No new HD channels in a long time?

[David]

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
newsvCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-tA@rogers.com...
> 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?

~Seven years of [early adopter] large-screen HDTV viewing.

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

Here in Canada the satellite providers have way more HD broadcasting than
one person could possibly watch, even if you recorded various shows and
played them back at more convenient times. Where do you live, Upper Volta?

 

[Tim]

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

David wrote:
> <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
> newsvCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-tA@rogers.com...
>
>>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?
>
>
> ~Seven years of [early adopter] large-screen HDTV viewing.
>
>

Has HDTV been around for 7 years?

 

[Tim]

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

Dave Gower wrote:

> "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.
>
>
> Here in Canada the satellite providers have way more HD broadcasting than
> one person could possibly watch, even if you recorded various shows and
> played them back at more convenient times. Where do you live, Upper Volta?
>
>
Does Upper Volta even exist anymore?

 

[duke]

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
>
>

How exactly is it foolish to buy something you want to enjoy content that is
already available ?

Duke

 

[Guest]

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

There's not 80 hours of quality TV on ALL the TV channels in one week!

More likely one or two worthwhile hours of HD every day. That's enough.
There are other things in life than television.

Bill

"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

 

[Guest]

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

Bill Sharpe (billsharpe@nsadelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> There's not 80 hours of quality TV on ALL the TV channels in one week!

Once again, people are confusing their opinions with facts.

"Quality" doesn't mean "what I like to watch". "Quality" means "well-
produced", and if enough people watch it in SD, there will be plenty that
watch it in HD.

For example, I loathe "CSI" (and all the variations), but it is *still*
quality television, and because it is in HD, that makes it quality HDTV.

I find that the people that complain the most about there being "no HDTV"
are ones that watch less than 2 hours of TV a week, and typically do that
watching on some incredibly niche show that have a total of 10,000 people
in the country as the audience.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/LoanedDVD.gif

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Bill Sharpe (billsharpe@nsadelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>There's not 80 hours of quality TV on ALL the TV channels in one week!
>
>
> Once again, people are confusing their opinions with facts.
>
> "Quality" doesn't mean "what I like to watch". "Quality" means "well-
> produced", and if enough people watch it in SD, there will be plenty that
> watch it in HD.
>
> For example, I loathe "CSI" (and all the variations), but it is *still*
> quality television, and because it is in HD, that makes it quality HDTV.
>
> I find that the people that complain the most about there being "no HDTV"
> are ones that watch less than 2 hours of TV a week, and typically do that
> watching on some incredibly niche show that have a total of 10,000 people
> in the country as the audience.
>

I live in an area that does not allow me to receive but one over the air
channel; so either cable or satellite are my only source for TV.

I complain about the lack of HD because my cable company only has 7 HD
channels available; and only 1 (CBS) of the main networks. Now that I
have a HDTV and see how much better quality picture HD provides I really
want it bad.

My impression is that it cost quite a lot for the necessary equipment
upgrade. I have also read that the networks charge the cable companies
extra to carry their HD version of their channel. Is this true?

There are many times when there is nothing on that I really want to
watch and so I turn on a show just because it is in HD. I now watch a
lot of Discovery HD when before I didn't watch Discovery that often. I
also watch a lot of HDNET shows more than I watch NBC, ABC, or FOX just
because I don't get those networks in HD from my cable company.

I have been around for almost 70 years now and I recall when there was a
change to broadcast in color and we would watch shows just because it
was in color instead of black and white. Now I have a quite similar
experience that I tune into a show because it is in HD instead of that
old SD.

 

[Guest]

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

"Phil Pease" <ppease5@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Wqbwe.96559$x96.54303@attbi_s72...
I have been around for almost 70 years now and I recall when there was a
change to broadcast in color and we would watch shows just because it
was in color instead of black and white. Now I have a quite similar
experience that I tune into a show because it is in HD instead of that
old SD.

-----
I can remember (barely) watching black and white TV on a 7-inch set when
our family first got TV in 1948. There was only one station on the
air -- WPTZ in Philadelphia -- and only five days a week for a few hours
a day. The station broadcast a few home games of the Phillies and
Athletics -- the A's were still in Philadelphia at the time. When a
Saturday game was rained out I remember watching an old grainy English
movie the station put on as a replacement.

I still say there's not much quality, meaning worthwhile, TV on each
week. Your "worthwhile" may not be the same as mine. My "worthwhile"
includes Desperate Housewives and CBS Sunday Morning, to name two
extremes.

Bill

 

[Guest]

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

"Bill Sharpe" <billsharpe@nsadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:RI6dnSUzG9su9VzfRVn-hw@adelphia.com...
>
> "Phil Pease" <ppease5@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:Wqbwe.96559$x96.54303@attbi_s72...
> I have been around for almost 70 years now and I recall when there was a
> change to broadcast in color and we would watch shows just because it
> was in color instead of black and white. Now I have a quite similar
> experience that I tune into a show because it is in HD instead of that
> old SD.
>
> -----
> I can remember (barely) watching black and white TV on a 7-inch set when
> our family first got TV in 1948. There was only one station on the
> air -- WPTZ in Philadelphia -- and only five days a week for a few hours
> a day. The station broadcast a few home games of the Phillies and
> Athletics -- the A's were still in Philadelphia at the time. When a
> Saturday game was rained out I remember watching an old grainy English
> movie the station put on as a replacement.
>
> I still say there's not much quality, meaning worthwhile, TV on each
> week. Your "worthwhile" may not be the same as mine. My "worthwhile"
> includes Desperate Housewives and CBS Sunday Morning, to name two
> extremes.
>
> Bill
>
I'm not quite as old as you geezers. I was born the same year Dayton got its
first TV station. I can remember 2 B&W stations, seeing a color TV for the
first time in 1962 and our family not getting one till 67, a third station,
taking turns with my brothers going out at night to turn our
omni-directional antenna(we didn't know) trying to get additional channels
form Cincinnati and paying 3 months wages for the best color TV I could
afford at the time a 13" Hitachi(had never heard of it at the time). Those
were the good old days.

Recently learned Bonanza was created to sell color TVs. Guess it worked.
Can't see anyway one show could do that for HD now.

Won't get into the TV quality issue. If you asked a hundred different people
you'd get a hundred different answers. I will say the only show I watch in
HD that I wouldn't watch in SD is Vegas. The eye candy puts it into the
bearable category. Maybe it should have been Reno. Then they could have
shots from Tahoe like Bonanza too. No, scenery is not the above mentioned
eye candy.

 

[Guest]

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
newsuidnWWi7bS9z13fRVn-iA@rogers.com...
>
> Has HDTV been around for 7 years?

Yes, that's the sad thing. HDTV broadcasts started, to much fanfare, 7-1/2
years ago (November 1997). The small number of HDTV cable/satellite channels
available has stagnated for the last few years, and will probably only
expand at a rate of at most 1-2 channels/year for the foreseeable future -
cable/satellite channels just aren't going to all switch over the way
broadcast channels have (and even new satellites will have to handle local
HD channels before they can provide for all the other channels in HD). There
just isn't enough bandwidth and no economic incentive (not to mention no
legal requirement) for them to do so. I expect most of them will eventually
transition to widescreen 480p once most viewers have widescreen sets, but
not to HD for at least 10-15 years, maybe longer.

The big problem is that HD channels really do displace several standard
channels worth of bandwidth no matter what they do (since the providers use
the same compression to make standard channels smaller, which is why they
can have hundreds of channels in the first place). This isn't an issue for
OTA (since the "regular" channels are uncompressed analog), and wasn't an
issue for color TV, but is a huge issue for cable and satellite systems.

 

[sammy]

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:

> What incentive does the average consumer have to buy the HDTV
> hardware to watch nothing broadcast in HDTV? NONE!!!

Nothing is being broadcast in HD? Wow. Wonder what I've been watching
all this time. And those DVDs sure haven't been enjoyable on my HD
plasma set. Yup, it's apparent you have no idea what you're talking
about. Actually, you think you do, but since you can't afford an HD set,
your MO is to attack HDTVs.

 

[Guest]

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

X-No-archive: yes

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
newsuidnWSi7bRTz13fRVn-iA@rogers.com...
> Dave Gower wrote:
>
>> "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.
>>
>>
>> Here in Canada the satellite providers have way more HD broadcasting than
>> one person could possibly watch, even if you recorded various shows and
>> played them back at more convenient times. Where do you live, Upper
>> Volta?
> Does Upper Volta even exist anymore?

=============================
It is now called Burkina Faso.

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> 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

Can you give some examples of STBs that have this 5th generation chip?

Do any of them have firewire connections (for use with a JVC DVHS VCR)?

Thanks,
Jeff Burris
Salina, Kansas