[opendtv] Re: News: DIRECTV Sued Over HDTV Picture Quality

I think the fortelliing of the demise of free television began with the following point
in "The History of Film and Television" by High-Tech Productions

http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm


     1958 There are 525 cable TV systems serving 450,000 subscribers in
     the U.S.


     In February, CBS takes out a two-page ad in TV Guide in which it
     warns the public:


     "Free television as we know it cannot survive alongside pay
     television."

What more evidence do we need?

Tom Barry wrote:



Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The more likely outcome is that the government will proceed with the
> subsidized receiver program, then someone will notice that they do not
> work as well as NTSC. This will be sufficient grounds to begin an
> investigation, putting the 2009 switch-over on hold. When it is learned
> that the system is fundamentally flawed there will be a move to develop
> a new system that will leapfrog all of the existing technologies. It
> might be ready for deployment by 2020...

I sort of agree with this scenario except I'm not sure any CE manufacturer will be willing to provide the $50 converters that will be the fall guy for this. It might be costly and embarrassing as the focus of "why they don't work" may be concentrated on those boxes.

So as 2009 approaches it may turn out nobody is willing to make them.

- Tom

At 6:33 PM -0400 9/21/06, Stephen W. Long wrote:

Ah, but there might be grounds to sue the ATSC (and their sponsoring
companies) for knowingly promoting a flawed system.


The system IS what it is. And a government agency approved it.

So I doubt that the ATSC could be held liable for providing a system that generally meets the criteria established by the FCC.

There's been a bunch of noise in the past week about officials at the FCC ordering certain reports buried or destroyed. This is not a rare occurrence. It is the normal mode of operation for a bureaucracy that REACTS to legislative and regulatory mandates, rather than guiding communications policy in the U.S. The FCC did not have the budget, talent or resources to lead the development of a proper digital broadcast infrastructure for the United States. So they turned the "hen house" over to the foxes. In so doing they ALSO established basic criteria for the system that drew upon the available resources at the FCC and tools they had to actually implement the system. And, to be fair, they did not have the desire to take on the broadcasters and start a political battle that necessarily would have required Congress to change the ground rules.

Bottom line, there is so much blame to spread around that even the best lawyers in the country would have a hard time pinning the blame on any entity that has financial resources worth going after.

The more likely outcome is that the government will proceed with the subsidized receiver program, then someone will notice that they do not work as well as NTSC. This will be sufficient grounds to begin an investigation, putting the 2009 switch-over on hold. When it is learned that the system is fundamentally flawed there will be a move to develop a new system that will leapfrog all of the existing technologies. It might be ready for deployment by 2020...

Regards
Craig


Other related posts: