• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

HDTV by 2007?

Jade Jaguar

Regular
A Federal court has ruled that TVs must include DTV tuners by 2007. It will be phased in, with the larger TVs having them first. Manufacturers object, because they say that a tuner isn't needed for cable or satellite, and only 15% of TVs use antennas, that is receive broadcast TV, any more. The judge says that there is a log jam, in that TV stations don't want to produce programming in HD since few can receive it, and people don't want to buy HDTV, since there is little broadcast in HD.

I'm with the judge. Cable has been slow to add HDTV, for various reasons, such as how much bandwidth it needs, but also because there hasn't been any competition from broadcast. This may spur competition. Sony is starting to sell blue laser HDDVD in Japan. Maybe HD will finally take off. What do you think?
 
Alien to you, well, yes it was a US ruling, and the US mandated by law to move to HDTV. How about Europe, and elsewhere? Where does HDTV stand outside the US? I believe that Japan is starting with it, but I know no details. Is there any broadcasting, or HDTV sales elsewhere?
 
This may spur competition. Sony is starting to sell blue laser HDDVD in Japan. Maybe HD will finally take off. What do you think?

Joe may well give better detail than I on this, but...
It appears that the DVD Forum has decided that the blue lasers are just too expensive for now. The Nikkei Shimbun (Japanese business paper) is reporting that they are going to develop the existing red laser system and add some internet connection features.

Considering that in Japan the broadband suppliers are fighting over selling 8 Megabit links for the same prices the UK pays for half meg links, I can see that internet connections could very easily become a valid delivery system.

Forcing all TV manufacturers to do the same thing at the same time is fair and wise since it means none gains a particular advantage by not spending money on adding the feature.
In the UK we are all being asked to spend £100 on getting a digital reciever with which to get the 'free' TV channels that we can currently get via analogue anyway. Unsurprisingly it's not been too sucessful.
 
Well, not just that it was US-based, but I don't think we have HDTV at all in the UK. I've never encountered it.
 
High Definition TeleVision and it looks lovely. Basically it digitally compresses a TV picture with a resolution of 1080 horizontal lines into the same space that an analogue NTSC broadcast uses for its 480 horizontal lines. The result is a much clearer output, and in widescreen too.
:)

Ant, HDTV has been hanging around the edges for a long time. Euro1080 is the latest attempt to get some momentum going. The World Cups in Japan and France were recorded in HD format. The problem we have in the UK is that we've maxed out our analogue stations and digital hasn't really been accepted outside of satellite. Like the fact that our trains could go much faster but the rails can't handle it, we have to sort out the delivery system before anything else can move.
 
TV stations don't want to produce programming in HD since few can receive it, and people don't want to buy HDTV, since there is little broadcast in HD.

Which is a Catch-22, as the networks might not be broadcasting much HDTV because so few people have it because it's optional and expensive.

Hopefully this will help kick it into the mainstream.
 
Wow! I cancelled my "basic" cable last year because there was never anything to watch, and it was only $40. I guess I was getting off cheaply. :eek:
 
Yea, that's pretty cheap cable. I pay about $38 a month for extended basic service. It'll go up soon when I switch to high speed internet via the cable. :eek:
 
I would like to see the FCC require local television stations to broadcast DTV/HDTV signals on their assigned digital channels by the end of this year.
 
Wouldn't they be broadcasting DTV over their digital channels anyway? I don't know about the US but there's very little HDTV content in europe afaik.
 
Swift Biscuit, I think you're wrong. Although there is compression involved, I believe that HDTV uses about four times as much bandwidth as analog TV. That is why cable and satelite have been slow to start up. My local Comcast offers several HDTV channels, about 6 or 8, for $5 additional per month. It includes premium channels, but you don't have to also pay for the regular premium channels to get HD. That is an incredible deal, which surely can't last.

GKE, that catch 22 is exactly my, and the judge's point.

Kraig, there is a date by which all broadcasters are supposed to be offering HD and digital signals, 2006, or 07, I think. And another, I think, more flexible date, by which they are supposed to end analog broadcasts. I saw a Philips HDTV ready (no tuner) for $300 at Sam's Club today. :D Several companies make HD DVHS VCRs right now, Marantz, JVC, and Panasonic, perhaps more. They will also play VHS and SVHS. Wish I could afford one.
 
SwiftBiscuit, I think you're wrong.
Sadly that happens far too often for my liking :)

Although there is compression involved, I believe that HDTV uses about four times as much bandwidth as analog TV.

The FCC says otherwise (I took a while finding a source that would be considered reliable).
FCC:
DTV is a more flexible and efficient technology than the current analog system. In the same bandwidth in which a broadcaster provides one analog programming channel, a broadcaster may provide a super sharp "high definition" (HDTV) program or multiple "standard definition" DTV programs simultaneously.
An easier to read but not so reliable a source is an article at PlasmaTVBuyingGuide.com.

My local Comcast offers several HDTV channels, about 6 or 8, for $5 additional per month. It includes premium channels, but you don't have to also pay for the regular premium channels to get HD. That is an incredible deal, which surely can't last.
From what I read on that service they only have a handful of shows that are in HDTV, the rest are in SDTV. That's still far in advance of what's on offer here, though! And I'm not envious. Nope. Not one bit.
:p
I have been pleased at the take up of widescreen here, but I worry that having forked out on new widescreen TVs people will not be willing to pay again for HDTV widescreen TVs. It might have set back HDTV take up in the UK for a few years.
:(

Kraig, there is a date by which all broadcasters are supposed to be offering HD and digital signals, 2006, or 07, I think. And another, I think, more flexible date, by which they are supposed to end analog broadcasts.
FCC again:
FCC's DTV FAQ:
12. How long will it take for the conversion to DTV? What is the schedule for conversion to DTV?
The FCC established an accelerated schedule for the introduction of DTV. Pursuant to this schedule, most Americans will have some access to DTV by 1999 and everyone in this country will have DTV access by the year 2002. At the same time, analog service will also continue until 2006. After the end of this transition period, broadcasters will broadcast only DTV.
The 2002 date appears to be running a bit late. Interesting how 9/11 has effected even this.

The UK originally had a similar timescale to the US for its DTV roll out (but using a different format from the US of course!). It's had to settle for a longer switchover period though as it won't reach the magic 95% penetration figure until 2010 at best.
As for HDTV, I would expect Sky satellite service to be the first to push HDTV broadcasting in the UK as a per-per-view feature or an extension to its Sky+ (Tivo-alike) product. However, since the displays are so expensive I can only see them being bought by Home Cinema enthusiasts rather than Sky's normal market. Which brings us back around to Blu-ray DVDs.

I saw a Philips HDTV ready (no tuner) for $300 at Sam's Club today.
You did? Email me next time you see something like that, I'll take seven! :D
The cheapest I see there now is a 32" philips for $933, I can't tell if that's capable of 1080i HDTV though.
And that's another thing, Fox seems to be pumping out the 720p resolution rather than going the whole hog and doing 1080i like other broadcasters. Yes it's technically HDTV, but why on earth have they got the same label for two different levels of DTV? 1080i should be relabelled as HDTVe for enhanced or something. Grrrrrr.
 
Just as a note, it's unlikely that the European Parliament would allow the UK to make digital tuners mandatory in our TV sets (and who says we are an independent country?) but there is talk of having a tax break for them. Not that it's like Labour to have tax cuts on anything at the moment.

The UK is quite split between using the tuners inside TVs as all TVs do have them. The roll out of digital is being done via set-top boxes at the moment; be that cable, satellite or the 'freeview' decoders needed for the digital antenna broadcasts. I could imagine them being faded out completely in fact, something that is directly against the FCC's “plug-and-play” approach in the states.
 
Swift Biscuit, I think you're wrong. Although there is compression involved, I believe that HDTV uses about four times as much bandwidth as analog TV. That is why cable and satelite have been slow to start up. My local Comcast offers several HDTV channels, about 6 or 8, for $5 additional per month. It includes premium channels, but you don't have to also pay for the regular premium channels to get HD. That is an incredible deal, which surely can't last.

The Sacramento stations have in the space of one analog channel:
Fox is able to get 2 HDTV channels (one in Spanish, the other in English).
PBS has 1 HDTV channel and 2 DTV channels.
NBC has the NBC program in HDTV and the WB program in DTV on the same channel.
CBS has 1 HDTV channel, and the same programming shifted one hour earlier on a DTV channel.

Kraig, there is a date by which all broadcasters are supposed to be offering HD and digital signals, 2006, or 07, I think. And another, I think, more flexible date, by which they are supposed to end analog broadcasts. I saw a Philips HDTV ready (no tuner) for $300 at Sam's Club today. :D Several companies make HD DVHS VCRs right now, Marantz, JVC, and Panasonic, perhaps more. They will also play VHS and SVHS. Wish I could afford one.

That date will no doubt be pushed further back.

According to a timetable established in 1997 by the FCC, by the year 2006, all SDTV TV stations in the U.S. are to be phased out in favor of DTV (digital television) stations. At that time, the present SDTV channels are scheduled to go off the air and the spectrum space will be reassigned to services such as wireless phone carriers.

Even though a 2006 date has been mandated, it's doubtful that of all of the U.S. stations will be converted by that time.
 
Kraig, unfortunately that article seems quite confused and that quote is in fact wrong! The switchover is from analogue to digital carriers, not from SDTV resolution to HDTV. They seem to have combined SDTV and analogue into one thing whereas most broadcasts over digital will still be in the NTSC-like standard definition (SDTV). They also hardly mention the 720p format of HDTV.

According to HD Pictures, NBC and CBS use the 1080i format while ABC and FOX use the 720p format. I'm not sure how NBC and CBS have two digital channels in one space if that's the case.
 
SB, thanks for digging up some accurate sources. I would point out that you left out the part where the FCC says that analog broadcasts won't end until 85% of an area has HDTV receivers. That's what I meant about a more flexible date to end analog transmissions. Also, the 2002 date for everyone to be have HDTV in an area doesn't mean that all outlets would be digital by then, but at least one of the major ones. Obviously, that goal has fallen by the wayside.

As to how much band width HDTV takes up, I certainly don't dispute your source, but I am mystified. I have read over and over again in the press that HDTV takes more bandwidth, usually they say about four times as much. When the new area of the broadcast spectrum was alloted to broadcasters in the US for free, many said that they should have paid, especially since the amount of bandwidth they were being given was bigger than the analog that they would eventually return. I have also read about the greater bandwidth need repeatedly in connection with why cable and satelite providers were reluctant to carry HDTV, since they prefered to show several analog channels in place of one HD. That part could possibly be explained by the fact that one HD digital signal can carry several standard definition channels, so in that sense HDTV does need more space than an SD DTV signal.

The real problem here is that when the US Gov. was supposed to set a standard for the system, they sort of threw up their hands and approved 17 or 18 of them, to supposedly satisfy everyone. But that makes tuners more dificult and expensive to make, more confusing for the consumer, and there isn't even a standard connector yet! NO wonder it is taking so long to get going.

I do think I know how to get the low end of the adoption curve to buy wide screen HDTVs quickly though. If all analog TV started broadcasting everything in the new aspect ratio, the resulting black bars would drive those people crazy, and they would buy a new TV to get rid of them!
 
Back
Top