The Beginning of the End?

[lobosrul]

1) You essentially can't buy an SDTV anymore, at least not of any decent size.


I saw someone buying a 32" SDTV at walmart a few months back... morons.

2) All of primetime network TV is HD, and that does make up the largest market share.

It seems like almost all dramas, and the majority of sitcoms are in HD. Reality and "news magazine" shows for the most part, arent. Sometimes I'm not sure whats not in HD and what my affiliate just decided to upscale for SD for some reason (KOB is notorious for that).

So do those of you who do not seem to think there is good programming on network TV not have PBS HD? The amount of quality of programs on PBS HD easily is more than 2.

PBS definantly has some good HD programming. I finally saw a masterpiece theater the other day in HD (Wind in the Willows).

[wvpolekat]

So, why call someone buy an SD set a moron? 99% of the content is still put out in SD, and when/if they actually get around to putting things in HD only, there will be a $99 STB to let you use your old TV with it. Not everyone cares enough about TV to shop by anything more than price and how big a screen they want.

[jquinlan]

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

So, why call someone buy an SD set a moron? 99% of the content is still put out in SD, and when/if they actually get around to putting things in HD only, there will be a $99 STB to let you use your old TV with it. Not everyone cares enough about TV to shop by anything more than price and how big a screen they want.

Until they stop broadcasting SD and stop making the SD sets there are going to be people that don’t see why they should spend more for a Digital TV that is smaller or the same size as the SD TV next to it that cost less.
You did say Walmart, so as long as the big discount stores still provide them, there will be confusion in the market.

[wvpolekat]

I don't think the implaction that they "don't see why" is entirely accurate.

My take from it is that WalMart still sells them because there are people who are either ignorant as you state, or honestly don't care about HD/Digital. Or, they are in the huge geographic regions that don't have any HD availble to them, like where I live. Unless you have sat. here, you are wasting your money on an HD set. OTA is not available and our craptastic cable has no plans to offer it.

The only confusion in the market that I see is that the market WANTS people to want HD, but large parts of the market just don't care. They will happily buy the $99 converter and keep happily running their SD sets for many years to come. And, to go along with that, retailers will keep selling SD sets to them.

Besides, as long as HD is available to those that want it, what should anyone care about what kind of TV someone else is buying? It's not like the neighbors having an SD set has any impact on someone elses ability to watch HD if they choose. Belittling them by calling them "morons" doesn't accomplish anything but making one look narrow minded.

[bcjenkins]

Converters will hopefully be cheaper than 99 bucks and Uncle Sam will help you pay for two of them.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Digi...ced/1173725841

B

[teknubic]

Interesting thread. I didn't think there were any people who still bought square televisions and even less that thought that HD was going to be a failure.

I'm a firm believer that the consumer still drives the market. All the polls and studies the industry does on the topic reaffirms that. Consumers do want a great picture and surround sound and they want it for cheap.

I would dissuade anyone from purchasing a standard-definition television at this point in time simply because that television will last well into the next decade where those resolutions are just not made anymore. The purchase of an HD display is no longer considered 'ahead of the curve' or 'cutting edge' and it's backward compatible with most content. It's a win-win situation, IMHO.

[dlandrum]

I guess I am an odd bird. I recently switched from DISH to Cable.
I am now running 4 QAM tuners and 2 STBs.

In my previous house I was using 2 DISH STBs and 2 OTA tuners. I find QAM to be better as I can get some SD channels and there is no post-processing to trim-out the sub channels.

I use a USB-UIRT for the STBs. For users wanting 6 tuners with a "dish company" ... be sure to explore how will you change the channel.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by teknubic

Interesting thread. I didn't think there were any people who still bought square televisions and even less that thought that HD was going to be a failure.

I'm a firm believer that the consumer still drives the market. All the polls and studies the industry does on the topic reaffirms that. Consumers do want a great picture and surround sound and they want it for cheap.

I would dissuade anyone from purchasing a standard-definition television at this point in time simply because that television will last well into the next decade where those resolutions are just not made anymore. The purchase of an HD display is no longer considered 'ahead of the curve' or 'cutting edge' and it's backward compatible with most content. It's a win-win situation, IMHO.

Perhaps I'm simply paranoid, but since the industry publishes polls which encourage people to buy new high-priced equipment, I'm a little reluctant to trust them. I like HD, but I can't honestly say that HD was pushed into the market by customer demand; government regulation is what "encouraged" the advent of HD.

"Gadget" envy is also a driving factor, but I still believe that there is a large segment of the market who will hang on to an SD set because it still works. If they have to buy a converter instead of a new set, they will. Granted, I think that market is getting smaller over time, but they'll still be here long after the cutoff date for HD.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

So, why call someone buy an SD set a moron? 99% of the content is still put out in SD, and when/if they actually get around to putting things in HD only, there will be a $99 STB to let you use your old TV with it. Not everyone cares enough about TV to shop by anything more than price and how big a screen they want.

87% of all statistics are made up (yeah I just made that up).

Where did you get 99% from exactly?

I bet they care in a couple of years after the digital switchover. I guess I'm presuming, but even with a converter box, your still going to get a widescreen picture when watching an HD show. They'll suddenly care when theres black bars at the top/bottom of the screen.

I recently bought a decent (not great) 32" HDTV for $500. The TV they bought was probably over $300 + $100 for a STB eventually, and the price difference is no longer so great.

Also, I've seen this a couple of times in this thread. The government has absolutely nothing to do with pushing HD. They are pushing digital OTA broadcasts, which has nothing to do with cable/sat. Digital does not necesarily mean HD.

[ktaillon]

I just talked with a Comcast person, they told me that january was the due date to change over to full digital broadcast. The new date is now set for mid summer.

This will end the analog channels, all channels will be in digital like a satellite feed.

Are there any tuner cards that can do this? Or how do we setup Sage to change the channels on the STB? Someone talked about using the USB-IURT.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Also, I've seen this a couple of times in this thread. The government has absolutely nothing to do with pushing HD. They are pushing digital OTA broadcasts, which has nothing to do with cable/sat. Digital does not necesarily mean HD.

I don't think its fair to say the the govt has "nothing" to do with pushing HD; HD is a type of digital TV, but not the only type. Cable carry laws require that cable companies carry broadcast television, so if broadcasters are required to stop broadcasting analog signals in the near future, the cable companies will be required to carry the digital signal (most do, anyway) . HDTV is a technological byproduct of the federal regulations. If the feds didn't require a shift in technologies (from analog to digital), I don't think HD would be as supported by the industry (my theory, anyway). Since they have to upgrade, might as well upgrade to something that gives them a competitive advantage.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

Cable carry laws require that cable companies carry broadcast television,

Are you SURE about that?? If thats true, I'd suspect there'd be a lawsuit against LIN TV. They are not allowing cable co's to carry their HDTV feed in several markets, without being paid.

I dont belive the networks themselves are being pushed to broadcast in HD. However, if one did they'd have a competitive advantage over the others.... I see your point.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/newmexico011707.htm

[wvpolekat]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

87% of all statistics are made up (yeah I just made that up).

Where did you get 99% from exactly?

Honestly, I pulled it out of my ear. But, I would put money on it. While my TV in the living room is HD, there is no HD content available here and I don't find myself hearing about shows that I am not able to watch because they are HD only.

In effect, right now, it's best to say that some SD content is available in HD and the vast majority of HD content is also available SD but there is very little content that is available only in HD.

Point is that we are several years away from HD acutally overtaking SD in peoples living rooms, if it ever actually happens. Personally, I can count the number of people I personally know that have HD on one hand.

I did a little informal survey of co-workers today (employees of a Fortune 100 company that is 100% technology based and makes HD sets), and precisely 0 of the 10 or 12 people I asked had an HD set in their home, and only a couple had even a slight interest in it, none with any plans to get an HD set. The rest could care less. This is a group of people that can buy (and afford) the gear with employee discounts and live in places like San Francisco, Houston and Atlanta, not what I would call small markets. I am the odd telecommuter in the group that lives in the sticks. Given, my sample set is too small to be significant, but it directly echos what I have heard from basically everyone else I know. People who are "excited" or actively moving towards HD are currently in the vast minority.

So, my prediction on all of this:

1) The digital deadline will be extended due to the slow adoption/migration of digital/HD. The networks will lobby heavily for this and get it.
2) The networks, cable and sat providers will just broadcast an SD version digitally for the folks who just have a STB. This will go on for at least 5 years.

I would not be surprised to see HD become a "premium" service, even broadcast.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

Honestly, I pulled it out of my ear. But, I would put money on it. While my TV in the living room is HD, there is no HD content available here and I don't find myself hearing about shows that I am not able to watch because they are HD only.

In effect, right now, it's best to say that some SD content is available in HD and the vast majority of HD content is also available SD but there is very little content that is available only in HD.

Point is that we are several years away from HD acutally overtaking SD in peoples living rooms, if it ever actually happens. Personally, I can count the number of people I personally know that have HD on one hand.

I did a little informal survey of co-workers today (employees of a Fortune 100 company that is 100% technology based and makes HD sets), and precisely 0 of the 10 or 12 people I asked had an HD set in their home, and only a couple had even a slight interest in it, none with any plans to get an HD set. The rest could care less. This is a group of people that can buy (and afford) the gear with employee discounts and live in places like San Francisco, Houston and Atlanta, not what I would call small markets. I am the odd telecommuter in the group that lives in the sticks. Given, my sample set is too small to be significant, but it directly echos what I have heard from basically everyone else I know. People who are "excited" or actively moving towards HD are currently in the vast minority.

If you meant 99% of HD content is also available on SD, then that does sound right. I can only think of a few shows on channels like INHD that probably wouldnt be in SD.

Where do you live that has almost no HD content? I'm in Albuquerque, not exactly a huge market. I guess I'm a bit skewed towards HD since, at the moment, my only method of watching TV is thru digital OTA. Aside from the news, I watch very little SD. I watch no daytime TV either, which last I checked was almost never HD (rumors are Oprah will be soon).

I've heard from a few people at work about HDTV. I'd guess no more than a quarter have HD at the moment.

So, my prediction on all of this:

1) The digital deadline will be extended due to the slow adoption/migration of digital/HD. The networks will lobby heavily for this and get it.
2) The networks, cable and sat providers will just broadcast an SD version digitally for the folks who just have a STB. This will go on for at least 5 years.

I would not be surprised to see HD become a "premium" service, even broadcast.

1) I dont have a link, but i read somewhere that Congress has now set the 2/07 date in stone.
2) I doubt they do that. What I'm afraid of is, that the STB boxes will output a cropped version of the picture... and therefore shows will continue to be framed for 4:3. With the outer edges of a 16:9 screen rarely containing anything important.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Are you SURE about that?? If thats true, I'd suspect there'd be a lawsuit against LIN TV. They are not allowing cable co's to carry their HDTV feed in several markets, without being paid.

I dont belive the networks themselves are being pushed to broadcast in HD. However, if one did they'd have a competitive advantage over the others.... I see your point.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/newmexico011707.htm

Yeah, I'm sure that cable companies are required to carry broadcast stations, or perhaps I should say, required to offer broadcast stations free access via cable. That law has probably been amended somewhat since I was a TV production major in college (15 years ago), but I don't think it's changed significantly. That's why most broadcast stations are offered the channels on the lower end of the cable feed; historically, those channels had the most interference, and since the cable company wasn't making any money off the broadcast stations, they gave them the worst channels

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html

Never thought about a broadcast station refusing to have their signal carried by a cable company, but obviously, it's possible.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by jptaz

So do those of you who do not seem to think there is good programming on network TV not have PBS HD? The amount of quality of programs on PBS HD easily is more than 2.

Yeah, I get it, but I'm lucky if I watch anything on there once a month. The only show on PBS that I have as a favorite is Monty Python and that's not HD.

Beyond that, there's 24 (which is getting pretty bad and I think I watch it mainly cause it's HD), Bones (started watching cause it's HD, but I enjoy it) and I occasionally watch CSI (only LV).

That's it, everything else is on satellite.

I am on the other end of the spectrum and easily keep my 3 HD tuners busy with just OTA...I love my network TV.

In general, I can't stand network TV. Haven't watched any of the sitcoms in ages, or any of the network TV comedies (guess I have a different sense of humor). I can't stand the reality shows, and those seem to make up about 60% of network TV. There's a couple of good dramas (those I mentioned above), but that's it.

Maybe I am confused...if there are only 2 TV programs of value on TV then why even bother with SageTV?

Oh, I've got about 65 favorites, of which maybe half air regularly at any given time. But probably all but 3-4 are not on network TV.

Or are there that many non network shows that the networks?

Not sure what you mean, by network TV, I mean ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, etc, basically OTA channels.

My primary networks are Discovery (not HD), SciFi, Cartoon Network, Science Channel, and a smattering of others. But all my "must see" favorites are not on the major networks. I could lose the networks entirely and not feel a great loss.

But then again, I realize I have non-mainstream tastes.

Originally Posted by hemicuda

I agree. with the caveat that they also have the option to just not offer "it" if we don't take it as delivered. they could claim that there's no market for what they offer. not all that likely to happen, but possibly on the fringe of the radar.

True, but they've got to offer something if they want to get payed for it.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I saw someone buying a 32" SDTV at walmart a few months back... morons.

I thought about qualifying that with decent size >= 40".

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

So, why call someone buy an SD set a moron?

I wouldn't say moron, but I can't see buying a non HD/ED set anymore. There's just no good reason not to. They put out a better picture most of the time, especially with DVD, which is a very big deal.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sainswor99
Cable carry laws require that cable companies carry broadcast television,

Are you SURE about that?? If thats true, I'd suspect there'd be a lawsuit against LIN TV. They are not allowing cable co's to carry their HDTV feed in several markets, without being paid.

It's a bit more complicated than simply "must carry". A local cable operator (or worker for one) dropped in on one of the reception threads on AVS and talked about it a bit.

From what I remember, it basically comes down to the local broadcaster has the choice, they can force the "must carry" on the cable provider, but they have to give something up (perhaps the cable provider doesn't have to pay them directly), or they can work out an agreement with the cable co separately.

This is what happened with Mediacom and Sinclair, they had an agreement, outside the must carry, and it ended up with Sinclair broadcasting pulling the CBS affiliate off Mediacom for about a month.

I dont belive the networks themselves are being pushed to broadcast in HD. However, if one did they'd have a competitive advantage over the others.... I see your point.

Correct, digital broadcasting is all that's been mandated. HD is a marketing tool that differentiates you from the competition. Originally Fox shunned the whole HD thing, opting to just go widescreen digital, but they've had to go HD because everyone else did.

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

Honestly, I pulled it out of my ear. But, I would put money on it. While my TV in the living room is HD, there is no HD content available here and I don't find myself hearing about shows that I am not able to watch because they are HD only.

I wouldn't put money on that. In fact, I'd say the opposite, I'd say the vast majority of content is shot in HD or film (which is easilly telecined to HD). Essentailly all the network dramas and sitcoms are HD filmed, and HD broadcast. Most other content is now HD sourced, of hand Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, Monk, to name a few.

Lots of stuff on Food Network, HGTV, National Geographic, maybe half of the stuff on Discovery.

Not everything is available in HD (Stargate *), but most stuff these days is produced in HD, or at least with HD in mind.

Heck, even Firefly from 2002 is available in HD.

In effect, right now, it's best to say that some SD content is available in HD and the vast majority of HD content is also available SD but there is very little content that is available only in HD.

I'd sort of agree, but I'd state it differently. I'd say most content produced in the last few years is "HD ready", with most HD being available in SD.

Some notable exceptions are any of the shows on HDnet, probably half of those on Discovery HD, and all the Voom stuff.

Point is that we are several years away from HD acutally overtaking SD in peoples living rooms, if it ever actually happens.

Oh, no disagreement, it will take time, but I have no doubt that it will happen.

Personally, I can count the number of people I personally know that have HD on one hand.

I did a little informal survey of co-workers today (employees of a Fortune 100 company that is 100% technology based and makes HD sets), and precisely 0 of the 10 or 12 people I asked had an HD set in their home, and only a couple had even a slight interest in it, none with any plans to get an HD set. The rest could care less. This is a group of people that can buy (and afford) the gear with employee discounts and live in places like San Francisco, Houston and Atlanta, not what I would call small markets. I am the odd telecommuter in the group that lives in the sticks. Given, my sample set is too small to be significant, but it directly echos what I have heard from basically everyone else I know.

True, I could do the same survey and I know several off the top of my head with HD sets.

Odds are, anyone with a 40" set or greater bought in the last 5 years has an HD set.

People who are "excited" or actively moving towards HD are currently in the vast minority.

So, my prediction on all of this:

1) The digital deadline will be extended due to the slow adoption/migration of digital/HD. The networks will lobby heavily for this and get it.

2009 is the new cutoff, I don't know if I see it getting bumped again.

2) The networks, cable and sat providers will just broadcast an SD version digitally for the folks who just have a STB. This will go on for at least 5 years.

The networks (I assume you mean OTA) don't have a say, but I agree, SD outputs on cable/sat boxes aren't going anywhere soon.

That said, HD is the "new hotness", and there's a big push from the industry toward HD. I really think 2007 is the year of HD, and one needs look no farther than this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/d...nnels-in-2007/
DirecTV says they'll have 100 national HD channels by the end of the year ("announcing" some new ones in the process).

Also this interesting tidbit:
http://videobusiness.com/article/CA6431230.html
Casino Royale on Blu-ray outsold the DVD at DVD Empire

I would not be surprised to see HD become a "premium" service, even broadcast.

If DirecTV's announcement holds true, even half of it, before long, HD will be the de facto broadcast standard, and set-top-boxes will simply downconvert for those without HD set.

[travisbell]

Originally Posted by stanger89

And sat wins on both of those, hands down.

Here in Canada, cable has always been cheaper. So I wouldn't say that is true, atleast with all the bundles you can get now (TV, Internet & phone).

However, sat has always had a better lineup, with mor flexibility.

In any case, there is certainly going to be a different landscape within the next 5 years. That's for sure.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by travisbell

Here in Canada, cable has always been cheaper. So I wouldn't say that is true, atleast with all the bundles you can get now (TV, Internet & phone).

Well if you include the introductory bundles, yeah, cable's cheaper in the states too.

But not everyone wants a landline phone, and after that introductory period the price of cable skyrockets.

[bcjenkins]

I don't know.. My DirecTV introductory offer was very good compared to Verizon FiOS. Comcast isn't available in my neighborhood. However, generally speaking I understand FiOS is considerably cheaper than cable.

FTR - I am paying 37/month for base DTV package for 4 receivers. This goes up to 47 after 5 months but stays there for an additional 10. And I got a free portable DVD player.

The Deal:

$50 - Referral Credits
$150 - Zip Code competition
Free portable DVD player
Free Install and Free Equipment (4 SD Boxes D11-100s)

B

[stevech]

As I watch AT&T (and Quest) deploy vDSL, and they've put the bix mux boxes ($$$) in my neighborhood, I wonder how well they'll compete with cable TV. Something like 30Mbps over copper to the home for up to 1000 ft. In this bandwidth, they'll put 3 video streams, digital phone and Internet service. It's their low cost retort to FiOS.

I suspect they'll do well (though I loathe AT&T nowadays)