No new HD channels in a long time?

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.
33 answers Last reply
More about channels long time
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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)
  8. 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?
  9. 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"
  10. 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.
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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?
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
    news:PvCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-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.
  21. 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?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    David wrote:
    > <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
    > news:PvCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-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?
  23. 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?
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
    news:DuidnWWi7bS9z13fRVn-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.
  31. 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.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    X-No-archive: yes

    <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
    news:DuidnWSi7bRTz13fRVn-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.
  33. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV HD Home Theatre