- Related Stories
-
IPTV promise meets reality
June 8, 2006 -
IPTV prepares for prime time
June 5, 2006 -
TV industry frets over high definition
April 26, 2006
After years of hype, HDTV, with its enhanced picture quality and superior sound, is finally becoming a reality. Consumers are starting to buy new HDTV sets in droves. Providing those people with more than one channel of HDTV programming could become a key selling point for the phone and cable providers battling to sign up TV subscribers.
"There's been a lot of talk about integrating all kinds of interactive features into TV," said Rick Thompson, a senior analyst at Heavy Reading, an industry analyst group based in New York City. "But in the short term, the biggest differentiator will be who has the best content package, and part of that will be how much HDTV you have."
Phone and cable companies realize the importance of HDTV. But some providers may be in a better position than others to handle the increased demand for HDTV channels, which will eat up loads of bandwidth.
The cable industry leads the U.S. market in HDTV subscribers, with about 5.5 million of the 7 million households signed up at the end of 2005, according to Leichtman Research Group. Patrick Esser, president of Cox Communications, said the cable company has seen HDTV demand build in the last six months, with 20,000 to 30,000 new customers every month.
Experts say that making sure networks keep up with HDTV demand is important, because it may help sway some consumers' buying decisions in the future.
"People today aren't choosing their TV service provider because of their HDTV offering," said Bruce Leichtman, principal analyst at Leichtman Research Group. "But they probably wouldn't go with a new provider who doesn't at least match or offer more than what they are already getting."
HDTV in the American home
A big reason for the increased demand is that there are more HDTV-capable sets out there. About 16.2 million U.S. homes had at least one at the beginning of 2006, and that tally has likely grown to about 19 million since then, according to Leichtman Research Group.
That rise in popularity is being driven by more affordable models. At Christmastime last year, the average price of an HDTV was $1,600, but people were able to get them for as little as $500. As prices continue to drop and people replace old TVs with newer ones, the number of homes with at least one HDTV set is expected to jump to 65 million by 2010.
In addition, a significant percentage of HDTV households have more than one set. Leichtman said 11 percent of people surveyed at the end of 2005 said they had more than one, and 18 percent said they were planning to buy another within the year.
For phone companies and cable operators, these are signs that subscribers will want to view more than one HDTV channel at once, which could put a strain on some networks.
"People with HDTVs will buy more than one over time," Leichtman said. "So if you are offering an HDTV service at all, you've got to be able to serve multiple TVs."
Poised to provide
Right now, in terms of network architecture, Verizon Communications is best equipped to deliver multiple HDTV streams. The phone company is building a network that extends fiber directly into homes, giving people almost limitless bandwidth capacity. Adding more HDTV streams over this infrastructure shouldn't be an issue.
But Verizon's fiber network is expensive to build and will end up costing the company as much as $20 billion, some analysts have estimated. In addition, it won't be able to reach every home within its range anytime soon. It has said it plans to reach 60 percent, or 18 million customers, within the next five years. Last year, it installed fiber in 3 million homes and expects to reach another 3 million by the end of 2006.
See more CNET content tagged:
HDTV, cable company, subscriber, fiber, TV
I think a lot of those HDTV sales are of the smaller sets that you can now buy for well under $1,000. I just don't see $1500+ TV's being bought in "droves".
Time-Warner Cable here has about a dozen HD channels. Occasionally, I'll notice compression artifacts (typically with very "busy" images, like a full-screen view of a babbling brook), but the average viewer probably wouldn't notice.
The problem a lot of shows have is that they are not broadcasting in much higher quality just using HDTV signals. This is true of HD channels that are showing older TV programming and movies.
I think a lot of those HDTV sales are of the smaller sets that you can now buy for well under $1,000. I just don't see $1500+ TV's being bought in "droves".
Time-Warner Cable here has about a dozen HD channels. Occasionally, I'll notice compression artifacts (typically with very "busy" images, like a full-screen view of a babbling brook), but the average viewer probably wouldn't notice.
The problem a lot of shows have is that they are not broadcasting in much higher quality just using HDTV signals. This is true of HD channels that are showing older TV programming and movies.
The reason is that, especially on Canada, service providers have been concentrating on upping the total number of both regular digital as well as HDTV channels as a draw to compete for subscribers.
To do that, the typical means is not to increase bandwidth so much as to compress signals more so that they fit in the narrow pipe. In Canada on digital pay movie channels the dark areas of a picture are now often black--rendered so by the effect of the channel stuffing extra compression.
This kind of sub-standard digital product isn't gonna do anything for the popularity of digital TV or HDTV (which is digital by default).
TIP: If thinking about moving to a digital cable box or an HDTV box, check out the service on a set within your immediate neighborhood. You may find that the service you'll pay a mint for leaves you looking as shows that appear as though their sets were lit with flashlights.
The cable (and phone) companies are interested in making more money, not providing you with a higher quality product, and it's the ability to fit more and more paid content and services over the same line that has gotten them on the digital bandwagon. The sad thing is that their greed is going to convince the average person that digital technology is still very primitive, when in fact it has the capacity to deliver amazing quality if it's allowed to.
The reason is that, especially on Canada, service providers have been concentrating on upping the total number of both regular digital as well as HDTV channels as a draw to compete for subscribers.
To do that, the typical means is not to increase bandwidth so much as to compress signals more so that they fit in the narrow pipe. In Canada on digital pay movie channels the dark areas of a picture are now often black--rendered so by the effect of the channel stuffing extra compression.
This kind of sub-standard digital product isn't gonna do anything for the popularity of digital TV or HDTV (which is digital by default).
TIP: If thinking about moving to a digital cable box or an HDTV box, check out the service on a set within your immediate neighborhood. You may find that the service you'll pay a mint for leaves you looking as shows that appear as though their sets were lit with flashlights.
The cable (and phone) companies are interested in making more money, not providing you with a higher quality product, and it's the ability to fit more and more paid content and services over the same line that has gotten them on the digital bandwagon. The sad thing is that their greed is going to convince the average person that digital technology is still very primitive, when in fact it has the capacity to deliver amazing quality if it's allowed to.
because they have an HDTV they're getting it. You have to
subscribe. If you did, you would see that even on smaller
screens, there's a VAST difference between even HDTV that's
720i let alone 1080i or 1080p. You must be one of those who
thinks he has it but doesn't.
My HDTV, a Sony rated the best HD picture around two years
ago, is only 34" and in my small apartment, that's just fine for
size. And the difference between HD programming and the rest
has made me almost quit watching regular TV.
If you want stuff like Discovery HD then yes you have to subscribe to an HD package, but if you just want to watch LOST in HD, no subscription necessary.
They have no clue about the differences between Digital (EDTV) and HDTV. By their posts, they'd obviously never seen an HDTV broadcast. But don't sweat it. Just be smug in the FACT that in a country with free education, you can accomplish enough to afford HDTV. While these dingdongs can't do anything but whine about life and illiterate migrants "stealing" their jobs.
because they have an HDTV they're getting it. You have to
subscribe. If you did, you would see that even on smaller
screens, there's a VAST difference between even HDTV that's
720i let alone 1080i or 1080p. You must be one of those who
thinks he has it but doesn't.
My HDTV, a Sony rated the best HD picture around two years
ago, is only 34" and in my small apartment, that's just fine for
size. And the difference between HD programming and the rest
has made me almost quit watching regular TV.
If you want stuff like Discovery HD then yes you have to subscribe to an HD package, but if you just want to watch LOST in HD, no subscription necessary.
They have no clue about the differences between Digital (EDTV) and HDTV. By their posts, they'd obviously never seen an HDTV broadcast. But don't sweat it. Just be smug in the FACT that in a country with free education, you can accomplish enough to afford HDTV. While these dingdongs can't do anything but whine about life and illiterate migrants "stealing" their jobs.
I would, and that "horse" is Fiber.
I declare Verizon the winner, IF they invest in the infrastructure, AND if they get past the "last mile" into the home.
Fiber has to actually be part of the interface between the TV, computer, whatever to allow for the future bandwidth needs.
Oh, and just how much difference is there between HDTV and your current monitor?
Hint: Not much, if any.
What's that mean?
All the new HDTV sets are actually monitors in disguise.
How's that for a convergence possibility?
"Children, can we say Verizon and Conversion in the same sentence?"
Diogenes
midwest where AT&T (was SBC) is the main player?
I would, and that "horse" is Fiber.
I declare Verizon the winner, IF they invest in the infrastructure, AND if they get past the "last mile" into the home.
Fiber has to actually be part of the interface between the TV, computer, whatever to allow for the future bandwidth needs.
Oh, and just how much difference is there between HDTV and your current monitor?
Hint: Not much, if any.
What's that mean?
All the new HDTV sets are actually monitors in disguise.
How's that for a convergence possibility?
"Children, can we say Verizon and Conversion in the same sentence?"
Diogenes
midwest where AT&T (was SBC) is the main player?
Dish Network currently offers 29 HD channels
My Local cable company only offers 13.
Dish Network currently offers 29 HD channels
My Local cable company only offers 13.
This is in part because witg HDTV it is the DIGITAL encoding of any broadcast signal--DTV or HDTV--that makes it sharp, not the resolution, until you hit 40" HDTV or over. A related factor is that most analog sets today also INTERPOLATE existing scanlines and create a greater apparent sharpness, such that when a digital cable signal is pumped to the set's analog jacks, it may be indestinguishable from HDTV at 40" or smaller sizes (HDTV measure).
But there are other limitations most HDTV sellers don't mention at all. When analog TV programs were packaged over the years, they would be produced to meet certain minimum resolution and image quality standards. A news story shot on an analog Betacam, for example, or a show that was videotaped to start with, would go through edits of tape to tape that would downgrade the resolution. Certain rules were normally followed as to how many times a tape to tape edit could be done and still be broadcast quality. But it was not uncomon to edit to the margin of permitted quality.
The end result of this process is that many analog recorded TV shows were not representative of a highly-detailed first generation analog tape to begin with. When such programming is broadcast as a digital or HDTV signal, there is no real benefit in seeing it as a an HDTV image, as it was not at such resolution to begin with. You can't get more out of an HDTV picture on the receiver side that was input by the broadcaster. In effect all the HDTV does for such shows is help reduce signal quality loss when received, as does the digital TV feed. But there is stil a loss because of teh aggressive compression that can be applied in the cable pipleine, as well as the compression that occurs when the digiral recording itself is made of the analog source.
When we consider that some 40 years of TV production is ensconced in such tapes and in tapes made from awful 16mm film-to-tape transfers, the real benefits of HDTV are not all the great, UNLESS you watch only new content.
HDTV has a huge drawback in displaying analog-format shows, since the only way old but still excellent analog shows will appear undistorted on an HDTV feed or DTV feed will be by showing it in a box in the middle of the HDTV screen. LCD and other non-cathode ray sets are going to be prone to uneven pixel burn in this respect.
TIP: Wait at least for the new thin CRT sets that are coming to market; they will offer HDTV at a much lower cost, with much longer durability ans a more vieweable picture.
For all these reasons HDTV in itself will not play a role in shaping service provider battles. Rather the QUALITY of the deilvered DTV or HDTV signal will be what wins the war. He who compresses least will win this war.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsh!t off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsht off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
This is in part because witg HDTV it is the DIGITAL encoding of any broadcast signal--DTV or HDTV--that makes it sharp, not the resolution, until you hit 40" HDTV or over. A related factor is that most analog sets today also INTERPOLATE existing scanlines and create a greater apparent sharpness, such that when a digital cable signal is pumped to the set's analog jacks, it may be indestinguishable from HDTV at 40" or smaller sizes (HDTV measure).
But there are other limitations most HDTV sellers don't mention at all. When analog TV programs were packaged over the years, they would be produced to meet certain minimum resolution and image quality standards. A news story shot on an analog Betacam, for example, or a show that was videotaped to start with, would go through edits of tape to tape that would downgrade the resolution. Certain rules were normally followed as to how many times a tape to tape edit could be done and still be broadcast quality. But it was not uncomon to edit to the margin of permitted quality.
The end result of this process is that many analog recorded TV shows were not representative of a highly-detailed first generation analog tape to begin with. When such programming is broadcast as a digital or HDTV signal, there is no real benefit in seeing it as a an HDTV image, as it was not at such resolution to begin with. You can't get more out of an HDTV picture on the receiver side that was input by the broadcaster. In effect all the HDTV does for such shows is help reduce signal quality loss when received, as does the digital TV feed. But there is stil a loss because of teh aggressive compression that can be applied in the cable pipleine, as well as the compression that occurs when the digiral recording itself is made of the analog source.
When we consider that some 40 years of TV production is ensconced in such tapes and in tapes made from awful 16mm film-to-tape transfers, the real benefits of HDTV are not all the great, UNLESS you watch only new content.
HDTV has a huge drawback in displaying analog-format shows, since the only way old but still excellent analog shows will appear undistorted on an HDTV feed or DTV feed will be by showing it in a box in the middle of the HDTV screen. LCD and other non-cathode ray sets are going to be prone to uneven pixel burn in this respect.
TIP: Wait at least for the new thin CRT sets that are coming to market; they will offer HDTV at a much lower cost, with much longer durability ans a more vieweable picture.
For all these reasons HDTV in itself will not play a role in shaping service provider battles. Rather the QUALITY of the deilvered DTV or HDTV signal will be what wins the war. He who compresses least will win this war.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsh!t off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsht off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
As for those who are extolling the wonders of their small HD sets in the homes: There are plenty of pundits out there who say that viewing HD on sets smaller than 40" or so in the typical home setting provides little discernible improvement in the viewing experience (these were in comparing the new high def DVD formats vs std def DVD format). Since the TV I plan to buy is 42", I think I should experience some modest improvement in viewing quality if I bother to subscribe to HD (I won't pay money for a built-in tuner, so please don't tell me I can just put up an antenna). But, I'm still left with this question: Those folks posting to this thread who extoll the virtues of small HD sets: At what size is HD no longer an advantage (in you opinions, that is)?
mark d.
As for those who are extolling the wonders of their small HD sets in the homes: There are plenty of pundits out there who say that viewing HD on sets smaller than 40" or so in the typical home setting provides little discernible improvement in the viewing experience (these were in comparing the new high def DVD formats vs std def DVD format). Since the TV I plan to buy is 42", I think I should experience some modest improvement in viewing quality if I bother to subscribe to HD (I won't pay money for a built-in tuner, so please don't tell me I can just put up an antenna). But, I'm still left with this question: Those folks posting to this thread who extoll the virtues of small HD sets: At what size is HD no longer an advantage (in you opinions, that is)?
mark d.
I have subscribed to digital cable that comes with some HD channels; hd is pretty nice. The biggest difference I have noticed is people's faces. You can really see the imperfections in people's faces with HD. I know that sounds mean, but the truth hurts.
I would say that the biggest barrier to the next gen HD in the home is not the cable providers but the greedy media companies that will choke us with DRM.
You cannot tell the US consumer market that their brand new HDTV will not work with their new Blue ray/ Hd Dvd player because of their drm scheme and not expect some major backlash.
I for one will not be buying any next gen that will not work with what I have already bought right out of the box. Sony: you can go to hell.
- I agree.
- by June 13, 2006 5:12 PM PDT
- I bought a HD TV (32" Westinchouse LCD monitor with NTSC Tunner) about a year ago. I was watching regular cabel Tv on it for a while and using it for pc gaming. I did not buy the Tv specifically for it's HD capabilities but for it's capability to double as a huge computer monitor :-).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (82 Comments)I have subscribed to digital cable that comes with some HD channels; hd is pretty nice. The biggest difference I have noticed is people's faces. You can really see the imperfections in people's faces with HD. I know that sounds mean, but the truth hurts.
I would say that the biggest barrier to the next gen HD in the home is not the cable providers but the greedy media companies that will choke us with DRM.
You cannot tell the US consumer market that their brand new HDTV will not work with their new Blue ray/ Hd Dvd player because of their drm scheme and not expect some major backlash.
I for one will not be buying any next gen that will not work with what I have already bought right out of the box. Sony: you can go to hell.