Broadcast, cable cos fight over downconverting
By Richard Lawler 
posted May 26th 2006 4:41PM
posted May 26th 2006 4:41PM
The Big Four networks appealed to Congress to stop a law that would allow cable companies to downgrade their HDTV signal to DTV. In an apparent switch from their previous stance against any converting of signals, the broadcast companies now appear willing to let cable companies convert DTV to analog after the OTA switchover for customers without digital cable converters. However, they are against allowing cable downconversion because they apparently fear cable companies would offer only DTV versions of their HDTV broadcast, and highlight cable stations high definition channels. More disturbing to us are their unspecified oppositions to what they call "broad" exceptions to the broadcast flag.All in all, we can probably look forward to more turmoil and delays before a digital switchover occurs. Still, we don't understand why the cable companies would want to downrez HDTV to DTV and not provide HD signals, but they've done sillier things (*cough* overcompression *cough*) before.
Let the market decide. Maybe people want more low quality channels than fewer high def ones.
I would think that the broadcasters would WANT the cable companies to downrez. That's a bigger reason to get on your roof and put up an antenna and recieve all that OTA goodness that they're blasting into the ether.
You gotta love Hollywood, they can make-up their minds on what they want to do. Old as sin, too much money, no creativity, no vision.
They could all die, that might solve the problem. Than the general public, might actually see HDTV in our lifetime, without those idiots standing in the way. Blocking Technology at every turn.
Look Hollywood, either get on the train or get off... but get the hell out of the way. Or we (the public) will continue to NOT go to the movies and cost you billions.
I've been thinking about dropping my cable altogether. My HD Antenna gets better quality reception than my analog cable, and I'm sick of cable boxes. I can do without all of the other channels for $50 a month. ($50 a month = $600 a year, which might buy me a new LCD Panel in a year and a half.)
My take on both types of downconversion:
HD to Analog - I'm glad that the broadcasters are coming around on this one. Cablecos are going to need some kind of basic analog-cable package to ease the post-shutoff pain for analog customers, and I wouldn't want to be the marketing guy in charge of selling such a package if the broadcast channels WEREN'T included.
HD to DTV - I think broadcasters are being paranoid if they think that cable wouldn't carry their HD signal - that'd be business suicide! Beyond that, I've been trying to figure out the purpose of HD/DTV downconversion in the first place, and I have a guess (pure speculation here). My old bedroom set is hooked to an SD cable box, and you can get the audio (but no video) from the HD channels. So maybe HD/DTV downconversion is to give setups like that a taste of the HD channel universe. But who knows what they're actually thinking?
Just to let you all know, there is a big thread going on in AVS about this very subject:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7733210#post7733210
Cable/Dish companies should not be allowed to down convert HD signals. The customer can do that with their STB if they so choose. I have a Samsung OTA/QAM tuner on the bedroom TV (via s video)and I enjoy watching HD channels downconverted for that TV. The picture quality is far and away the best I have ever seen on a non-HD set, better than even DVD. BUT I do watch true HD in the living room and want that pure HD signal. Let the customer decide on how they wish to view it!
HD to DTV - I think broadcasters are being paranoid I've been trying to figure out the purpose of HD/DTV downconversion in the first place,
Neal Saferstein