IP: Re: HDTV

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:20:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <cp () panix com>
To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>




Thanks Dave for circulating this latest slavish rewrite-of-press-releases
from the NY Times, confirming its position as the newspaper that is so far
out of touch with the realities of FCC and broadcasting, it looks like a
deliberate policy on its part. 


The FCC has merely rubber-stamped the agreement-to-disagree that was
reached between the Grand Alliance of TV-related industries and the
computer industry, 2 or 3 weeks ago. This nonagreement allows any
broadcaster to transmit any kind of information in any format, so long as
it conforms with low-level packet specs (which are the only real standard
that has been laid down). Since broadcasters are unlikely to make any
additional money transmitting HDTV, and since it will occupy 4 or 5 times
the bandwidth over-the-air, or 2 or 3 times the bandwidth on cable or DBS
transmissions, compared with digitized/compressed NTSC (the same 525-line
picture we already watch), there is no reason why most TV stations should
bother to provide the improved picture quality and wider aspect ratio.
Therefore I find it hard to understand how TV manufacturers can predict
that HDTV will be a selling point; on the contrary, there will be a 
chronic lack of software for the hardware, at least till HDTV-compatible 
VCRs become common and movies are transferred into the new tape format.


For more info, see big article in next month's Wired!


--CP