HDTV penetration reaches 65%

now a study needs to be done to see how many Americans actually have their HDTVs hooked up correctly

I will guess about 10%

It is amazing what I see people watching on their HD sets and then have to show them how wrong they are but I am at the point now of if your happy looking at crappy tv go for it

There's a joke in that headline somewhere....

When I bought my HDTV 10 years ago this summer I remember being in an argument as to whether HD capability had reached 1/10 of 1 %. That 1/10 of 1 % would have been 100,000 households and the consensus was that it was no where near that.

Rick R

And how many are still watching the SD channels on cable because it's easier to punch in "8" instead of "708".

*raises hand and waves*

Before I canceled my cable I was watching channel 8. But that was only because it was easier than punching in "1408" into TWC's crappy, slow laggy Navigator box with their crummy remote. Never had a problem when the HD channels were three digit numbers though.

That's why I really think TWC's "TV Made Easy" thing will only further hurt HD adaptation. People were upset enough about going from 1 or 2 to 3 digit numbers. Now they expect us to know 4 digit numbers.

If HDTV penetration is truely at 65%, then I think now is the time to make channel 4 be CBS HD and make make CBS analog be channel 1004, instead of the other way around.

Comcast's new iGuide has a cool feature to deal with that. When you tune to any channel that has an HD counterpart, there is a 'Watch HD Now' button on the Info bar. All you have to do is hit 'OK', and presto-chango, you're watching HD.

I have a friend that bought a 65 in projection HDTV about 3-4 years ago had DirectTv but no HD. Even connected the STB it to the TV via coax. He got a PS3 connected the same way via RF switch. All his SD content was in stretch-o-vision. He though his picture was great. I told him once my 27 inch tube TV had a better picture and his response was "No it doesn't, this is a HDTV". I asked him when he was going to upgrade to the HD package for DirecTv. He said it was to much money. Somehow $10 was too much. $26 for HBO and Showtime ( in SD only by the way ) and $18 for the Payboy Channel wasn't too expensive. Ok whatever.

Finally I gave him a component cable I had for a PS2 to use on his PS3 since my son got a XBOX 360 and didn't play his PS2 anymore. Needless to say he was surprised how much better his PS3 games looked. Still watched DVDs though. One time at the video store I told him the movie he was going to rent was available on blu-ray for rent he asked me if it was the same price. I said it was $1 more. His response "F--k that I'll rent the DVD"

I never understood why he paid $1600 for that Tv just to watch SD content.

Dialing a 5 digit channels-105-1, 114-11, etc, in a darkened living room at night can be a pain. Especially when you dial wrong, and get a black screen, leaving you in even more dark.

When HDTV owners say the PQ isn't as good as their old set, and they don't mean SD channels, well, most likely they aren't set up right, the 32 inch crt was bigger than the 32 in lcd, but they sit the same or farther and think wider is bigger, wrong cables, wrong channels, and some are simply not getting how it should look.

You'd think that be common sense since the dimensons are different. A 27 inch CRT needs a 32 inch HDTV to have the same height. A 32 inch CRT nees 37 inch to be about the same height. You'd think stores would help out and inform potential customers of this fact. Someone that had a 19 inch CRT and gets a 19 inch HDTV is going to be very disappointed.

As far as wiring. Most people are used to just hooking the coax into the TV or using composite cables. Doesn't help that stores try to sell HDMI cables for $30 or more. Someone that doesn't realize composite cable can't pass along a HD signal is going to choose a $5 composite cable over a $30 HDMI cable.

3 years ago the CEA said 30% had HDTV. So basically one can predict close to 100% in 2013. Hopefully by 2018 cable/sat will just be all HD. Cable with it's analog/ digital SD/ HD is really holding it back trying to cater to 3 different kinds of customers.

Which sounds bigger, 4x3 or 16x9? , Full Screen HD, haha. This is the gullible American public we are talking about, you know, super size it.

Your right, the salesmen should give more info as to what people are buying. And I had to tell my sister to bring back those 40.00 cables, to Best Buy.

$40? That's it? When I bought my TV a few years ago, they tried to sell me a HDMI cable that cost much more than $40. I swear it was over $100. It's almost as if Best Buy and Monster have a deal or something, to sell more product. And it's completely unnecessary since every HD cable box comes with component cables packed in the carton, for free!!

40.00 for 3 ft. HAHA. I know, dumb as me when I first got into this back in 2003, I bought the 6 ft Monster 100.00 DVI cable. Well it really is a heavy duty cable, but well you know. It looks pretty with the "gold".

I still think that DirecTV's solution to this is the best. An SD and HD feed per channel number, and it defaults to the HD when you have a HD box . Then you can 'hide' the SD channels and never have to worry about that again

Something to do with HDTV virgins, perhaps?

At any rate, I've actually talked my parents out of getting an HD set because they have no intention of upgrading their cable to HD service (which would mean replacing their standalone SD TiVo if they wanted to record anything in HD). Since they have poor line of sight for OTA, that's not an option for them.

In 2000 there were less than 100,000 HD displays of any kind in the US, professional or commercial so no, there were not 100,000 households with HD displays.

The number shouldn't be surprising, try and buy a SD TV, it's not easy. Despite not being in the market for a new TV, I'll often look at them. Today I was at Super Target and there were no SD TV's. I'm not saying you can't find them, but anyone looking for something of any size is buying an HD set whether they plan on watching HD or not.

The only place you can find SDTVs in my area is at Fred's and those TVs are those off-brands. I'm not sure you can find a SDTV made by a well known manufacturer. Honestly I wouldn't by any electronics from Fred's

I don't see where, but I'm looking forward to full penetration. At that point the providers can pull out of the SD business. It seems that 46" is the average I'm seeing people go for, but with each year they want bigger. Some maintain that size doesn't really matter, but rather it's the quality of the motion and the colors they experience. Prices keep going down. Now with 3D consumers can enjoy the extra depth. New technology just keeps thrusting its way into our lives, and there are always those who are ready to swallow it as it comes. What a hobby.

I stopped trying to show people..

Larger than 20 inches? That's as large as I've seen.

Makes you wonder if the number of houses actually viewing HD programming is going to hit a brick wall pretty soon. Most of the analysts have HDTV set penetration well over 90% between 2012-2014. It seems highly unlikely that the number of people viewing HD content will continue to rise at that kind of blistering pace, despite significant efforts at educating owners.

I need a cigarette...

I'd like to see studies on what percentage of the population is actually watching HD programming (in HD) and how that has changed over the years and expected trends. I think that is more telling than HDTV penetration, as you said, will hit 90% soon.

I saw some numbers about 6 months ago and the number of households watching HD on HD displays is nowhere near the number of households with HD displays. The numbers are quite depressing. That is why you see all the providers pushing HD services so hard.

If they really wanted to make a push, they wouldn't charge extra for the privilege.

I know it sounds silly for someone to buy the TV, then not be willing to pay the $10 a month for access, but this isn't 2001 anymore, when a 42" TV cost $1200-$1800 (and that was seldom for a sexy flat panel). You can get the same thing now for around $600-$800, depending on brand, which almost doesn't matter anymore with how good many of the budget brands have become. A 27" SD tube TV would run you a good $400-$500 back then, so around $600 for a bit more real estate isn't going to break the bank.

However, $10 a month is $120 a year - probably forever, since that charge likely won't go away so much as be absorbed into the basic price. Now, I realize some providers don't have that extra charge for HD, but it's often there in some form, either through needed to order a larger minimum package or more advance (read: more expensive) equipment.

Not only that, with cable and satellite, now you're talking about a box verses just plugging into the wall jack with analog cable. Now, once more providers start going all digital, you might see more people stepping up since they need the box anyway, but for now, the system is simple. It just works.

In a time when many are considering cutting back on services, adding more is not likely an option.

The providers derive very little benefit, except for the revenue associated with related charges, from pushing more of their customers to make use of HD sources. The providers' push for HD is all a matter of marketing, being able to say that they have # HD channels, that they do have XXX channel in HD, etc.