Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

No new HD channels in a long time?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 3:55:22 PM

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.

More about : channels long time

Anonymous
June 26, 2005 3:55:23 PM

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
June 26, 2005 3:55:24 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 3:55:24 PM

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.
June 26, 2005 3:57:16 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 5:01:40 PM

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
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 5:04:57 PM

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/VelveetaAndRo...
June 26, 2005 5:24:13 PM

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)
June 26, 2005 5:48:24 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:12:38 PM

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"
June 26, 2005 8:32:20 PM

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.
>
June 26, 2005 9:11:08 PM

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.
June 26, 2005 9:32:09 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 10:03:41 PM

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/VelveetaAndRo...

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.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 10:17:19 PM

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
June 26, 2005 11:07:40 PM

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/VelveetaAndRo...
>
>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
June 26, 2005 11:18:48 PM

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?
June 26, 2005 11:26:39 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 12:59:40 AM

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
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 8:01:35 AM

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
June 27, 2005 10:27:41 AM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:p vCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-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.
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 2:32:28 PM

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?
June 27, 2005 7:23:13 PM

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

David wrote:
> <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
> news:p vCdnciWsOxKqiLfRVn-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?
June 27, 2005 7:26:07 PM

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?
June 27, 2005 8:54:41 PM

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
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 2:26:05 AM

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/VelveetaAndRo...
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 5:44:44 AM

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.g...
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:31:50 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 4:31:51 PM

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
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 10:03:42 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 8:01:01 AM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:D uidnWWi7bS9z13fRVn-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.
June 30, 2005 4:11:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:15:32 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:D uidnWSi7bRTz13fRVn-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.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:56:28 PM

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
!