I was just thinking about the poll on Mod-Blog right now. It is a question about the future of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.
I had a very interesting talk with one of the higher tech guys at ABC Network the other day. We were discussing HD and he asked me if I knew how we got into this mess (the mess of having to convert all TV broadcasts to HD by 2009). I said no.
Apparently a few companies went to the FCC in the 90's and asked if they could have the UHF broadcast bands (which "belonged" to the TV broadcasters) for a new invention called a portable phone. When the TV companies heard about it, they immediately called the FCC and said, "you can't give the bandwidth to them, we have a plan to use it!" The FCC said, "what is the plan?" The TV companies said, "We'll get back to you..."
They frantically searched around to find something that would look impressive and would take up a huge amount of bandwidth. Someone came up with an idea to use something they had in Japan called HD (which they had since 1969!)
Quick aside... digital and HD are two different things. You can have digital that isn't HD and you can have HD that isn't digital. The HD that Japan was using was an analog system. That analog system took up HUGE chunks of bandwidth.
Well, the TV companies demoed the technology for the FCC, and the FCC said "go for it" and said no to the phone companies (who obviously went in a different direction with cell technology).
HOWEVER, this is where it gets interesting. The TV companies never planned to actually use the bandwidth for HD. They just didn't want to lose their control over UHF. The plan was to work on it very slowly and not have anything ever really happen. SD was fine, converting to HD would take LOTS of money, why mess with success? They just didn't want to lose control.
But someone decided to take a roadshow of the HD demo around! Pretty soon people began to see what HD looked like, and wanting it. Some congressman got word of the whole deal, and began to force the TV companies to do what they had promised. So now everything is converting to HD by the beginning of 2009.
There are some problems with HD. Most TV's that the average person watches are to small to make it look any different. All the TV broadcasters have had to convert all their already expensive equipment to more expensive HD equipment. It takes about $4 million to become HD compliant, which is a lot more than some of the smaller mid-west and western TV stations take in (my friend said several make around $2 million a year, but have to spend the money to convert or lose their license). Another problem is that if there is any interference, HD picture goes away. The drop off is very fast (on SD you get fuzz, but you can still see a picture). Another problem is the number of HD formats. 1080i, 720p, 1080p... which do you choose? And different companies use different ones! NBC is 1080i, ABC and ESPN are 720p... No matter what you buy, on something you watch the TV will have to convert the signal, which could cause lag, jitters, loss of resolution, you name it.
And the kicker is, all this change is in the broadcast arena, not he cable arena. Cable may "choose" to offer HD if they want, and they can charge more for it.
So, broadcasters are a bit peeved at this, they have to sink money into something that really won't make them any more money, and it is A LOT of money.
Strange story huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't feel bad at all for the TV stations. They had a choice and they decided that it was a better financial decision (or they wanted a power trip or whatever) and got burned. If they didn't want to spend the money, they shouldn't have held onto the spectrum.
The thing I don't like is, at least by my understanding, there won't be SD anymore so that means people need to upgrade their TVs just to get the signal that they used to get.
Two things...
You are correct, there will not be SD anymore. That is problem, that everyone who just wants to get TV off the airwaves has to upgrade to an expensive (ish) new TV.
Second, the TV stations aren't the ones who made the decision. It was the representatives of the larger companies.
They aren't the ones I feel for, they have tons of money. It is the individual stations (WCBS not CBS TV).
I don't know if I understand the relationship between WCBS and CBS TV. Are the individual stations owned by the larger companies or is it more like a franchise? If the individual stations are owned by the larger companies than I don't feel bad, other than for people at the individual stations who might lose their job due to tight finances. If it's more of a franchise, then it's more of an RIAA / artist issue where the balance of power needs to be shifted in such a way that the individual stations have more say.
A few stations are owned outright, but most are franchises.
Really, neither had much say. The government decided it wanted everyone to switch, so that was that. TV stations have to convert, broadcasters have to convert, and you have to buy an expensive TV or an expensive converter box. But hey, this is progress...
Post a Comment