On the 2005 switchover to digital

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Wilson <jwilson001 () sympatico ca>
Date: October 17, 2005 8:31:17 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] On the 2005 switchover to digital
Reply-To: joseph.wilson () utoronto ca


This guy's right -- it's not a socioeconomic issue, but an issue of  
choice.
What happened to the free market here?  Even when the public airwaves
convert to HD, they'll have to be piped into houses through cable  
lines or
phone lines via Rogers or Bell or Verizon or... leaving us less  
choice in
the end.  No?
- J



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: October 17, 2005 8:51 AM
To: Ip Ip
Subject: [IP] On the 2005 switchover to digital



Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Onosko <onosko () gmail com>
Date: October 16, 2005 5:51:03 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: On the 2005 switchover to digital
Reply-To: tim () onosko com


Dave:

A couple comments.

First, for the 80% of American homes connected to cable and/or
satellite (source Sanford Bernstein Research, quoted in a May, 2005
piece in the FT), using an analog set will not be a problem after
2009.  I know this leaves out 20% of homes who are not cable/
satellite subscribers, but this is not strictly an socio-economic
issue.  In fact, past studies demonstrate or suggest that lower
income groups prioritize expenditures like cable TV, because it
represents an important value to them, both in terms of entertainment
and information.  A few of those 20% non-subscribing homes are still
those without access to cable, such as rural residents.  And, in
fact, those in higher income groups with more education tend to watch
the least television and place the lowest value on it.  So, by and
large, many in that twenty percent are simply not interested in TV.
Those who consume lots of television and want to defer the purchase
of a digital set will have plenty of time to do so.

Second, the b'cast networks have made an interesting "transition" to
HDTV:  It has taken the four networks "only" about seven years to
move around 50% of their primetime entertainment and sports lineups
to HD programming.  None of the remaining genres, from news and
public affairs, to so-called reality programming, daytime drama,
variety and other program formats, is produced in HDTV.  A handful of
cable channels have launched HDTV versions of their programming, but
many (if not most) of the most watched channels -- the MTV Networks
channels, for example, and CNN, MSNBC, Fox News or CNBC -- have yet
to address the issue.

In other words, standard definition television programming isn't
going away anytime soon, either on broadcast OR cable television.

Third, this week, Steve Jobs virtually assured us that standard
definition (and lower-resolution) video is going to be around for a
LONG time to come.  The iTunes Music Store isn't selling HDTV
programs.  Apple endorsed a video format that is about a quarter of
the resolution of analog television, signalling a shift toward
flexibility in the way many people will consume TV, but away from the
higher technical specs of HDTV.

I love HDTV, and I think it represents nothing less than an
opportunity for TV to reinvent itself.  Many of the current non-
broadcast HDTV offerings on new channels like HDNet and Discovery HD
demonstrate a willingness to experiment with new TV forms and
formats.  But this is also a slow revolution with a premium price tag
attached to it, for now.

So let 2009 come and go.  If you are attracted to digital television,
HDTV and new services that may emerge, that's great.  But if you have
no interest and watch to continue to watch what you do now, how you
watch it, you're only out of luck if there's a TV antenna on the top
of your house.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as joseph.wilson () utoronto ca
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/