Re: Cable HD TV Systems

Private Citizen wrote:
>
> In rec.video.cable-tv, Msg ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Corporate American Citizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
>
> Private Citizen wrote:
> >
> > > I also heard that there is a plan circulating to "transition" both
> > > broadcast and cable sytems over the next 5-10 years to 100% HD TV.
> >
> > No.  The only transition plan presently in effect is one that requires
> > all analog over-the-air television signals in America to cease by 2006.
>
> Any idea what will happen if consumers don't buy into the HD scam?

Not buying into it would assume they realize it's a scam.  They'll buy
into it.  They do into everything else.  The realization part will only
happen once it's too late, once all the copy-protection is turned on.

> The real advantage of digital signals is the ability to control access
> the content, isn't it.

There are two reasons why digital television is being pushed.

Money.  Digital compression permits greater channel capacity within
mediums whose carrying capacities are inherently fixed (the amount of
usable spectrum on cable systems, the number of available transponders
on commercial television satellites, etc.).  With digital television,
Viacom gets to reap more profit by launching 7 MTVs, and Comcast gets
to reap more sales by convincing us that we can't live without them.

Control.  Digital signals inherently offer the power to control access
to and redistribution of information.  No more making tapes of "The
Sopranos" or "Scrubs".  You will just have to pay for HBO's and NBC's
commercial DVDs.  And no more recording CNN during live coverage of
wars, terrorist attacks, or other political events, where the public
might otherwise capture accidental airings of things that ultimately
embarrass (or incriminate) the various political administrations.  A
myriad of possible bad uses exist for recording-denial/copy-protection
technologies, and everyone can rest assured that each of them will be
exploited to its fullest potential.

I have long believed that the promise of "high-definition pictures on
every channel" is nothing more than a lure to convince the public to
abandon analog for digital.  DirecTV, Dish Network, and even many CATV
systems are struggling for bandwidth.  There just isn't any way they
can offer HDTV versions of more than a handful of channels with current
compression technology.  The public doesn't really know that, however.
It will ultimately buy into digital television thinking that HD video
will appear on every channel "any time now."  I think that the actual
outcome will differ.  Once enough people have left analog, those analog
transmissions will disappear, and all of the hidden recording-denial/
copy-protection technology within the new digital ones will be switched
on simultaneously.  At that point, the public will be trapped with no
analog to revert back to.  HDTV development will then stall, and likely
40 years will pass before anywhere near "every channel" is really "HD."
(Case in point: stereo has been around since the 1950s, and yet there
are still cable systems transmitting 90% of their channels in mono.)

Of course, none of this compares to the copy-protection and controls
they are now preparing to embed in all future computer hardware.  Take
a look at <http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>, and
in every situation where the author asserts the "benefits," think of
the reprocussions.  The ability to delete an undesirable document from
every PC on earth simultaneously certainly doesn't sound like anything
that is going to benefit the average person, for example.

> Wont this merely serve to privatice the airwaves?

Old news.  Privatization of the public airwaves (along with monopoly
media power creation) was accomplished by the telecom act of 1996.

> Is digital Radio the next "new frontier"?

Yes.  IBOC and similar schemes are now being deployed on AM and FM to
digitize those bands as well.

> > Cable system operators are not bound by that requirement, though.
> > They will be free to continue offering analog signals over their
> > systems for as long as they desire.
>
> Yeah... Sure.

No, really.  Cable operators are completely free to offer analog for
however long they wish, as far as the government cares.  Whether the
entertainment industry begins to coerce them into shutting down their
analog services sooner rather than later, though, is another matter.

> > Even if your local cable service does shut down its analog signals at
> > some point, then you could still rely upon the fact that their rental
> > descrambler boxes would offer analog outputs for older TVs.
>
> But they reserve the right to NOT sell them, at least mine will NOT.

Who cares.  Buying cable receivers is a waste of money.  Unlike over-
the-air broadcast television, cable scrambling/transmission/encryption
can be fully proprietary from one system to the next.  Especially so
within the digital cable systems.  If you move elsewhere, or if your
cable company arbitrarily switches to another vendor's products, your
customer-owned box will become a $200 doorstop.  Even though renting a
box is a financial disadvantage at the outset, you will wind up ahead
the moment your cable company suddenly decides upon a new scrambling
system (mine has switched from Zenith PZ-1 to Scientific Atlanta 8510X
to Motorla DCT-2224 boxes within the space of just 8 years), or when
that box is roasted by lightning, etc.

Unfortunately, in the world of cable, renting versus buying is cheaper
in the long run.

> > > 2. Apparently the "over the air" broadcaters will join the "digital"
> > > age. Is it legal for me to attach such a device to my antenna, and
> > > cable, and continue to use the TVs I now own..
> >
> > For antenna reception, yes, you will be able to purchase digital-to-
> > analog converters at most electronics stores and attach them legally.
>
> Is that a "promise" of things to come?

Those converters already exist.  The digital television newsgroups will
surely have people who can cite specific examples (manufacturers, model
numbers, prices).