Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

No HDMI a deal-breaker?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
September 1, 2005 10:37:12 AM

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

Here's my question - would you avoid buying any HDTV that didn't have
an HDMI interface? I'm more worried about compatibility issues in the
future than quality issues in the present, though both are a factor.
The biggest factor is, with my budget I may not have a choice. IS HDMI
a deal-breaker?

More about : hdmi deal breaker

September 1, 2005 11:03:50 AM

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

In article <1125581832.683672.149720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Enzo" <guardianenzo1@aol.com> wrote:

> Here's my question - would you avoid buying any HDTV that didn't have
> an HDMI interface? I'm more worried about compatibility issues in the
> future than quality issues in the present, though both are a factor.
> The biggest factor is, with my budget I may not have a choice. IS HDMI
> a deal-breaker?

In the immediate future, if you intend to watch HD DVDs, you will need
HDCP enabled DVI or HDMI. Further down the line, who knows what
restrictions will be put on HD broadcasts. I'd say that not having HDMI
would be a deal-breaker.
September 1, 2005 6:49:02 PM

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

Well, another option is the Philips 30PW8402 - it's available for $419
shipped and has an HDMI interfce, but of course at that price it's
refurbished. And I've always shied away from refurbs - never bought
one, in fact. Any thoughts on refurbs in general or this model
specifically?

Thanks...
Related resources
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:59:34 PM

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

Enzo wrote:
> Well, another option is the Philips 30PW8402 - it's available for $419
> shipped and has an HDMI interfce, but of course at that price it's
> refurbished. And I've always shied away from refurbs - never bought
> one, in fact. Any thoughts on refurbs in general or this model
> specifically?
>
> Thanks...
>

All of the refurbished equipment I have purchased over the years has
either been DOA (1) or work perfectly for years. Often times refurbs are
given more complete QA than A goods. It depends on the maker and who
does the refurb. Manufacturer's refurbs can be a good deal.

As far as that model is concerned, let me just say that anything philips
sells in the US market is not on my short list of things to buy. YMMV.

Matthew

--
"... Mr. (Gregory) LaCava, a producer-director who could be called a
genius except for the fact that Orson Welles has debased the term ...",
H. Allen Smith, "Lost in the Horse Latitudes"
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 11:20:27 PM

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

In article <1125581832.683672.149720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Enzo" <guardianenzo1@aol.com> wrote:

> Here's my question - would you avoid buying any HDTV that didn't have
> an HDMI interface?

I think so.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:15:19 PM

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

Hi,
If you have a choice, you should stick with HDMI. The main thing is
the HDCP.
SInce HDMI is the latest standard, and if the TV has HDMI that would
mean that the TV went through went through HDMI and HDCP
compatibility.
THis way you know you are getting the latest standards. This will
minimize your risk.


--
soupensu, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:50:08 PM

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

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:03:50 -0700 Sammy <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote:
| In article <1125581832.683672.149720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
| "Enzo" <guardianenzo1@aol.com> wrote:
|
|> Here's my question - would you avoid buying any HDTV that didn't have
|> an HDMI interface? I'm more worried about compatibility issues in the
|> future than quality issues in the present, though both are a factor.
|> The biggest factor is, with my budget I may not have a choice. IS HDMI
|> a deal-breaker?
|
| In the immediate future, if you intend to watch HD DVDs, you will need
| HDCP enabled DVI or HDMI. Further down the line, who knows what
| restrictions will be put on HD broadcasts. I'd say that not having HDMI
| would be a deal-breaker.

And what will the industry do for those who already bought an early HDTV
set? Some kind of converter box? A trade-in program? Personally, I do
want to see some lawsuits flying over this, or at least government action
requiring 100% compatibility with all HDTV models by broadcast, cable, and
satellite services. Of course, the current political party would never do
that.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 1:58:57 AM

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

In article <df9lag1ru@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:03:50 -0700 Sammy <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote:
>| In the immediate future, if you intend to watch HD DVDs, you will need
>| HDCP enabled DVI or HDMI. Further down the line, who knows what
>| restrictions will be put on HD broadcasts. I'd say that not having HDMI
>| would be a deal-breaker.
>
>And what will the industry do for those who already bought an early HDTV
>set? Some kind of converter box? A trade-in program? Personally, I do
>want to see some lawsuits flying over this, or at least government action
>requiring 100% compatibility with all HDTV models by broadcast, cable, and
>satellite services. Of course, the current political party would never do
>that.

Why should they?

People don't expect to be able to play DVDs in their CD player, neither
should they expect that they can watch Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks (which
still aren't likely to be available for at least another 6 months) to
work with things that bought five years ago.

I think it's bad that manufacturers are still selling things without
HDMI now that it's been made apparent that HDMI will be required, but to
be fair, people should do research on what they're buying before they
buy. If they've never even heard of Blu-ray or HD-DVD, they can't really
be upset when new technology comes out and their kit isn't compatible.
If they have heard of it and are eagerly waiting for it to arrive on the
scene, then it's their own fault if they buy something now that isn't
suitable.

Similar to how cheap TFTs TVs in the UK have a native resolution of
1280x768. And yet they have no way of providing a HD signal except via
analog VGA. People buy them because they satisfy their current
requirements. Other people look, instead, for sets with an HDMI or DVI
input because they've done their research and know what they'll need in
the future.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:03:34 AM

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

On 02 Sep 2005 21:58:57 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-08@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
| In article <df9lag1ru@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
|>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:03:50 -0700 Sammy <sammy@xxx.invalid> wrote:
|>| In the immediate future, if you intend to watch HD DVDs, you will need
|>| HDCP enabled DVI or HDMI. Further down the line, who knows what
|>| restrictions will be put on HD broadcasts. I'd say that not having HDMI
|>| would be a deal-breaker.
|>
|>And what will the industry do for those who already bought an early HDTV
|>set? Some kind of converter box? A trade-in program? Personally, I do
|>want to see some lawsuits flying over this, or at least government action
|>requiring 100% compatibility with all HDTV models by broadcast, cable, and
|>satellite services. Of course, the current political party would never do
|>that.
|
| Why should they?
|
| People don't expect to be able to play DVDs in their CD player, neither
| should they expect that they can watch Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks (which
| still aren't likely to be available for at least another 6 months) to
| work with things that bought five years ago.

No one ever marketed a CD to me saying that it will also do video.

No one ever marketed a DVD saying it will do high definition.

But high definition TVs are being marketed as high definition, so I
do believe it would be right to expect that at least broadcasters
provide their high definition content compatibly.


| I think it's bad that manufacturers are still selling things without
| HDMI now that it's been made apparent that HDMI will be required, but to
| be fair, people should do research on what they're buying before they
| buy. If they've never even heard of Blu-ray or HD-DVD, they can't really
| be upset when new technology comes out and their kit isn't compatible.
| If they have heard of it and are eagerly waiting for it to arrive on the
| scene, then it's their own fault if they buy something now that isn't
| suitable.

I generally agree with you. But I don't see HDMI as being a "next step
up in technology" like the CD was over vinyl, or the DVD is over CD, or
Blu-ray/HD-DVD is over DVD, or HD is over SD. The _first_ HD sets are
perfectly capable of displaying HD content in HD resolution, as long as
the broadcasters will stay compatible. HDCP should be reserved for the
NEXT step above HD (maybe called UD or XD or whatever).


| Similar to how cheap TFTs TVs in the UK have a native resolution of
| 1280x768. And yet they have no way of providing a HD signal except via
| analog VGA. People buy them because they satisfy their current
| requirements. Other people look, instead, for sets with an HDMI or DVI
| input because they've done their research and know what they'll need in
| the future.

Since I haven't bought HD, yet, I certainly won't be losing out buy
having been duped into buying technology that becomes obsolete before
it really gets going. But if I had, I would expect manufacturers to
provide some kind of upgrade, whether that be a plug in board, or an
STB, or just a plain trade-up replacement. Otherwise I see it as false
marketing and false advertising and really would file consumer complaints
against them and follow up on it.

But I didn't buy HD, and have no plans to buy HD until 2009 or 2010.
And yes, I will make sure it has the latest features. But I will also
demand it be capable of upgrading to the next feature not yet out if
such feature is still at the same basic technology level (as HDMI and
HDCP are to HD).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 6:02:55 PM

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

Ranulf Doswell wrote:

>>And what will the industry do for those who already bought an early HDTV
>>set? Some kind of converter box? A trade-in program? Personally, I do
>>want to see some lawsuits flying over this, or at least government action
>>requiring 100% compatibility with all HDTV models by broadcast, cable, and
>>satellite services. Of course, the current political party would never do
>>that.
>
>
> Why should they?
>
> ....neither
> should they expect that they can watch Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks (which
> still aren't likely to be available for at least another 6 months) to
> work with things that bought five years ago.

Why not? A five or even fifty year working expectancy is not at all
unreasonable. There are technical solutions to provide HD content from
an HD DVD device to a five year old HD TV, namely HD component video.
The only threat is Hollywood's copy protection issue. They demand a copy
protection infrastructure and demand that the consumer pay the costs. It
is Hollywood's copy protection demand that I find far more unreasonable
then a five or more year life expectancy from an HD TV.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 12:21:12 AM

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

In article <dfdbho1evi@news1.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:

> But until then, a broadcast in
> HDTV should work with any HDTV set, period.

It sounds like you're giving Hollywood an out. It sounds like you're
saying that if the signal is branded HD, it should be available to the
earliest set that could call itself HD.

But their out is that if they don't brand it HD, they're in the clear,
right? They have no obligation to make it available to the people who
(foolishly?) bought HD. "No, no, it's not HD. It's PD, Platinum
Definition, entirely different from HD, so we don't have any obligation
to make it available to those morons who bought HD sets. They should
get with the program."--even if PD is nothing but HD with copy
protection built in. Right?
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 1:22:10 PM

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

In article <dfdbho1evi@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
>HDTV was promoted as being what broadcasting will be doing "next" (back
>before it got started). For as long as broadcasting is going to be doing
>"HDTV" (until it moves up to whatever comes after HDTV), I do think it is
>reasonable to expect what people were asked to buy to help get HDTV going
>should work with all broadcasts that are HDTV.

HDTV has been in the pipeline for over 20 years. There have been several
systems that have been and gone in that time. None are compatible with
current HDTV systems.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:53:20 PM

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

Ranulf Doswell wrote:

> In article <dfd09n1lgj@news4.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:02:55 GMT numeric <numeric@att.net> wrote:
>>|
>>| Why not? A five or even fifty year working expectancy is not at all
>>| unreasonable. There are technical solutions to provide HD content from
>>| an HD DVD device to a five year old HD TV, namely HD component video.
>>| The only threat is Hollywood's copy protection issue. They demand a copy
>>| protection infrastructure and demand that the consumer pay the costs. It
>>| is Hollywood's copy protection demand that I find far more unreasonable
>>| then a five or more year life expectancy from an HD TV.
>
>
> The thing is, an HD-TV is just that, a TV capabale of displaying HD.
> That's what it was advertised as doing when it was sold, that's what in
> can do and will continue to be able to do for as long as it's broadcast
> OTA or on cable that supports component out.

None of the feature data sheets for my HDTV even vaguely hints that it
may be obsolete in the near future. The issue has nothing to do with the
progress of technology; but coercion and deliberate manipulation. To
imply that no one expects five year old computer driven TV technology to
work is simply wrong. I did expect, at the time of purchase, that my
older HDTV would be compatable with future technology and I suspect many
others also. Technically, there are solutions to provide HD programming
to the TV.


>
> Blu-ray and HD-DVD are being clearly marketed as requiring HDMI or
> DVI/HDCP. That fact has been clearly announced for over a year now, and
> the technology is still at least another 6 months away. As the old
> saying goes, caveat emptor.


I have also heard the rumor that these HD DVD players also require a
broad band connection to the internet and the player will self destroy
should an unauthorized copy be attempted to be played; your right
"caveat emptor".

>
> I do agree that this entire situation is brought about because of
> Hollywood's insistence on copy protection. And whilst I agree with you
> that it's an unreasonable demand on legitimate consumers and likely to
> result in them loosing business, possibly from the early aopters they
> most need, at the end of the day, it's their copyright and they can
> choose to licence it to you in any way they see fit.

I would prefer that they stick their copyright up their ass; but
otherwise, how can the consumer win when Hollywood and the US Congress
has conspired against them?
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 7:53:21 PM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:53:20 GMT, numeric <numeric@att.net> wrote:

>None of the feature data sheets for my HDTV even vaguely hints that it
>may be obsolete in the near future.

Why would they? Have you ever seen such a revelation on a product?

>The issue has nothing to do with the
>progress of technology; but coercion and deliberate manipulation. To
>imply that no one expects five year old computer driven TV technology to
>work is simply wrong. I did expect, at the time of purchase, that my
>older HDTV would be compatable with future technology and I suspect many
>others also. Technically, there are solutions to provide HD programming
>to the TV.

I think you have every right to be irate if you bought the TV recently
and were assured by someone who knew no better. OTOH, i wouldn't
suggest that you can expect compensation.

Kal
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:59:13 PM

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

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:21:12 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
| In article <dfdbho1evi@news1.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| wrote:
|
|> But until then, a broadcast in
|> HDTV should work with any HDTV set, period.
|
| It sounds like you're giving Hollywood an out. It sounds like you're
| saying that if the signal is branded HD, it should be available to the
| earliest set that could call itself HD.

As long as that set conformed to the original HD specs.

|
| But their out is that if they don't brand it HD, they're in the clear,
| right? They have no obligation to make it available to the people who
| (foolishly?) bought HD. "No, no, it's not HD. It's PD, Platinum
| Definition, entirely different from HD, so we don't have any obligation
| to make it available to those morons who bought HD sets. They should
| get with the program."--even if PD is nothing but HD with copy
| protection built in. Right?

Then it can't be broadcast as HD. So let them market it as PD and not
be allowed to call it HD. But it can't go over the air using technology
officially known as HD ... unless it is converted to HD.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:19:05 AM

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

On 04 Sep 2005 09:22:10 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
| In article <dfdbho1evi@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
|>
|>HDTV was promoted as being what broadcasting will be doing "next" (back
|>before it got started). For as long as broadcasting is going to be doing
|>"HDTV" (until it moves up to whatever comes after HDTV), I do think it is
|>reasonable to expect what people were asked to buy to help get HDTV going
|>should work with all broadcasts that are HDTV.
|
| HDTV has been in the pipeline for over 20 years. There have been several
| systems that have been and gone in that time. None are compatible with
| current HDTV systems.

The other systems weren't HD. People who bought into what ended up as a
failure, of course, did lose. Who is to blame depends on the circumstances.
But in the case of HD, the government (FCC, FTC, etc) promoted this new
thing called HD (and DTV to enable it to be carried). Until they come up
with the next thing beyond HD, then I expect anything that was marketed as
HD to work with all HD broadcasts. Note that I am limiting the scope of
this to OTA and/or referred to as being compatible with HD. For non-OTA,
call it something else. But for OTA, in the USA it's HD, or ED, or SD,
or plain old NTSC (until the analog cutoff date). No one ... NO ONE ...
who bought an HD set at any time should have to face programming they
cannot watch. But the responsibility to make it work really belongs to
the manufacturer. Collectively, they let Hollywood dictate all this copy
protection ... they could have said "no, unless you are willing to cover
all the loses being imposed on everyone else just so you can boost your
profits". Hollywood is basically cost shifting. Everyone pays some of
the cost, but a few people are getting unfairly shafted ... and that should
at least be equalized.

Ideally, I'm opposed to copy protection. But I'll accept it because I do
know something is needed to keep Hollywood cranking out movies. But the
copy protection should have been part of the original specifications for
HD, not an afterthought ... (again) unless they are willing to "make whole"
those who got shafted by their lateness to changing the rules of the game
(after the game is in play).

The "broadcast flag" issue (more appropriately named "screw the consumer
flag") is still in legal limbo, last I heard. It's likely Congress will
tweak the law to allow it (then the FCC can impose it). But my letter to
my congressperson will say something to the effect "sure ... let them
change the rules of the game after the game is in play ... if they cover
all the costs of those who get shafted for being the early adopters of
HDTV".

If you bought a pre-HDCP TV set, you'd surely be very mad. It is unlikely
any device can be had to convert HDCP protected HD content to non-protected
content (it would defeat the whole purpose). So your only option would be
to buy a whole new HDTV set. As an early adopter, you're a big screen owner
and that means replacement is quite expensive. All the old NTSC analog
sets will continue to work with an STB ... at NTSC quality. But your HDTV
set won't work with some programming, or will work only at SD quality. So
you buy a new one with HDCP ... who's gonna buy your old one that doesn't
have HDCP? The value of that set is now greatly diminished, depending on
the amount of programming that it can't display. If Hollywood will trade
your old set for a new one like it, but with HDCP, at no gain or loss to
you, that would be appropriate, right?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:22:43 AM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:53:20 GMT numeric <numeric@att.net> wrote:

| None of the feature data sheets for my HDTV even vaguely hints that it
| may be obsolete in the near future. The issue has nothing to do with the
| progress of technology; but coercion and deliberate manipulation. To
| imply that no one expects five year old computer driven TV technology to
| work is simply wrong. I did expect, at the time of purchase, that my
| older HDTV would be compatable with future technology and I suspect many
| others also. Technically, there are solutions to provide HD programming
| to the TV.

You can get an STB and get SD quality which your HDTV can display.

Or you can wait for HCPD to be cracked, as it surely will be, since
people do desire to watch all HD content on their HDTV.

Of course, if Hollywood were to replace, at their own cost, every HDTV
that has no HDCP, with a like one that does (in trade for the old unit
which they could symbolically bulldoze or smash into oblivion), they
would be eliminating _legitimate_ desires to make use of any crack that
come out. If they do NOT do such replacement, they cannot _rightly_
claim that anyone possessing a pre-HDCP set _and_ the HDCP crack tools,
is doing so for piracy purposes.


|> I do agree that this entire situation is brought about because of
|> Hollywood's insistence on copy protection. And whilst I agree with you
|> that it's an unreasonable demand on legitimate consumers and likely to
|> result in them loosing business, possibly from the early aopters they
|> most need, at the end of the day, it's their copyright and they can
|> choose to licence it to you in any way they see fit.
|
| I would prefer that they stick their copyright up their ass; but
| otherwise, how can the consumer win when Hollywood and the US Congress
| has conspired against them?

The problem is they insist on perfect 100% protection.

One of the things they miss, as does the music industry, is that 95% or
more of piracy is by people who would NOT ever buy this anyway, had no
means to pirate existed. I know someone who now has downloaded more music
(over 3 terabytes) than he can possibly ever listen to in his lifetime.
It isn't about listening ... it's about the elitism of having it all (for
a lot of the pirates).

HDCP is getting close to a means I proposed many years ago. That system
is that all content be encrypted in a way that can only be decrypted at
the time of playing, if one has purchased time-based keys. Keys could be
sold for a given piece of music "for all time", or keys could be sold for
"any music" for a finit time (like maybe one month).

The idea is that no matter how much of a _selection_ of music one has (or
videos as the case may be), there is maximum amount of time they can listen
(or view) this content in each day (24 hours peak). Content should be sold
on a "playback" basis, with constraints to specific content to specific time
or both, based on what is paid for.

There are details in how the system works that I'm not covering here. But
one very interesting feature is that this system actually ALLOWS, and even
ENCOURAGES sharing and trading of content in its encrypted form. A computer
would play the content by simply passing the encrypted stream on to the
device which would decrypt it.

HDCP would be moot. The content would be encrypted, and any transparent
bit stream can carry it. The display device would decrypt it, if it had
the valid key (it's not just one key ... it is a rather complex system
involving public/private keys that prevent key-reuse and sharing). You
can download the next great movie even before you have the key, and make
copies for all your friends. Then you buy a key (maybe for just that one
movie) that allows playing it (maybe for a finit time period).

My system wouldn't be 100% perfect, either, but I believe it would be
better than HDCP. For one thing, it would not require any particular
type of media connection (only requiring it pass data bits unchanged),
nor any particular software (computer playback software would simply
pass the encrypted bits to the playback device).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:25:28 AM

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:18:38 -0400 Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:

| On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:53:20 GMT, numeric <numeric@att.net> wrote:
|
|>None of the feature data sheets for my HDTV even vaguely hints that it
|>may be obsolete in the near future.
|
| Why would they? Have you ever seen such a revelation on a product?
|
|>The issue has nothing to do with the
|>progress of technology; but coercion and deliberate manipulation. To
|>imply that no one expects five year old computer driven TV technology to
|>work is simply wrong. I did expect, at the time of purchase, that my
|>older HDTV would be compatable with future technology and I suspect many
|>others also. Technically, there are solutions to provide HD programming
|>to the TV.
|
| I think you have every right to be irate if you bought the TV recently
| and were assured by someone who knew no better. OTOH, i wouldn't
| suggest that you can expect compensation.

Expecting it, and demanding it, are quite different things. I would
demand that Congress not allow the "broadcast flag" to enable this for
OTA. But I cannot expect that they would ignore the Hollywood businesses
that have them in their pockets. You can certainly expect the likes of
Orrin Hatch (Utah) to screw the public, including his home state of Utah.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 11:54:20 AM

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

In article <dffkrp02l73@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>On 04 Sep 2005 09:22:10 GMT Ranulf Doswell
><usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
>| In article <dfdbho1evi@news1.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>The other systems weren't HD.

Actually, they exceed the ATSC specifications as what counts as HDTV, in
that they actually had in excess of 1080i lines.

>Who is to blame depends on the circumstances.
>But in the case of HD, the government (FCC, FTC, etc) promoted this new
>thing called HD (and DTV to enable it to be carried). Until they come up
>with the next thing beyond HD, then I expect anything that was marketed as
>HD to work with all HD broadcasts. Note that I am limiting the scope of
>this to OTA and/or referred to as being compatible with HD. For non-OTA,
>call it something else.

And that's exactly the point I'm making. OTA boxes in the US *do* have
component output. In fact, I'd even assert that the number of STB with
component output exceeds the number of sets with ONLY component input.
People are happy right now, because they *can* watch their OTA
broadcasts. If the market shifts to HDCP on OTA broadcasts, then I
suspect the existing STBs will become a commodity on eBay, but they'll
still be available and legal.

That isn't what this discussion is about though. HDCP is not an issue
with OTA. It's an issue with Blu-ray and HD-DVD, both camps of which
have been telling the public at large that HDCP will be required on
launch.

>No one ... NO ONE ...
>who bought an HD set at any time should have to face programming they
>cannot watch.

And that won't change. They have their existing kit, which works.

Ralf.

--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
!