More Details About HDTV Pact 343
Masem writes "The NYTimes reports that a pact between the makers of HDTV systems and cable and satelite providers appears to be a consumer-friendly route to pushing HDTV technology. The solution proposed by the two groups will remove the need for a set-top box to receive the programming (save for on-demand or interactive services) in upcoming HDTV sets, and will standardize on the DVI port for these (Existing HDTV's, however, will probably still need some set-top device for compatibility - the deal specifically requires set top boxes to send both analog and digital signals as to support older HDTVs). The proposal must still get FCC approval before it becomes set in stone."
will Joe User want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC can shovel HDTV down our throats all they want. The technology is still too damned expensive for most people.
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
I love my HDTV setup. I'm lucky enough to be in a good place where Time Warner supports HD. I just wish they would add DiscoveryHD.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen a lot of deeply unimpressive HD presentations... and I've seen one that just blew me away. The unimpressive ones make me wonder "what's the point?", but all I have to do is remember the good one and I start lusting after a nice HDTV setup again.
The setup wasn't even all that good really... it was a 34"-ish HDTV (one of the drawbacks of HD is that it doesn't do well on small screens - 36" is the quietly talked about minimum size), displaying a 1080i feed from a Sony HD video camera. The footage wasn't all that impressive either - just a shuttle launch. And I was watching it with about 30 other geeks clustered around at a Unix SIG meeting, so far from "ideal" viewing conditions.
But... wow. It was so crisp and clear that it looked like a picture window. No grain, no zig zags, no junk at all. It's really not something that can be described... it just has to be seen.
Setting up HD isn't all that difficult from what I understand (again, I don't have a set yet... I have a ton of money put aside for one, considerably more than is needed nowadays, but don't have the space for it yet), it's just that it doesn't behoove itself to multi-screen displays like they use in most stores. Heck, most places they aren't even showing an HD feed - just a standard feed running into the HDTVs. Which means it just looks somewhat better than a normal TV at best. And in most cases it actually looks worse -- because taking a 4:3 image and stretching it to 16:9 makes everyone look like dwarves. Stocky dwarves. Again, it's not that hard to setup, but they just don't bother (or someone has fooled around with the remote and screwed it up).
Where can you find a good HD setup? Most mid to high end HiFi stores will have one. If you have a friend who loves HDTV then they'll probably have one. Beyond that, I dunno.
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:2)
I bought my HDTV in June, and I can't imagine being happier with it. Everybody who sees it says, "I want one." The only obstacle right now is price, and it's not a big obstacle. If you're in the market for a 19" TV for the kid's room, HD is not for you. But if you can afford a $1,500-$2,500 for a nice living room TV, HD is an option. And the prices just keep dropping.
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:2)
Are you fucking insane?
$1500 for a nice living room TV? Dude! I got my nice 37 inch TV for maybe $300 if that. If you think I am going to spend more for a TV than I do for a computer, just so I can watch hi-def crap...
Seriously, I'll hold onto my stupid analog TV for as long as I can. At least I know that my analog VHS tapes will work and I don't have to spend a modest fortune for a television
If they actually had something on TV that was worth watching, and on a regular basis, you might almost have a point here, but this much money is just too much to ask for. I'd rather donate $1,500 to my local library
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There aren't many people who watch my Sony Wega and don't comment on how good the picture is.
Compared to the cost of the house renovations the cost of the TV is lost in the noise.
Of course I am not exactly a price sensistive buyer - I almost bought a plasma TV. But most slashdot readers probably have loptops that cost more and will be lucky to get 24 months use out of them before they deteriorate into a mess of patching tape.
Of course you only really get the benefit if you have a digital source. For me thats DVD or Satelite.
HDTV will be big but not I suspect in the way that the FCC has been expecting.
First off HDTV will fail completely if you can't record the signal for personal use. Equally it will fail if you can't use a PVR. I don't care how great the picture looks, it looks shite as far as I am concerned if I have to watch the commercials.
Secondly the killer apps for HDTV are probably DVD and satelite signals. I very much doubt that the cable industry can upgrade in time to be relevant. Broadcast HDTV is utterly irrelevant, the specifications don't work. The only reason the FTC keeps banging on on the broadcast HDTV is that without broadcast the rationale for such a high degree of FTC involvement goes away. Also the politicians are wondering how they get their ads out if everyone is watching satelite and the Web where the ads are national and not local.
Thirdly the FTC mandate for large TVs to have HDTV tuners will fail. Those TVs will simply become 'computer monitors', the broadcast tuner will be an optional extra which most consumers don't need or if they do need it it will be possible to turn it on using a secret code which the store assistant will tell you.
Fourthly convergence between the computer and the TV will drive the large scale adoption of HDTV. This is already being seen, look at a plasma TV and the chances are better than even it is actually hooked up to a computer not a TV. HDTVs will be bought for video games entertainment rather than passive TV watching.
Finaly until there is a DVD standard that distributes HDTV content the only benefit the average user will get is seeing the films in American widescreen format (16:9) rather than academy ratio (4:3) since the poor user won't have any HD content to view.
Other killer apps (Score:3, Insightful)
People spent stupid amounts of money to watch sports. Most large screen TVs were sold so people could watch their (foot|base|basket)ball at 40+ inches at a ripping ~400 x ~320 res.
NTSC (never twice same color) was developed in 1925 and standardized by 1927. It allows for around 525 lines vertical res. You're lucky if a GOOD SVideo will put out 400. Enough to trick the eye, but then 24 frames/second tricks the eye pretty well in the theater. The eye is easily fooled and the brain can make pictures out of the most staticy images. Doesn't mean that better won't look lots better to you, it just means that you can see ok with really bad images; like NTSC.
If you've ever seen the experimental film stuff that ran at > 60 frames/sec rather than the 24 you see in the theater, you'd notice that camera motion doesn't blur the screen radically. Some parts of LOTR were just hard to see because of that. (both CG and real).
Current TV is "good enough"
Well yeah. So was 18 frame per second film in 1910 (old old films sometimes look very fast cause they were shot at 18FPS and xfered at 24 by fools).
We could have, and should have, dumped the current NTSC signal when color came along. But "thousands" of people had bought these expensive TVs so the gubmint decreed that any of this new fangled color stuff must be viewable on the good ol black and white TVs. Nice work.
I came out of film. I hate movies that lop off around 1/4 of the screen when shown on TV. Most film camera view finders have TV ratios marked on the viewer so directors these days don't have much action on the sides (lame, but most producers and directors know that most of the viewing money comes out of video, in the end), but sports is really an immediate driver.
When I was in the UK, widescreen was being pushed as "See *all* of the world cup, not just 3/4's of it."
As I travelled through Asia, bars in the most impoverished nations had widescreen high res showing Football aka Soccer everywhere. With crowds.
So imagine the NFL pushing that with HD/Wide you get to see it more clearly - so they can use longer shots and you get the same resolution you USED to have, but lots more of the field in the frame. Imagine taking your cheapo 19" and stacking 2x2 of them. Each with the same resolution but continuing the a larger image. That's 1080i.
Don't believe for a minute that these people who pay $100+/month for sport feeds, who have old huge $2000 dishes in their yards - now worthless and replaced by little dishes, won't drop a year of satellite fees on a HDTV. Or two years. That's beer money, dude. These guys are the ones not buying new computers every two years.
What if Superbowl/2004 or the world series was shot ONLY in HD? What if movies were shown all there but "squeezed" for you guys watching that 100 year old 4:3 ratio stuff?
You wanna stick with your mommy's 19" $150 TV past 2006? Fine, someone will come out with a box that drops 3/4 pixels for you. And everything will be letterboxed. And eventually, older HD's will be available on the used market for cheap.
Now, where can I get a video card that works well on 16:9? The most my computer will dump on my 30" HD wide is 1280x1024. Unreal rules at 30".
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:5, Informative)
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! Dude, 720p and 1280x1024 are equivalent resolutions! Programs recorded in 720p have a resolution of 1280x720 (1.778:1 aspect ratio), at 60 frames per second progressive-scanned. Once you fit that picture inside a 4:3 aspect ratio screen, you end up with a 1280x1024 raster size running at 60 Hz.
Of course, the box you linked to will actually down-sample 1080i broadcasts to 720p for display on a computer monitor. But hey, what's a little resolution between friends?
Why can't these home theater techie-wannabes just learn how pixel resolutions work?
Why can't these computer geeks learn how video signaling works? You want a cheat sheet? Here are the common ATSC formats expressed as raster sizes just for you.
Re:Two thousand dollars for a television set? (Score:2)
Re:will Joe User want this? Joe User Responds (Score:2)
For reasons that escape me, most retailers don't actually show HD programs on their HD floor models. If you go to someplace like a Best Buy and compare the SD sets to the HD sets, you'll be very much unimpressed... because they're running the same DVD-quality demo loop on both sets.
The best way to see HD is to find a high-end retailer that caters to people with too much money and do your browsing there, or to find a friend with an HDTV and park yourself on his couch during prime time, or on a weekend when CBS is showing an SEC game.
How can they get away with blabbing about great picture, then trying to sell their product on distorting said picture?
Yeah. Horizontal stretch (or vertical squeeze, if you're stuck with a 4:3 set) is only useful for DVD's and watching Fox Digital. You should never, ever use it just to "fill the screen."
Joe User won't have a choice (Score:2)
Re:Joe User won't have a choice (Score:4, Informative)
Stations will not be allowed to sell off their analog bandwidth. The current plan calls for stations to be required to choose one channel to keep - either their existing analog channel or their paired digital channel - and return the other one to the government. Of course the government could change its mind & allow stations to keep both, but I see essentially zero inclination on Congress' part to do that.
Strictly speaking, broadcasts will not be required to be HD in 2006, nor will TV's be required to be HD. The requirement is to be digital. There's a difference. It is possible to broadcast a digital signal with the same 480-line resolution currently used by analog. And many broadcasts will stick to this standard definition digital for some time to come.
(Standard-definition digital is still a big improvement over analog. Especially because some of the dirty tricks necessary to stuff color onto the old black-and-white signal are no longer necessary with digital. I have a standard-definition digital TV tuner card [hauppauge.com], and the resulting pictures & sound are pretty incredible.)
Re:Joe User won't have a choice (Score:5, Informative)
TV stations can do whatever they want with their allotted segment of the digital spectrum. All the nets except Fox and UPN (is UPN a net now?) are broadcasting HD content at least part time, but SD programs are going to be with us for a long, long time as well. Old programs that get run in syndication, for example, will be broadcast in SD, over a digital transmission.
Interestingly, though, Mark Cuban of HDNet (and the founder of Broadcast.com, and the owner of the Dallas Mavericks) has secure the rights to go back to the original film prints of some very old shows, like Mission: Impossible and Hogan's Heroes and do new HD transfers for broadcast in 1080i. Most television programming-- except for sports and news and anything broadcast live-- has been shot on film and then transferred to video. Re-transferring those old shows in 1080i makes for some amazing looking reruns.
Sorry, I wandered off the topic there. The point is, all TV will soon be digital, and digital TV may or may not be in HD. Your existing TV will continue to work after 2006, but you'll have to have a set-top box to convert the digital signals from your antenna to analog signals for your TV, just like your cable or satellite box does now. Because the demand for these boxes will be huge, the price on them is certain to be very low, probably on the order of $50 or less.
Re:Joe User won't have a choice (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood a very key part in the Supply/Demand lecture in Econ.
Re:Joe User won't have a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Since everybody in America is going to need either a new TV or a new set-top box, and practically anybody can sell these set-top boxes, they're practically going to be giving them away.
Re:Joe User won't have a choice (Score:2)
But at the moment, it seems that they cost 10x this much. The cheapest I could find was $570 at some Yahoo store [yahoo.com].
The must-drop-analog date has been pushed back at least once due to the fact that people can't yet receive the digital signals. The networks are perfectly happy to extend the transition period as long as possible, since they get vast quantities of free bandwidth out of it.
I hope you're right. Cable has gotten very expensive, and right now I'd happily pay $50 to get over-the-air digital TV.
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please.
You know that large (40"+) widescreen HDTV sets are now less expensive than equivalently sized non-HD sets were 3 years ago? Yes, the economy was different 3 years ago, but large (36"+) sets are still one of the hottest selling consumer electronics items out there.
The newer technology sets (plasma, DLP, various other digital display methods like D-ILA) are all becoming less and less expensive, although I'll happily admit that most are still in the stratosphere.
And, know what? When color TV came out in the 50s it was "too damned expensive for most people". That was different within a decade. And since, by any reasonable estimate, you still have a decade to upgrade to DTV, the continual whining about cost is nothing but a red herring.
Bullshit (Score:2)
The main problem I see is that consumer awareness is really low. During Christmas I visited one big electronics store and of tens of HDTV sets on display there was just one displaying a picture that made high definition justice. Displaying a football or baseball game in 1080i glory would make the sets sell themselves.
On another note it surprises me how hostile the Slashdot crowd is towards HDTV. It's just the coolest consumer electronics stuff to come out in the last decade (ok, the dvd too).
Re:Congress needs to Address the NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:2)
I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.
Anybody in North America can get DirecTV, as long as you can see the southern sky. And retailers like Good Guys and Circuit City give away the equipment when you sign a 12-month contract. I got my receiver (a cheap SD-only model from RCA), my dish, and the installation for free.
Re:Congress needs to Address the NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like a true shill for the cable industry!
DirecTV is usually cheaper than cable for comparable service levels, and is available with free installation. The boxes are often free to new subscribers as well. Unlike cable, DirecTV hasn't raised their rates multiple times a year (in my town, standard cable rates have nearly doubled in the past three years, DirecTV hasn't budged.)
Rather than being a "rich man's toy", satellite TV is just as affordable as standard cable. The only caveat is that you need to be able to mount a dish that points to the correct part of the sky. Most homeowners can do this, as can many apartment dwellers.
I couldn't care less about football, but I shed no tears for the cable industry which has used its monopoly to drive up prices and drive down service quality.
The 2 things that worry me about DirectTV (Score:2)
1) I hate it when I lost reception in a bad rain or snow storm
2) (this is petty, but important to me) The dish looks like SHIT! I am one of the few techies that values the appearance of my house, and that damn dish is just butt ugly! I also wonder if it helps to paint a target on me for potential theifs (has good taste in TV programing
Other than that, it is cheaper and has a better picture than regular cable
Re:Congress needs to Address the NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:5, Informative)
I pay less for my 150 channels of DishTV than the local cable costs.
You can get free installation [dishnetwork.com] if you sign up for 1 year of service at $22.50 or above.
For an extra $50 you can get a PVR (Tivo type thingie).
Of course you still can't get NFL sunday ticket, but heck who wants to bother with football anyway? The game is boring and unwatchable unless you have a PVR and can record the game in advance and scan forward over the commercials.
NFL games are constitutionally protected? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the NFL wants to deal with something that locks out the majority of fans, then that's their bad business decision.
Why must the government get involved in this? You don't explain your reasoning on this key issue.
Re:Congress needs to Address the NFL Sunday Ticket (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But you can get NFL Sunday Ticket a la carte! (Score:5, Informative)
My family comes from Wisconsin and lives in Louisiana, so NFL Sunday Ticket looked like it would be an excellent birthday gift for my dad last year. Unfortunately, it's only available on DirecTV, and you can't go out and buy a receiver at your local store without buying a year of service or paying the $150 extra (the "penalty" for no service). Neither of those options were acceptable, so I started e-mailing, and when that went nowhere, I got on the phone.
Well, it turns out that you *can* get NFL Sunday Ticket a la carte. It is the only a la carte service DirecTV will sell you, but they *will* sell it to you (probably for the express reason of avoiding "abuse of a monopoly" lawsuits). You just go to your friendly neighborhood used stuff site (I chose eBay, as much as it pained me to finally register, hehe), and you buy a *used* receiver (or even a whole used package).
DirecTV will charge you a few bucks for a new access card (since you don't know where the old one's been, I'd definitely do that), and then when you call, you simply tell them that you want to activate a used system with *only* NFL Sunday Ticket. ("Yes, just NFL Sunday Ticket.... No, I don't want that; I just want NFL Sunday Ticket.... No, I hate TV, but I want NFL Sunday Ticket....") A few hairs later, you've got your nice system all up and running, with no additional committments.
So, if you're comfortable enough with a compass, wrench, and RG-6 tools, you can have NFL Sunday Ticket for the price of the season, a used receiver, and a new access card. Not a bad deal, at least compared to flying to Green Bay and buying, er, "resold" tickets every game.
(Oh, and as long as I'm here... "GO! PACK! GO!")
WHAT? You still watch BROADCAST?!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
AFAIK, the FCC's jurisdiction is over teh airwaves. Why do they have to approve anything dealing with cable?
Does anyone, anywhere, actually view broadcast anymore? (You know, with a set of good old rabbit ears?) If you're getting the local channels via cable, that doesn't count!
The US has certainly gone to hell in the last 25 years. The government used to at least pretend to be looking out for the interests of the public. Now it's all about maximizing the bottom line.
Whatever happened to the rule that one owner can't own more that X% of the stations in any one market? Whatever happened to the idea that in order to get a license, a station had to serve the public interest?
It's sad the our government has been infiltrated by the corporate idea that people are CONSUMERS , and forgotten the ideal that government is concerned with the welfare of its CITIZENS .
YAABOIAIHYA![*]
(In today's modern world, I feel the need to state "You're All A Bunch Of Idiots, And I Hate You All!" so often, I decided to coin this nifty, hip acronymn.
Re:WHAT? You still watch BROADCAST?!!! (Score:2)
I would suggest, "Ya'll are a bunch of idiots, and I hate you." The second, you all is redundant. You will need to change the acronym accordingly. Otherwise, I completely agree.
Re:WHAT? You still watch BROADCAST?!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer is: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. As for HDTV, count me as totally unimpressed. My 32" Toshiba TV I bought several years ago (non-HDTV) is just fine and looks beautiful. DVDs look crystal clear via S-VIDEO input, my audio gets piped in via a nice surround sound system, etc. I really honestly do not want a bigger TV since it'd be too big for my living room. I also couldn't care less about getting crystal clear broadcast HDTV of network programming for heaven's sake! Does the FCC think there are people dying to see Will and Grace in HDTV or they just can't get enough clarity in the picture watching Everybody Loves Raymond? Make a 50" widescreen TV that weighs 15lbs and that you can hand on the wall, price it at $350 and THEN come talk to me. Don't give me this bullshit about innovation and then try to sell me a $3000 TV because it's "clearer". Pffft.
Re:WHAT? You still watch BROADCAST?!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't agree with you more. The picture is fine on my tv with digital cable. DVDs are very crisp and colorful. HDTV isn't worth it to me.
Maybe their goal is to see how many old style TVs can fit into a landfill?
Why not just let HDTV take over naturally?
well, not rabbit ears (Score:3, Insightful)
The rural areas of the US have no "cable" tv, you use over the air or basically small dish, I'd say it's running roughly 50% or so around here people who have small dishes. I don't know what the breakdown is, but as a sort of rule of thumb, cable tv is very limited to only urban areas or very close to them, which leaves some huge land mass area in the US that doesn't have cable and probably never will. That's one of the tradeoffs for living where it's nice and unpopulated, if that's your gig. I swap deer in the yard and a large garden and the nearest neighbor close to 1/2 mile away for urban conveniences like cable and quickstores every hundred yards and hot and cold running crackheads and huge crime,loud, noisy, dirty, etc. Different strokes and stuff.
As to serving the public interest, hell ya! I can't tell ya how many complaints I've filed about the major broadcasters/networks. I think it sucks bad those goons get a rubber stamped license to print money year after decade after generation. They skew the news, propogandize to the detriment of the people in general, emphasize some truly weird stuff like taking up a full 1/3 of local alleged "news" 7 days a week with SPORTS? And the programming is more social engineering leading to absurd consumerism and political non-awareness than any sort of "good" near as I can see, with just a few exceptions. It's bread and circuses keep the population dumbed down in part. But, seems like most folks don't really care just accept it, home from work, start the beer buzz, veg. The globalist fatcats love it, keeps the billions rolling in, keeps the goons in power, double win for them.
Re:WHAT? You still watch BROADCAST?!!! (Score:5, Informative)
The second 'C' is for 'Communications.' For example, telephone service, which is over cable. See the FCC's Web Site [fcc.gov] to see what their jurisdiction is over.
Re:will Joe User want this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, but *NOT* by the government under any circumstances!
If NBC for example wants to only broadcast in HDTV signals that is their business, but to decree that we all must buy HDTV boxes so NBC can continue to make massive profits and undermine our control of what and/or how we watch TV is unacceptable.
Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, a consumer-friendly way of introducing copy protection (digitally encrypted DVI port), and then lowering the quality on the non-encrypted version. Don't be fooled.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I can see that is consumer freindly is the standardization, but that's a double edged sword. Somehow, i doubt it's an open standard, because if it were, the copy protection/encryption would be broken within a few hours of it's release.
broken within a few hours (Score:2, Informative)
Re:broken within a few hours (Score:2)
The set must necessarily have the knowledge necessary to do the decryption, which means that the "secret" can be extracted. The only question is how difficult this extraction process is and for how long the extracted key is useful.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Anytime the use case requires that the secret key be available on an untrusted device being operated outside of your control (and consequently within an attacker's control) then a compromise is going to happen eventually.
This is true for proprietary and open algorithims, since it's not the algorithm that is being compromised -- just the embedded secret key.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the dirty little secret of HDTV. Unless you buy a really expensive set, like I did back when I was a dot-com gazillionaire, you won't be seeing but half the resolution of the HD picture anyway. The HD picture format is far beyond what a consumer-grade picture tube can resolve.
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
The original plan, which this article does not contradict, is to only output 640p resolution on the analog ports. I can currently receive 1080i HDTV via comcast cable box.
My TV is a Toshiba 50H82 [toshiba.com], which I picked up for $1800, so its a nice HDTV, but not exactly top of the line.
I can CLEARLY see an improvement at 1080i vs the 640p of a DVD. I'm certainly not going to be happy when the next generation of cable boxes will only output at 640p. A TV isn't a computer, I shouldn't have to "upgrade" my TV after 2-3 years.
Re:Wrong. WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wrong. WRONG! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Do you have any proof to back this up, or are you just worried?
What would cable/satellite and HDTV providers have to gain by crippling these systems? They want to sell you cable/sat service and HDTV devices. Sure, TimeWarner is a huge cable company owned by a media giant, but TW isn't the only one involved.
If this agreement were made with the media companies involved, I would be more suspicious.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
As far as not allowing me to make a copy, that's fine with me. But not allowing me to time shift more than 90 minutes would be, well, completely retarded.
The Last Word (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? Why only 90 minutes? Is that limited by the size of the Tivo's hard drive, or is this a new arbitary limit on time shifting?
Re:The Last Word (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is this is a way to allow people to shift a pay-per-view event to a more convenient start time, with the 90-minute limit in place because most PPV shows repeat at least once, on a different satellite or cable channel, within that timeframe.
That is, if the next showing of Signs begins at 8:30, but your friends are coming over at 9, you can wait until 9 to watch it.
The alternative is to disallow all HD taping of ppv programs, which was (IIRC) the original plan.
david.
Re:The Last Word (Score:4, Insightful)
Because hollywood knows that the world revolves around them, and that people couldn't, for example, just get out of their house and do something else besides being planted infront of the set.
N.
"Allowed" to record!? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am currently "allowed" to record whatever the hell I want to and watch it whenever I wish. Well, maybe not allowed, but I do it. I doubt mass consumers will be pleased with such a giant step backward.
Re:"Allowed" to record!? (Score:4, Informative)
You order a PPV program and then don't watch it for a couple days? Uh... and why the hell did you order it then instead of two days from now?
Did you miss the bit that said "PPV/VOD only"? This does not apply to standard material. Not even to shows on HBO and other premium channels.
The only case I can see there being an issue is when it's the last showing of a PPV movie, and you just don't have time to watch it right now... but may tomorrow, or next week, or whenever. Then, yes, you're SOL.
There can be something of a case made for "but I wanted to watch it multiple times", but frankly, you can still dump it to tape or other recordable media (e.g. - HD). Yes, there are D-VCRs available that capture the full digital stream. Yeah, you'll have to have a cable box for one, but you're going to need a cable box to get PPV/VOD anyway, just like the article says.
So, again, what's the issue?
I just want one... (Score:2)
Hmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good news?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, REAL consumer friendly.
Re:Good news?! (Score:2)
What's the point in recording a program twice? (Score:2)
"Muhahaha! I have recorded Return to Farpoint not once, but TWICE! Now pay me ONE BILLION DOLLARS Paramount or I'll do it A THIRD TIME!"
Re:What's the point in recording a program twice? (Score:2)
Now this is pretty restrictive, but based upon how I actually live my life and record TV, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it, especially if it meant direct digital copying at 4x or something instead of real-time analog copying.
I'd be happier with unlimited copies, even if I was forced to accept a low-end (like Tivo basic quality) encoding with some artifacting.
Re:When the first recording fails (Score:2)
Nothing stops you (in the CD case) from making unlimited copies of the *original* source CD.
Re:Good news?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair use is more complex than "one copy" (Score:5, Interesting)
The big deal is that fair use is not defined as "one copy for personal use." Fair use includes making a number of copies of a very small portion of a work for commentary purposes (say, showing sixty or so seconds of footage from a movie for a webcast movie review program I create). Fair use includes making multiple copies for personal use (perhaps keeping a "master" copy of the latest Disney movie safe somewhere and then occasionally making a "play" copy to replace the last one the kids destroyed). Fair use includes making multiple copies as I format shift my copy from format to format as technology advances. Fair use includes transferring a recording from one digital video recorder I own to another. On top of that, as the copyright on works expire, these technical limitations will continue to restrict my access to public domain works. Contrary to widespread belief, there are legal, ethical reasons to make multiple copies of a work protected by copyright. Fair use is more complex than the simplistic "one copy is fair use, two or more is not" that they want to enforce on us.
Re:Fair use is more complex than "one copy" (Score:2)
Wait a second... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe I've just been dealing with cell phones for too long.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How high def should TV be? (Score:5, Funny)
Hail our benevolent HDTV masters! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Standardize digital cable TV reception in TV sets so as to eliminate set-top boxes -- meaning that your TV will, after 30 years of cable TV imprisonment, finally regain the ability to CHANGE THE DAMNED CHANNEL. Thanks, guys, but I would rather've seen you do this in 1980, when you first forced me to use your stupid boxes.
2) Mandate that any set-top box with two output connectors (analog and digital), support output to both connectors. Because there are dozens of manufacturers out there just begging to sell boxes with connectors that don't do anything. Thank you, cable TV industry, for protecting us from these monsters!
3) Place severe restrictions on the programming you can record, after putting the cable 'box' inside the TV, giving you no chance to intercept the video signal. Of course, I'm sure that cable HDTV hardware built into the TV will obey the same copying restrictions as the set-tops. Voila! Uncopyable television. It's a DRM wet dream -- total control of your viewing experience!
Thank you, oh benevolent HDTV overlords, for blessing us with thy loving oversight!
Re:Hail our benevolent HDTV masters! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure that you do have this right...
1) TV imprisonment ended at least 15 years ago; cable-ready TV freed us for non-pay NTSC programming and cable-ready HDTV will free us for non-pay HDTV programming.
2) Failing to send output through the analog connection for selected materials was a possible way to close the "analog hole." This ensures that hole remains open for non-pay HDTV.
3) My read is that this standard will make it possible for any manufacturer to construct cable-ready HDTV equipment, including Tivo and the like. The inclusion of Firewire connectors permits those digital recorders of digital signals to digitally transfer them to your digital display.
Of course, this is all concerning only "non-pay HDTV." Currently this would definitely include broadcast HDTV. Whether A&E, MTV, QVC and the rest of the "Expanded Basic Cable Service" cadre will be labeled "pay programming" when they make HDTV signals available is still up for grabs.
Re:Hail our benevolent HDTV masters! (Score:2)
Until a few years ago, my cable company scrambled all of its channels, forcing everyone to use their POS set-top box to watch TV. It didn't matter if your television set was cable-ready. Your television set was going to be permanently tuned to channel 3, the RF output of the set-top box. Even today, you have to use the set-top box to watch any of the premium channels like HBO.
Re:Hail our benevolent HDTV masters! (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital cable only made the problem an order of magnitude worse, because now there is a plausible reason for providers to *absolutely require* a set-top box, for any kind of cable television viewing. Once again, they are projecting their authority into your domain.
Originally you paid for video signals coming into your house through a wire. You were free to watch, record or timeshift the signals as you pleased.
Then came cable boxes. You still paid for the signals, but you were at the mercy of this little black box, which they controlled. It was okay though -- because you still had a signal coming out; you had the marginal freedom of doing what you wanted with the CATV signal.
What they're proposing now is that you buy a new TV, which accepts an encrypted HDTV signal and displays the contents, but obeys the restrictions they place on the viewing, recording and re-use of the contents. Now, your TV itself is their domain.
Analog support is not guaranteed!!! (Score:2)
- A crucial part of the agreement guarantees that if a set-top box has both the older analog and newer digital connectors, the signal must be sent through both
So what in this agreement says the set-top producer has to have an analog out in the first place. This agreement only states that if the box has digital and analog outs they both have to work. So they just sell the box with digital only, insta copy protection.Another thing I wish they would do is make the communication with the set-top boxes two way so the that the TV could tell the box which channel to use. What I hate most about set-top boxes today is the need use their remote and not being able to program multiple channels to record on my VCR when when I'm away. Bi-directional communication would make the use of set-top boxes moot since everthing could be controlled by the TV or VCR. The viewer would never have to see the box. Maybe the firewire port hinted to in this article will provide this capability
do you really trust them? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that whatever standards are agreed upon will favor the big players over the little ones, and be harmful to consumers and investors. Just look at the RIAA or Enron if you need proof.
It's somewhat reassuring that whatever they come up with will have to be approved by the FCC, but I somehow feel that the FCC should be the one designing the standard to begin with, to insure that everything is fair and impartial.
Re:do you really trust them? (Score:2)
Yes, it's a good thing we've got an administration that will safeguard citizens' rights over the predations of big nasty corpor -- oh, wait...
Now..watch the MPAA, RIAA and Congress GUT this! (Score:2)
Digital recording... (Score:2)
I think that the ideal solution would be for the population to be able to record, in High Definition, an original copy. However, I think that Hollywood could say that I cannot make a digital copy of that copy. If I wanted to down-convert (to a normal VCR), of course I would be able to.
I want that one digital copy, though.
Yes, I realize that would break this limit to allow for other distribution. Right now sharing High Definition programming in an uncompressed format (or even a lossless compression format) is simply not possible given today's bandwidth concerns. So most people are going to have to record, compress, and then share. While Hollywood would fight this, they can always use the argument "Anyone who wants to be able to record can right now, legally, using digtal recording hardware available at Best Buy!" (assuming, of course, that things capable of recording High Definition in its native format to allow that first copy). Also, there would be less incentive to share, since I could always record off air (or cable, or satellite) in a better format than I could download.
Yes, I also realize that the bandwidth issue is not to be assumed forever. In the forseeable future, though, I think that Hollywood could use it to its advantage.
Re:Digital recording... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think anyone should be able to limit what I can do with my own equipment. If someone chooses to break the law by copying and distributing copyrighted material, they should be the ones to receive punishment, not the rest of us who just want to archive our favorite television show.
I'm tired of seeing all this "Rights Management" bullshit on consumer electronics. Why are the recording industry's rights more important than the consumers'? The people who REALLY hurt the entertainment industry by pirating are the ones that mass-produce bootleg DVD's and sell them on the black market, and those people aren't affected by any of these restrictions on consumer equipment anyway.
Do NOT impose that restriction on camcorders (Score:2)
I think that the ideal solution would be for the population to be able to record, in High Definition, an original copy. However, I think that Hollywood could say that I cannot make a digital copy of that copy. If I wanted to down-convert (to a normal VCR), of course I would be able to. I want that one digital copy, though.
They tried that with DAT, requiring recorders to implement a serial copy prevention system that refuses to make a digital copy of a digital copy. Recording artists found that they couldn't circumvent the system even for recordings that they made legitimately.
Implementing a serial copy prevention system on a digital video format will only make that format unsuitable for use by families making home movies. "What? I can't make copies of this wedding tape for the family? That's bullshit. I'm not buying Sony again."
Re:Do NOT impose that restriction on camcorders (Score:3, Informative)
The "copying bit" idea is probably the best idea. Breakable, in the end, but once again, Hollywood simply needs to go after the people that break it. Have a bit set in each broadcast that says "recordable, not copyable". Anything you make has that same bit set to "recordable, copyable."
No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:5, Interesting)
While the agreement allows program providers to prevent any recording of pay-per-view or video-on-demand programs, users of hard-disk-based recorders like TiVo would be allowed to record and then watch such a program up to 90 minutes later.
So much for fair use. Unless they agree to allow people access to the signals for whatever purpose they want, then it's NOT consumer friendly.
With the signal that comes out of my DirecTV box (which, for the sake of argument, is no different than a cable box), I can...
- Record it on a TiVo-like device
- Record it on a VCR
- Split it and re-direct it to other parts of my house
- Send it via analog wireless a receiver elsewhere in the house
- Record it on a PC
If I can't do those things, all of which I do regularly (except for the VCR), then this is NOT a consumer friendly solution.
A digital connection is fine... as long as there's absolutely NO restrictions on what I can do with that data. There are already laws against me saving a copy and sharing it with the world over the internet. They really need to just leave it at that.
-S
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:5, Interesting)
90 minutes is too short of a time to be forced to watch a program. I know that when I record a show or block of shows I probably will be watching them the next day, or why would I be recording them in the first place? (the only stuff I usually watch could be considered "late-night" shows) Or sometimes I record for 4 days in a row (in the case of rally racing on the Speed channel) to watch it all at once when my schedule allows.
They are touting a "consumer friendly" standard, but only allowing 90 minutes to view a recorded "restricted" show is not very friendly.
Now before you flame me, I realize that a pay-per-view or on-demand movie is supposed to work around your schedule but my chief concern is once they see how well it (may) work they might extend it to classify other programs as "restricted viewing" and impose the same 90 minute rule.
But heck, at least they didn't totally say "No recording pay-per-view or on-demand programs"
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:2)
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:2)
I think a lot of people are confused by this limitation. My interpretation is that this kind of restriction is only placed on pay-per-view materials which are rebroadcast every hour anyway; if you wanted to watch it later, you'd record it later.
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:2)
If you can't legally make a copy of a movie you rent, then what is the big deal about not making a recording of a movie you order on PPV. They start every 30-60 minutes and play for a while. Or you can just go out and rent it thru blockbuster or netflix.
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:2)
Re:No! Not consumer friendly! (Score:2)
Maybe I'm the only one here who is OK with distinguishing pay and non-pay programming, but my interpretation is that the fair use limitations apply only to pay-per-view/video-on-demand. This pact doesn't even cement those limitations; it simply defers its resolution while giving us fair use for non-pay programming.
this isn't compliant with the hdcp license itself (Score:5, Informative)
sections 3.3/3.4 clearly state that it's not legal to have a dvi/hdcp receiver with any analog outputs (save 16/48 audio).
not having dvi on your set (or not having a mitsubishi 'promise') is nigh a death knell for future hdtv compliance.
here [hometheaterhifi.com] is an excellent writeup on the present situation
Re:this isn't compliant with the hdcp license itse (Score:4, Informative)
You would not be able to pass the signal through the TV to make it analog (except with a camcorder or some soldering), but you can certainly make a device that has both an HDCP output and an analog output.
-Alison
"Digital" Cable in my area is a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
I was delighted to see the Dolby Digital logo on the front of the box. Finally I can watch Band of Brothers in 5.1... wrong. AT&T (well, now their cable TV is owned by ComCast) craftily has put metal slots over the coaxial out (not the cable, but the digital audio connection, just not TOSLINK) and S-video outs on the back of the box. A friend and I opened the thing up and noticed the ports aren't there at all.
I called AT&T to see what was going on and they said I had to special order a box with digital connections. And it would cost me an extra $10/month.
heh. (Score:5, Funny)
-- Mark Twain
Re:heh. (Score:2, Interesting)
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
-Adam Smith
Tivo? (Score:2)
Why are hard-disk-based recorders singled out? If I make a PVR out lots and lots of flash memory that's OK?
What about analog only? (Score:2)
Consumer Friendly? Retailer Freindly, maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not consumer friendly to integrate the STB with the monitor. It will make it easier to sell though.
HDTV's are monitors, and why that is seen as a problem I don't really understand. So the STB is integrated into the set, what does this mean? Only thing it means to me is you don't have a separate box. You'll still have to pay for the components, they're just inside the TV instead of next to it.
I'd rather have a monitor capable of 1080i and 540p or 720p that simply has component video in along with a STB that handles the conversions and outputs to a resolution my monitor can display. This way I can feed my component video to any device that supports it and display or record it if I wish.
It does not benifit me to have a TV that traps the signal, and provides no output or limitted output. It may seem easier if I just need to plug one cable into the TV, but it certainly doesn't benifit consumers beyond initial setup ease.
What would be consumer friendly is a recording device that could take a 1080i, 540p, or 720p signal and record it and replay it in the same format.
Don't let them fool you, this is retailer and provider friendly. It will help cable providers keep their "you don't need and extra box" advertising fodder, the networks by preventing you from recording programming, and retailers, not consumers.
HDTV tuner PCI card? (Score:3, Interesting)
HDTV tuners for the "HDTV capable" sets are 'way expensive.
I don't see HDTV making serious inroads until the price differential with NTSC gets ~$100. Until HDTV becomes very popular, there's no way the FCC can reallocate [autction] the spectrum.
Re:HDTV tuner PCI card? (Score:2)
STB's right now run in the $500 range. By '06 they'll be in the $75 range. You just won't be able to use that portable 2.5" TV anymore.
HDCP is lame (Score:3, Informative)
Check out Niels Ferguson's Censorship in action: why I don't publish my HDCP results [macfergus.com]
DVI or Firewire? (Score:2)
Why Does DVI prevent copying? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't you simply record the video on your HD-TiVo of the future in encrypted form, then play it back in encrypted form, which the TV can then decrypt?
Most of us are interested in making copies for timeshifting or backup or whatever. If every TV on earth can decrypt the file, just save it encrypted and you can still timeshift it.
What's wrong with this idea?
Who still watches TV anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know that there are millions and millions of zombies out there who spend their lives in front of "Survivor" or whatever crap they are being told to watch by the network marketing droids. This only proves my point: TV is what people do who are too dumb to use a computer.
Seriously. What is there to watch? News? Get your news off of the Internet (Fellow Americans: Try the BBC [bbc.co.uk] for a serious eye-opener about what CNN, Fox, and Time Warner don't think you should be interested in). Sitcoms? The only thing that even comes close to being entertaining for people with an IQ over 60 is "Buffy", and you're better off waiting for the DVD version anyway, unless you're into watching ads every five minutes. Information? Yeah, the "Discovery Channel" is nice, but it can't compete with this cool technology call "books". Films? Get the DVD, they don't have the commercials and they don't have half of the stuff hacked out to make the censorship people happy. With the money you've been paying those cable people, you could have had surround sound years ago.
Anybody who is willing to pay a company to let themselves be bombarded with commercials is getting what he or she deserves. Screw TV in analog or digital: You have a computer, or else you wouldn't be reading this; all you need now is a DVD player and a bookshop. If you are a TV zombie, you shouldn't be on Slashdot anyway.
No External Set-Top Boxes... (Score:2, Insightful)