TV makers may face mandate on digital receivers

USA TODAY ^ | July 31, 2002 | Paul Davidson

[HAL9000]

In an effort to jump-start the languid rollout of digital TV, federal regulators next week are expected to require all new TV sets to include digital receivers by 2006, say people familiar with the matter.

TV makers say the mandate would boost the price of a TV by about $200, dampening sales. Broadcasters, who have pushed for such a rule, dispute the figure.

[HAL9000]

Consumer demand for digital television is low, so why are Congress and the FCC pushing so hard for it? Probably because the Hollywood lawyers want the mandatory "Fritz chip" to block people who tape programs for later viewing or to bypass commercials.

The thing a lot of people are demanding - but can't get - is DSL broadband service. Congress and the FCC should quit worrying about DTV and focus their attention on phasing out the century-old voice-grade service and replacing it with a DSL standard.

[stands2reason]

bump

[DoughtyOne]

I gotta tell ya that I think the TV manufacturers woud love nothing more than to sell dribbles of HDTVs for the next decade at $3000 to $7000 per. If they'd get their act together, which will drop profits drasticly on HDTVs, they'd be able to privide them for far far less. I think they're dragging their feet on purpose.

I do have a complaint about those HDTV sets. Most of them have a glossy screen. You'd get a headache watching anything on them due to the false images of reflections on the screens. What's up with that? It's almost like they are going to force us to by one with terrible glare, then roll out the replacements several years after that, so we all have to upgrade. What a bunch of horse stuff!

[Fred Mertz]

In April, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell asked TV makers to voluntarily install digital receivers, or tuners, in half of TVs with at least 36-inch screens by Jan. 1, 2004.

What's in it for Colin Powell's son?

[doglot]

Digital satellite receivers cost as little as $50. Most people know when something is overpriced and don't buy. Why is it there is only one PC-TV card out there for HDTV and it is priced so high? Price them reasonable and watch them fly out the door.

[HAL9000]

I'm not too impressed with the HDTV pictures I've seen at BestBuy either. It's not quite the same improvement that switching from vinyl records to compact discs was. My old NTSC TV is a lot easier to watch.

[general_re]

Those Best Buy demo sets don't do it justice. I have a friend who has a flat screen HDTV that goes along with his DSS dish - DirecTV's been broadcasting HBO and a few other channels in high-def for some time now. And let me tell you, "Band of Brothers" in high-def TV and Dolby digital surround is very, very impressive ;)

[HAL9000]

There's nothing on broadcast TV that I care to watch (except maybe The McLaughlin Group)

Yeah - in quadraphonic!

[lizma]

I've got DSL business class and a 12" B&W TV.

I consider it Feng Shui of the 00's.

[supercat]

In an effort to jump-start the languid rollout of digital TV, federal regulators next week are expected to require all new TV sets to include digital receivers by 2006, say people familiar with the matter.

How many people today use their television set to view any off-air broadcasts? It seems to me a lot of people use either satellite or cable, and those formats have their own digital receivers which are quite different from HDTV off-air receivers. If someone's not viewing off-air broadcasts, why do they need a fancy digital tuner (or any tuner for that matter)?

If this goes through, I would expect a lot of monitors to be sold without any sort of receiver.

[DoughtyOne]

My wife and I dropped by a Circuit City a couple of months ago. They had a 38" Panasonic unit on display. It was going for $1999. The local PBS affiliate was broadcasing HDTV. They were picking up the signal on rabbit ears. I kid you not, it was like looking at my 18" monitor, only it was 38" across. Unbelievable. We stayed there and watched the program for around thirty minutes. It was the first time I had seen one that I couldn't take my eyes off of. That was the promise. Most of the sets don't live up to it. This set also had a glare problem. I'm not sure what's up with that.

[DoughtyOne]

Another poster aluded to another problem. I don't watch hardly any broadcast TV. The networks are nearly a total loss IMO. I subscribe to cable service, but that programming is often full off not much more than homosexual, cheap degrading porn, HBOs poor excuses for adult entertainment and other "B" movies. To be honest, I've come very close the canceling the whole thing.

Cable has largely failed it's promise. Oh I know there's always something on, but sooner or later it all becomes so much noise. If it weren't for the Fox channel and some of the financial networks I'd probably chuck the whole thing. I don't like to support tripe. I actually feel guility for some of the "stuff" that is piped into my home. They sure have some nerve. I never thought I'd have a homosexual channel on my cable service.

Later.

[HAL9000]

Yes, then I can yell at the front right speaker - "Wrong!"

[HAL9000]

Or maybe it be the left rear speaker. Whatever.

[HAL9000]

Oh great. Now I'm typing Ebonics.

[spectr17]

Looking at any TV pic in an electronics store showroom that has the brightness cranked up is not really an objective viewing.

DirecTV compresses the heck out of it's HDTV signals so you really don't have a superb HDTV pic. Now CBS' CSI in HDTV over the air is the cat's meow. When you see true HDTV uncompressed for the first time, you'll be just as slack jawed as I was.

If you can find someone who has a widescreen HDTV set that is tweaked for best pic, have them show you the PBS demo channel over the air. You'll never look back.

[krb]

DSL sux. Cable rules.

[Always Right]

If you can find someone who has a widescreen HDTV set that is tweaked for best pic, have them show you the PBS demo channel over the air. You'll never look back.

HDTV is awesome, but there is too little material out there.