HD TV Rant.

[LCHIEN]

Yeah, so I'm trying to decide if i want to keep this AT&T Uverse service.

One low point for me is that there are 27 High def channels available but just a little after 9PM tonight, Saturday, I counted exactly 7 programs that actually had HD content on those 27 channels. That includes premium HD movie channels. I am right now watching the Houston Texans-Dallas Cowpokes preseason NFL game and it is NOT in HD.

When exactly are we supposed to be making this transition?
How many years did it take for 50% of prime-time programs to be broadcast in color?

For this they want $10 a month.
I already own a set-top box and an antenna and I can get what few programs are broadcast in HD already, for free.

I guess I'm not in a hurry to buy any more HD TVs.

[mpc]

Yup, right now only high-rating programs typically are broadcast in HD. Or maybe the "NFL game of the week" is HD while the same network uses standard definition for other games. They have zillions of dollars worth of "old" cameras, trucks, etc. so they've been dragging their corporate feet while most households still have only "old" standard-def TVs.

And what the cable/satellite/etc. providers don't tell you is how much they compress the signal. Digital TV is compressed using a lossy compression scheme: some detail is permanently lost to make the data stream smaller. Just like JPEG (.jpg) digital photos: you can sacrifice detail to get smaller files. The satellite guys are really under pressure to compress HD feeds by a lot - many existing satellites don't have the bandwidth needed for dozens/hundreds of HD channels. New satellites have more HD capacity. Cable generally suffers the same way too. Newer fiber based cable (optical/light cables) has lots of bandwidth. Over-the-air HDTV typically is compressed the least... so if you get good reception that's the way to go.

You'll notice the compression artifacts during motion scenes, in static images with subtle graduations (e.g. a blue sky that fades from light blue to dark blue) that instead display as distinct bands of different shades, and loss of fine details.

mpc

[Ken Massingale]

Yeah, so I'm trying to decide if i want to keep this AT&T Uverse service.

One low point for me is that there are 27 High def channels available but just a little after 9PM tonight, Saturday, I counted exactly 7 programs that actually had HD content on those 27 channels. That includes premium HD movie channels. I am right now watching the Houston Texans-Dallas Cowpokes preseason NFL game and it is NOT in HD.

When exactly are we supposed to be making this transition?
How many years did it take for 50% of prime-time programs to be broadcast in color?

For this they want $10 a month.
I already own a set-top box and an antenna and I can get what few programs are broadcast in HD already, for free.

I guess I'm not in a hurry to buy any more HD TVs.

"When exactly are we supposed to be making this transition?
How many years did it take for 50% of prime-time programs to be broadcast in color?"

Loring, If you are referring to the Analog/Digital transition, that is only a transition to Digital. Digital does not mean Hi Definition. As mpc said OTA signals are the best, but some local channels are more HiDef savey than others and there is a difference in network quality. CBS is playing catch-up, IMO.

[goslin23]

I too have AT&T Uverse (I'm not too far from you right off the Westpark Tollway). I was a little disapointed that the game last night wasn't in hi-def as well. I have something like 20 movie channels and yet I'd rather watch a dvd because I can at least get those in a native wide screen format (not necessarily in hi-def). At least the standard def channels are much clearer and the sound is a bit better than Comcast was and it's a good bit cheaper too. I have the top package they offer for TV that includes all the movie channels, sports channels, HD channels, 3 set top boxes (one is a dvr), a wireless modem and 3/1 internet that's about $40/mo less than I was paying for Comcast without any movie channels. Of course this is all with a free month trial, I'll be downgrading the movie package just keeping HBO.

Uverse will improve as time goes by as they release more bandwith and add the additional features such as multiple HD channels, whole house dvr, voip etc. I have FTTP (fiber to the premise), so I have the capabilty to have an enormous amount of bandwith for future expansion, at least that's what I understand. Unfortunatley, not all homes getting Uverse have FTTP. Many are FTTN (fiber to the node) where they bring the fiber optic cable to within a certain distance then run copper to the house thus limiting the amount of bandwith available (a big mistake of AT&T imho).

Uverse is fairly new and is having some growing pains as they roll out the service, but I think its potential outweighs the negatives and I'll be sticking with it.

-=gos=-

[LCHIEN]

"When exactly are we supposed to be making this transition?
How many years did it take for 50% of prime-time programs to be broadcast in color?"

Loring, If you are referring to the Analog/Digital transition, that is only a transition to Digital. Digital does not mean Hi Definition. As mpc said OTA signals are the best, but some local channels are more HiDef savey than others and there is a difference in network quality. CBS is playing catch-up, IMO.

I'm really talking about the transition to Hidef, that requires new equip like color did. well, I guess digital does, too, but I can see they'e made that transitition - as MPC noted, to save money (money=bandwidth), I have seen the artifacts of digital compression (I'm an electrical engineer) for years - particularly for me the artifacts are annoying when they pan across a crowd, or at a certain distance the numbers on the jersey's break up a certain way... I have noticed this sadly for years on ordinary beoadcast low-def analong TV channels where the stuff has gone thru a studio or satellite and become digital-afflicted. But that's a separate rant.

I guess since money=bandwidth, as well as the cost of equipment, HiDef will cost them more in bandwidth. That's why its taking so long to change over, or maybe its the recycled content...

[atgcpaul]

This is exactly the reason why I haven't gone HD yet. I lust after those new
TVs everytime I go shopping but 1) I don't want to pay extra for HD channels
I'll never watch (sports anything) 2) watching regular TV on an HD screen looks
horrible. For now I'm going to wait it out.

Paul

[davethegolfer]

HD - Great but a long wait

I was told that I bought the second HDTV in Houston in 96 or 97. It finally gave out before a lot of programming was available. I now have a front projector that is HD with a 100" screen on the wall. It is great. The delay in HD programming is one of the greatest con jobs by the networks and local stations in US history.

I was spending time on the hill lobbying (in a different area) when the debate was going on. The government wanted to move to digital and to recapture much of the analog bandwidth used by the tv industry for better cross communications between police, fire, fema, etc. Their communications problems are driven by insufficient bandwidth in the range where they need it. Therefore, it was agreed that the networks and their affiliates would be given additional bandwidth that would have had very large value if offered for sale. The quid pro quo was that they would invest in HD equipment and be digital by the end of the 90's. They have delayed and done everything in their power to preserve their monopoly over the "over the air" advertising.

For example, I was denied access to network satellite HD programming because I was within 50 miles of their transmitters - even though I could not receive their "over the air" hd with several antannaes I tried. They wanted me to have to continue to view their conventional programming due to the fact that they would lose advertising revenue if I had satellite access to network programming. I can now get local station hd signals since they charge the satellite company.

In a nutshell, the networks and their affiliates hate the digital revolution and all the new options available since they will lose captive customer head count and lose advertising revenue in a truly open and competitive system.

[scorrpio]

On the subject of moving to color: at the time, the infrastructure was not as heavily developed. Also, TV industry could completely switch to color, and people with B&W sets could still watch it fine.

Now, you have the infrastructure - satellites, cable, all the equipment - and a massive installed base of standaard def TVs - that cannot handle HD. In a chicken and egg style, people are not in a hurry to go HD because there really is not that much content available yet - and TV companies are not in a hurry to put out more HD cause installed base is still quite low. There is also the issue of CRT longevity - many TV sets bought 10-12 years ago are still very much operational, and people are hesitant to replace a unit that works.

There is also this issue: when I was setting up cable in my new house, the Cablevision sales guy did not say a word about HD. When I specifically requested HD box, he asked me if I have an HDTV, cause 'regular TV will not work with HD box'. Why do they do this? Cause getting HD box at moment of initial install is free - but getting it replaced later carries a one-time charge.

atgcpaul - I dunno what TVs you looked at, but present day HDTV sets deliver excellent snandard def picture - especially via HDMI. I have a 37" Olevia, and SD looks very good. And recently, I got a 42" Toshiba Regza for my Grandma - connected to an HD box via HDMI, SD looks so good it is hard to tell difference from HD - unless, of course, you are watching from 2 feet away.

Watching TV, however, is just one activity. Watching DVDs (and later at some point BD/HD-DVDs) is loads better on an HD setup especially if you have a good upconverting player. We also have a PC connected, and while we don't have a console yet, it is very much likely in the future as kids grow up.

So, for now, I'll reap all the benefits aside from TV that HD screen brings, and when programming I want to watch is available in HD, so much the better. Those winter Olympics sure looked good.

[padboy]

HD TV Rant

Has anyone tried FTA(free to air)? My oldest son has it and raves about it.
Entirely legal and free.

[Kristofor]

Has anyone tried FTA(free to air)? My oldest son has it and raves about it.
Entirely legal and free.

That's just the normal broadcasts you recieve with an antena. The picture quality I get that way is clearly better than from DirectTV due to the lower compression mentioned earlier. Plus I can pick up all 10 or so local public TV channels which seem to have lots of interesting local content.

Of course, there's no HBO for free and I'm hooked on the integrated and hackable Tivo's so I'll have to keep DirecTV for a while longer anyhow.

Kristofor.

[jaybee]

That's just the normal broadcasts you recieve with an antena. The picture quality I get that way is clearly better than from DirectTV due to the lower compression mentioned earlier. Plus I can pick up all 10 or so local public TV channels which seem to have lots of interesting local content.

Of course, there's no HBO for free and I'm hooked on the integrated and hackable Tivo's so I'll have to keep DirecTV for a while longer anyhow.

Kristofor.

This

http://www.gosatellite.com/

is an example vendor of what he meant by FTA.