[opendtv] Re: HD Video -- Bad for consumers, Bad for Hollywood?
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:44:23 -0400
At 5:34 PM -0400 9/27/06, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Strange mix of ideas, IMO. I don't disagree that DRM is an unholy mess,
but to go from there to saying that HD video is a bad idea seems, uh,
ludicrous. It sounds like someone trying to say that we should have
stuck with 78 RPM records and 5 KHz, 30 dB dynamic range AM radio.
It's an opinion piece, Bert, and on the whole Cory makes a lot of good
points.
If you look at current realities, HD is ONLY having a significant
impact in ONE area - SPORTS.
See HD's killer app?
http://broadcastengineering.com/beyond_the_headlines/broadcasting_hds_killer_app/
The movie business is still driven by standard definition DVDs, and
this is not likely to change any time soon for a number of reasons,
some of which were covered in the column. As I've been saying for
years, movies are not about resolution. Add to this the DRM issues,
cost and bad press associated with HD-DVD and BD, and you can see
that they are not going to take off any time soon. The current
generation of DVD is more than adequate to deliver movies to the big
screen in the family room.
HD is not bad. What is BAD is the way that it is being used to prop
up industries that have WAY TOO MUCH power among those of the
political persuasion. As a result we have virtually unused
terrestrial broadcast system that ties up an incredible amount of
beach front spectrum, copyright laws that abuse citizens and the
Constitutional mandate for copyright, and overpriced wireless
telecommunications services that are FAR from being reliable.
One can realistically argue that the vast majority of what is being
called HDTV today is little better than what is possible with a good
480P signal. Apparently this reality was not lost on Sir Stevie and
Apple.
Contrary to what he says, the Brits and other Europeans are introducing
or have introduced HDTV already. In some cases, it's available only over
DBS, but it's there.
The transition to improved image quality is inevitable, whether you
want to call it EDTV or HDTV. Cory correctly points out the success
of the approach taken in Europe, especially the U.K., where the
public spectrum is being used to provide a competitive service
instead of abused to protect a dying legacy system. The transition to
HD in Europe is being driven by the availability of affordable high
quality displays, not the perceived need to protect every interlaced
CRT until it dies ( I just lost another one last week - it is sitting
next to an expensive CRT computer monitor that dies six months ago).
But then, the Europeans have always enjoyed a better terrestrial TV
delivery system than the U.S.
As to the spectrum grab stuff, that's the same misleading argument we've
heard for a decade or more. Broadcasters are going to be making do with
less spectrum, not more. I wonder why he doesn't make that clear. I
guess it sounds more dramatic to say that the broadcasters grabbed more
spectrum, and leave what should be obvious unsaid.
There is NOTHING misleading (or incorrect) about the information that
Cory provided about the hoarding and misuse of spectrum by
broadcasters. We have been dealing with this spectrum grab and
misuse since the early '80s. MOre than twenty years have passed and
virtually nothing has changed, EXCEPT that broadcasters are now
allocated 12 MHz instead of 6 MHz.
Here we are just 28 months from the theoretical end of NTSC service,
and broadcasters still are doing nothing to promote the replacement
service. But they ARE using Must carry/retransmission consent to
generate hundreds of millions in revenue for what is ostensibly a
FREE service.
I cannot get the HD version of ABC from my cable system because the
station wants too much money per subscriber to let Cox deliver the
service. Even Bert would have a hard time justifying the illogical
explanation that WCJB-TV is just trying to encourage viewers to buy
an ATSC receiver so that they can watch the HD version.
The facts are obvious:
1. Full power broadcasters in the U.S. now control 12 MHz of
spectrum, not 6 MHz.
1a. Despite the current legislative deadline in February of 2009,
there is little confidence that this deadline will be upheld.
2. If and when the transition to DTV is finished, each broadcaster
will still control 6 MHz of spectrum AND the industry will still
control the VHF band and 230 MHz of the UHF band.
2a. This spectrum will continue to be used inefficiently to protect
from co-channel interference ( i.e. market-into-market interference).
2b. The industry is fighting (again) to prevent the FCC from allowing
unlicensed devices to share the unused channels in every market. See:
http://www.mstv.org/docs/NAFrebuttal.pdf
3. Spectrum auctions in the 700 MHz spectrum (currently occupied by
broadcasters) have been legislated then cancelled numerous times. The
next attempt may occur in 2007.
Meanwhile we are paying through the nose for wireless services that
are artificially inflated because of the greed of the politicians to
generate revenue from "the rest of the spectrum."
I find his big screen argument, towards the end, also to be iffy, if not
bogus. Big screens may be used as a large desktop, sure. As they are in
a computer. But big screens are also used as the alternative to movie
theaters, that people have largely abandoned. And for guys to impress
their friends with live sports. Not JUST for multiple different windows
at all.
The notion of having multiple windows open for multiple users is
indeed a stretch. But the notion of having multiple applications
(windows) running to enhance the use of the big screen is NOT a
stretch. This has already been happening for more than a decade with
broadcast services (e.g. the tickers that run across the bottom of
the screen and all of the graphics that accompany sports broadcasts.
It is entirely feasible and desirable to allow users to set up
multiple services on that big screen display. There is a world of RSS
feeds out there that can provide updates about weather, sports
scores, stocks, etc. I suspect the ability to bring up a window
showing what the kids are doing in their bedrooms, with their
integrated computer/TV would be very popular with parents.
I would not discount the possibilities for the big screen, when it is
properly integrated with home networks and high speed broadband
connections. It looks like next year things will get very interesting
in this space.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: