I've always thought HDTV was a losing proposition (Design News 09.13.04 My View, http://rbi.ims.ca/3856-501). Some time ago when the FCC started to look into HDTV, someone did a blind study on TV formats and sound quality. People immediately saw the higher image quality of HDTV. But they also perceived an increase in video quality when they got only better sound. The brain works in interesting ways. Most analog TV receivers have poor audio circuitry. Early TV sets used only one tube and a cheap 3-inch speaker. Most current TV sets aren't much better. They receive great-quality FM sound but they don't use it. So, the TV manufacturers might have skipped over HDTV simply by giving viewers better sound quality. To me a bigger issue involves buying a la carte channels/services. I'd gladly pay for the channels I want, but would like the option of NOT selecting the channels I don't want. But the trouble is no cable competition, so cable companies offer take-it or leave-it services and they don't have to pay attention to customers.
I agree with the points you raised in your editorial on HDTV wholeheartedly. The stuff on TV really isn't worth having to buy a new TV. I also am a holdout from satellite, since cable isn't available where I live. But you have actually missed the whole point of the Digital TV mandate. It is really dollars in the general fund. Or at least that is the government's plan. You see, by eliminating some of the existing broadcast TV channels, the FCC will be able to sell the spectrum to wireless providers of whatever sort. They are going to do this by moving every TV broadcast station to a new channel, as the DTV thing comes on line. Hidden in there is the fact that channels at the top end (53 to 68, I think) will no longer be used for television, but will be sold. Actually, it is more complicated than that. The new spectrum will be used for public service; police, fire, and EMS; but they will be vacating 150 MHz VHF and 450 MHz UHF channels, which will then be sold to the highest bidder. The biggest problem with it all, is that some of the free 150 and 450 channels did not sell as well as hoped, in the last auction. Some-thing else that is hidden is the fact that somebody will get to sell more radio equipment to the public service users (none exists for the 700 MHz band at this time) and then eventually to the new users, whoever they may be, in the 150 and 450 MHz bands. Kinda freaky how our government is selling public resources to the highest bidder, while forcing everyone else to pay out of pocket for the service.
It seems to me that there's an easy way out of the problem my wife set in her recent editorial. Rather than forcing HDTV tuners on the 85 percent of the public that relies upon cable anyway, why not simply have the federal government buy cable service for the 15 percent of us who rightly perceive these companies as the "devil's spawn?" Not only would this accelerate the transition to HDTV (thereby freeing up analog TV spectrum for government auction, more than offsetting the cost of the subscriptions), but there's the endless satisfaction of watching the cable companies struggle to collect their fees from a bureaucracy even less concerned about customer satisfaction than they. Until then, I expect that NetFlix will be the only route to HBO in the Field household!
Frank Field, Cambridge, MA
Editor's Note:Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The day after his letter appeared, Wired News reported that Senator McCain introduced a bill to do precisely what Frank proposes. Seehttp://rbi.ims.ca/3856-502.
Your husband's "no-cable policy" sounds a lot like my situation. We don't subscribe to cable due to the cost—particularly for all of the channels we would get but don't really care about. I don't mind the idea of the tuner being added, but I DO mind the idea of being forced to pay for it. What if we don't want it?
JUNE 26TH WEBCAST: Collaborative Requirements Engineering
Speed your innovation. Capture the "voice of the customer" and translate customer requests into user requirements that define new products. Find out why the new ENOVIA Requirements Management solution enables organizations to improve their overall global requirements management process. Read More
Mechatronics in action
Successful synergistic integration of controls, electronics, computers and mechanical systems is key to the 21st century design process. Unlock the secrets at the Mechatronics Zone!
Webcast: Sensor Know-How Now
Join our moderator Randy Frank and John Keating from Cognex and explore Solving Industrial Inspection Problems. Read More
Engineering Concept Conduit
Engineering Concept Conduit looks at new products and the components that make them exceptional. Each month we’ll look at a new electronic product and see what makes it tick from an engineering point of view. We’ll explore the design and engineering challenges for the product and examine the components that solved those challenges.
Light Matters: Systems Level Approach to HBLED illumination applications
Its good practice to apply a systems-level approach to high-brightness LED (HBLED) illumination applications. Minimally, the system includes the optical, thermal and electrical characteristics of the of the HBLED, the lens (if any) which is built-in to its package, secondary optics such as external plastic lenses/reflectors to direct the light as your application requires and power driver electronics. Read More
Design News RSS News Feeds
Webcast: Sensor Know-How Now
