM

Very well stated Mr. Cripps. But I do take umbrage to a couple of your statements. First off, I do begrudge Congress and the manufacturers for "knuckledragging" simply because they are still selling analog sets without a disclaimer. The poor unfortunates will end up buying a set, that by all means will be unusable, unless they purchase or are "entitled" a decoder. The manufacturers have had 10 years to alleviate the tail end transition woes. They have done nothing. I agree that the sale of the spectrum will be a bonus to us, but had the congress and manufacturers ramped up just 5 years ago, that bonus could have and should have went towards the debt. Not towards an entitlement.

As far as the argument of people suffering numerous ailments - this could also be justified another way. Instead of a snowy analog picture, perhaps some people are on the edge where the cleaner digital picture would certainly enhance their viewing. All things said, I believe the transition woes are going to get uglier unless a stand is made. Congress must demand that by such & such a date - this will occur. They must demand and we must enforce the manufacturers to comply. The original writing had no teeth in it.

Now that I think of it,,,,maybe it would be better if we wait to sell off the spectrum. I would really hate to see what the current administration would do with the windfall.

RSawdey 06-07-2005 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblioman
Now that I think of it,,,,maybe it would be better if we wait to sell off the spectrum. I would really hate to see what the current administration would do with the windfall.

They'd probably do the same thing they did with the missing 9 Billion in Iraq... pocket it. :mad:

oblioman 06-07-2005 02:48 PM

Ghost's of Rumsfeld. One site had 8200 people on the payroll but only 600 people working there. The sad thing is that we'll be seeing more of this. I know this is off subject but this link might prove interesting about Iraq. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0...w=wn_tophead_1


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands