No new HD channels in a long time?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I thought the providers had to start adding more channels each year? Mine
hasn't added anything new in a year.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KIwve.55336$j51.7560@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> I thought the providers had to start adding more channels each year? Mine
> hasn't added anything new in a year.
>
>

No, you are confused. Broadcasts were supposed to be digital by next year,
but that deadline is being renegotiated. (it won't happen) Even if
broadcasts went digital next year, they would not be HD, they would be
standard def. Fact is, nobody gives a damn about HD content, so don't
expect much new HD content for a LONG time to come.

OK, so that was probably harsh to post in an HD forum. But really, the
content is what is going to push the hardware. As far as implementing HDTV
goes, the people pushing it are going about it back-asswards. There is a
TON of hardware on the market, and (relatively speaking) nothing to use it
for. What incentive does the average consumer have to buy the HDTV hardware
to watch nothing broadcast in HDTV? NONE!!!

Oh, and do you think the cable companies, dbs companies, etc., are going to
GIVE A DAMN that you forked out several thousand on a (for example) HDTV
plasma set? Get real. They know your HDTV set is perfectly capable of
displaying standard def content, so that is what they give you. It's called
maximizing profits. Nobody is going to waste bandwidth on HDTV content and
piss off their core customers who want more channels of analog or standard
def.

Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:33:15 -0400, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote:

>Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave


Your useless opinion is noted.
Thumper

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <42bea4d4$0$76909$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
"Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote:

> Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO

Do you have an HDTV set?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[curmudgeon]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jack Dotson wrote:
> I thought the providers had to start adding more channels each year? Mine
> hasn't added anything new in a year.
>
>
get a new provider.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> > Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO
>
> Do you have an HDTV set?
>

I almost bought one. Not for HDTV content. I wanted a widescreen CRT to
watch DVD movies on. When I was looking, the only ones I could find were
HDTV monitors. But it turns out I didn't need one. I was able to get my
broken monitor repaired. (I'd been shopping for a new monitor, as I didn't
think my current one would be repairable)

If it wasn't for DVD movies, and wanting to watch them on a widescreen
monitor, there's no way in HELL I would consider buying an HDTV capable
monitor at the moment. I can think of better ways to waste money than
buying devices that serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Discovery HD is the
only channel worth watching that is currently HD. No, I don't watch sports.
AT ALL. I'm thinking of re-subscribing to the Showtime pack (10 channels).
But even then, I'd only get ONE MORE channel of HD content, and it would be
mostly a mix of programming from the other 9 channels. (no net gain)

The way I see it, an HDTV monitor (at the moment) is like a car that can
only drive in one direction . . . SOUTH. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave C. (noway@nohow.not) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
> there

If you're waiting for "The Racketball Channel" (or any other obscure cable
channel) to go HD, then you'll be waiting a *long* time.

But, if you have only 5-6 hours a day to watch TV, you can't come close to
watching all the HD that is available. There's about 80 hours of quality
HDTV programming available each and every day to the average viewer. With
some cable and satellite companies, you get a lot more than that. Even
without cable/satellite, you can likely get 6-7 hours/day.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/VelveetaAndRotel.gif

 

[Baked]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:33:15 -0400, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote:

>Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave

Time-Warner cable here. The 14 HD stations I have serve my needs well. Only
thing really on my wish list is UPN in HD. BravoHD would be nice but I doubt I
would watch it alot.

I'm happy with the service and don't feel foolish at all.

HBO HD
Showtime HD
Espn HD
ABC HD
NBC HD
CBS HD
FOX HD
PBS HD (several stations)
TNT HD
Hdnet
Hdnet movies
INHD
INHD2
Discovery HD (only watch this once in a while)

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Baked wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:33:15 -0400, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>
>>Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>>there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave
>
>
> Time-Warner cable here. The 14 HD stations I have serve my needs well. Only
> thing really on my wish list is UPN in HD. BravoHD would be nice but I doubt I
> would watch it alot.
>
> I'm happy with the service and don't feel foolish at all.
>
> HBO HD
> Showtime HD
> Espn HD
> ABC HD
> NBC HD
> CBS HD
> FOX HD
> PBS HD (several stations)
> TNT HD
> Hdnet
> Hdnet movies
> INHD
> INHD2
> Discovery HD (only watch this once in a while)


I think I will wait until you don't have to pay extra on cable for HD.
Why should I pay extra for the same programming as is on regular
broadcast TV?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I think I will wait until you don't have to pay extra on cable for HD.

You don't. Get an HDTV with a digital-cable tuner, and subscribe to the
most basic cable you can. You will get the local broadcast channels in
HDTV (if your cable company carries them). It is against FCC regulations
for them to scramble these channels, or to require any subscription more
than than "basic".

They *can* require you to pay rental for a digital cable box if you don't
have your own digital cable tuner.

--
Jeff Rife | "Oooh, I love children...
| they taste like chicken."
|
| -- Heddy Newman, "Herman's Head"

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I think I will wait until you don't have to pay extra on cable for HD.
>
>
> You don't. Get an HDTV with a digital-cable tuner, and subscribe to the
> most basic cable you can. You will get the local broadcast channels in
> HDTV (if your cable company carries them). It is against FCC regulations
> for them to scramble these channels, or to require any subscription more
> than than "basic".

I don't live in the states so that may not apply here. So then would I
want a digital-cable tuner or an OTA tuner? Are they different and can
some tuners handle both?

>
> They *can* require you to pay rental for a digital cable box if you don't
> have your own digital cable tuner.
>

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:42bea4d4$0$76909$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:KIwve.55336$j51.7560@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> I thought the providers had to start adding more channels each year?
>> Mine
>> hasn't added anything new in a year.
>>
>>
>
> No, you are confused. Broadcasts were supposed to be digital by next
> year,
> but that deadline is being renegotiated. (it won't happen) Even if
> broadcasts went digital next year, they would not be HD, they would be
> standard def. Fact is, nobody gives a damn about HD content, so don't
> expect much new HD content for a LONG time to come.
>
> OK, so that was probably harsh to post in an HD forum. But really, the
> content is what is going to push the hardware. As far as implementing
> HDTV
> goes, the people pushing it are going about it back-asswards. There is a
> TON of hardware on the market, and (relatively speaking) nothing to use it
> for. What incentive does the average consumer have to buy the HDTV
> hardware
> to watch nothing broadcast in HDTV? NONE!!!
>
> Oh, and do you think the cable companies, dbs companies, etc., are going
> to
> GIVE A DAMN that you forked out several thousand on a (for example) HDTV
> plasma set? Get real. They know your HDTV set is perfectly capable of
> displaying standard def content, so that is what they give you. It's
> called
> maximizing profits. Nobody is going to waste bandwidth on HDTV content
> and
> piss off their core customers who want more channels of analog or standard
> def.
>
> Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
> there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave
>

I bought my first HDTV projector in 1998, a JVC G11. $12,000.00.
Then the RCA DTC-100 [with new dish for HD], $888.00.

Smartest purchases I've ever made.

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:48:24 -0400, "tim@nocomment.com"
<tim@nocomment.com> wrote:

>Baked wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:33:15 -0400, "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>>>there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave
>>
>>
>> Time-Warner cable here. The 14 HD stations I have serve my needs well. Only
>> thing really on my wish list is UPN in HD. BravoHD would be nice but I doubt I
>> would watch it alot.
>>
>> I'm happy with the service and don't feel foolish at all.
>>
>> HBO HD
>> Showtime HD
>> Espn HD
>> ABC HD
>> NBC HD
>> CBS HD
>> FOX HD
>> PBS HD (several stations)
>> TNT HD
>> Hdnet
>> Hdnet movies
>> INHD
>> INHD2
>> Discovery HD (only watch this once in a while)
>
>
>I think I will wait until you don't have to pay extra on cable for HD.

You don't.
Thumper

>Why should I pay extra for the same programming as is on regular
>broadcast TV?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d28aa4574022fa989e03@news.nabs.net...
> Dave C. (noway@nohow.not) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>> there
>
> If you're waiting for "The Racketball Channel" (or any other obscure cable
> channel) to go HD, then you'll be waiting a *long* time.
>
> But, if you have only 5-6 hours a day to watch TV, you can't come close to
> watching all the HD that is available. There's about 80 hours of quality
> HDTV programming available each and every day to the average viewer. With
> some cable and satellite companies, you get a lot more than that. Even
> without cable/satellite, you can likely get 6-7 hours/day.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/VelveetaAndRotel.gif

When if ever will there be an improvement in picture quality of SDTV
programming on an HDTV? That's what's keeping me from a new HDTV set, it's
the relatively poor quality of SD broadcasts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I don't live in the states so that may not apply here.

Unless you are in Canada or Australia, there are no "local" HDTV channels,
so you don't need to worry at all.

> So then would I
> want a digital-cable tuner or an OTA tuner?

Digital cable uses QAM modulation (usually QAM-256, but all QAM tuners can
handle all variants) while OTA digital in the US uses 8VSB. Every TV
with a QAM digital cable tuner also has an 8VSB tuner.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoWorkInternet.gif

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:03:41 -0400, "Bishoop" <none@none.none> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d28aa4574022fa989e03@news.nabs.net...
>> Dave C. (noway@nohow.not) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>> Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>>> there
>>
>> If you're waiting for "The Racketball Channel" (or any other obscure cable
>> channel) to go HD, then you'll be waiting a *long* time.
>>
>> But, if you have only 5-6 hours a day to watch TV, you can't come close to
>> watching all the HD that is available. There's about 80 hours of quality
>> HDTV programming available each and every day to the average viewer. With
>> some cable and satellite companies, you get a lot more than that. Even
>> without cable/satellite, you can likely get 6-7 hours/day.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Rife |
>> | http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/VelveetaAndRotel.gif
>
>When if ever will there be an improvement in picture quality of SDTV
>programming on an HDTV? That's what's keeping me from a new HDTV set, it's
>the relatively poor quality of SD broadcasts.
>
SD looks great from Comcast in my city and on my tv.
Thumper

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:

> "Dave C." <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:42bea4d4$0$76909$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
>>"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:KIwve.55336$j51.7560@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>>I thought the providers had to start adding more channels each year?
>>>Mine
>>>hasn't added anything new in a year.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, you are confused. Broadcasts were supposed to be digital by next
>>year,
>>but that deadline is being renegotiated. (it won't happen) Even if
>>broadcasts went digital next year, they would not be HD, they would be
>>standard def. Fact is, nobody gives a damn about HD content, so don't
>>expect much new HD content for a LONG time to come.
>>
>>OK, so that was probably harsh to post in an HD forum. But really, the
>>content is what is going to push the hardware. As far as implementing
>>HDTV
>>goes, the people pushing it are going about it back-asswards. There is a
>>TON of hardware on the market, and (relatively speaking) nothing to use it
>>for. What incentive does the average consumer have to buy the HDTV
>>hardware
>>to watch nothing broadcast in HDTV? NONE!!!
>>
>>Oh, and do you think the cable companies, dbs companies, etc., are going
>>to
>>GIVE A DAMN that you forked out several thousand on a (for example) HDTV
>>plasma set? Get real. They know your HDTV set is perfectly capable of
>>displaying standard def content, so that is what they give you. It's
>>called
>>maximizing profits. Nobody is going to waste bandwidth on HDTV content
>>and
>>piss off their core customers who want more channels of analog or standard
>>def.
>>
>>Early adopters of HDTV are foolish. IMHO Wait for the content to be out
>>there, and THEN (maybe) buy the hardware. -Dave
>>
>
>
> I bought my first HDTV projector in 1998, a JVC G11. $12,000.00.
> Then the RCA DTC-100 [with new dish for HD], $888.00.
>
> Smartest purchases I've ever made.
>

That's your opinion. What have you used them for?

 

[Tim]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I don't live in the states so that may not apply here.
>
>
> Unless you are in Canada or Australia, there are no "local" HDTV channels,
> so you don't need to worry at all.
>

I am in Toronto, which is in Canada

>
>> So then would I
>>want a digital-cable tuner or an OTA tuner?
>
>
> Digital cable uses QAM modulation (usually QAM-256, but all QAM tuners can
> handle all variants) while OTA digital in the US uses 8VSB. Every TV
> with a QAM digital cable tuner also has an 8VSB tuner.
>

So then I want a digital-cable tuner because it will handle cable and OTA?
And then I should also make sure it can handle cablecard? Is that for
"premium" content?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> So then I want a digital-cable tuner because it will handle cable and OTA?

No, a digital cable tuner handles only digital cable. But, there have
been no TVs made to date that have a digital cable tuner but don't also
have an ATSC OTA tuner. There might be someday, though, since every digital
cable box is that way.

> And then I should also make sure it can handle cablecard? Is that for
> "premium" content?

Yes, CableCard allows your digital cable tuner to be addressed like a cable
box, so that the cable company can tell your TV it's OK to descramble
channels you have paid for.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/MoneyNotDogs.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>> tim@nocomment.com (tim@nocomment.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> I don't live in the states so that may not apply here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless you are in Canada or Australia, there are no "local" HDTV
>> channels,
>> so you don't need to worry at all.
>>
>
> I am in Toronto, which is in Canada
>
>>
>>> So then would I
>>> want a digital-cable tuner or an OTA tuner?
>>
>>
>>
>> Digital cable uses QAM modulation (usually QAM-256, but all QAM tuners
>> can
>> handle all variants) while OTA digital in the US uses 8VSB. Every TV
>> with a QAM digital cable tuner also has an 8VSB tuner.
>>
>
> So then I want a digital-cable tuner because it will handle cable and OTA?
> And then I should also make sure it can handle cablecard? Is that for
> "premium" content?

If you want OTA reception you should get a receiver that has a 5th
generation LG chip in it. Same with integrated HDTV sets.

And Japan also has local HDTV broadcast.

Bob Miller