AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm still recovering from a very negative article on HD in this morning's San Diego Union Tribune, that managed to cast the most negative light possible on the subject. While this is a local publication, I think the tone and tenor of the article deserve widespread view, and the issues are not localized.

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniont...b3primeti.html


What frustrates me most from the article, is the author's summary of the state of available programming, that I think grossly mistates the actual situation:

Quote:
In San Diego, the commercial network stations – ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and WB – all transmit digital signals that can be picked up with a tuner/receiver and an antenna.


However, few shows are aired in high definition.

According to TitanTV.com, a Web site that lists HDTV broadcasts, the HDTV pickings are slim in San Diego, usually limited to "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," "The Young and the Restless" and a few prime-time shows on ABC.


All the rest of the shows are transmitted in standard digital format, whose pictures are only slightly better than analog TV.
I have sent an Email, detailing how incorrect I believe her conclusion is, and the substantial amount of network broadcasting that is available locally, with more commited to in the Fall, based on recent anouncements by NBC and WB, but you may find other subjects and conclusions to challenge, or perhaps concur with.


Vic W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The paper is probably owned by the same companies who own the Stations that are so against HDTV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
I especially liked the comment by KGTV that they had only counted 46 viewers of their digital signal. Counted how? By how many phone calls they get when they don't flip the switch and show the SD version of an HD program?


I started a thread on the local reception forum before I read this one --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=144947


We have to try to make it known that we're out here and we're watching. If we make some noise they'll have to quit hiding behind the "no one's out there" excuse. They'll no doubt switch to a different excuse then...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
Most of what the article says is, unfortunately, true. HDTV is great technology, but it has a long way to go before any real consumer rush occurs.


We have about $5000 of HD gear and a system that gets about 130 channels (DirecTV + cable + OTA). Of those 130, only 5 are digital, and of those, only 2 regularily broadcast HDTV content( HDNet and HBO).


Cost and content are major issues for HDTV, and many consumers make their decisions based on just that info.


ED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
Don't your OTA DTV locals pass through their many hours or regularly scheduled HD programming?


ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Ed Dixon
Most of what the article says is, unfortunately, true.
I think that the core of the article is the author's contention that beyond the expense, there is almost nothing to watch, and her summary of the current status of HD programming was grossly wrong, whether intentionally to allow her make her point, or through ignorance of the facts.


She ignored or failed to report the 20 hours a day of KPBS HD broadcasting, and all of the 13 or more prime time CBS regular weekly series, as well as the special sporting events that have been broadcast on CBS & NBC.


Vic W.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,399 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Just read the article at the link posted and find a lot more to agree with than to disagree with. While there may in fact be more available HD programming than indicated in the article, the question is - available to whom? Only a small percentage of people that already own HD displays also own a STB because of a) the cost and b) they need their local cable company to carry the HD programming. Until those requirements are met, very few people are going to see any HD, regardless of how much programming the networks provide. And for the same reason, few people have any reason to rush out and upgrade to an expensive HD display.


- dale
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,814 Posts
Ed Dixon:


Don't mean to be picky but...


All Direct TV channels are "digital". I'm assuming you meant digital in the context of high definition(?).:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Boden
Ed Dixon:


Don't mean to be picky but...


All Direct TV channels are "digital". I'm assuming you meant digital in the context of high definition(?).:confused:
Correct. Today we get HDNet, HBO, and SHO. HDNet always has a HD picture. Most of HBO is good, and thusfar, little of SHO looks any better than their standard channels.


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by vicw



I think that the core of the article is the author's contention that beyond the expense, there is almost nothing to watch, and her summary of the current status of HD programming was grossly wrong, whether intentionally to allow her make her point, or through ignorance of the facts.


She ignored or failed to report the 20 hours a day of KPBS HD broadcasting, and all of the 13 or more prime time CBS regular weekly series, as well as the special sporting events that have been broadcast on CBS & NBC.


Vic W.
Many viewer truly have little to watch. We have 4 local channels. Only 2 have a digital broadcast, and only one of those can actually be received. The one we get broadcasts in DTV format, but has effectively zero weekly HD shows. They did the Olymics, but nothing since that time. Cable here has zero HD content, and DirecTV has 3 channels.


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Ed Dixon



Many viewer truly have little to watch. We have 4 local channels. Only 2 have a digital broadcast, and only one of those can actually be received. The one we get broadcasts in DTV format, but has effectively zero weekly HD shows. They did the Olymics, but nothing since that time. Cable here has zero HD content, and DirecTV has 3 channels.


Ed
Ed,


Keep in mind that in the section of the article I originally quoted, the author was specifically reporting the current state of HD broadcasting in San Diego, which she substantially underreported. I wouldn't argue the point that other parts of the country have a worse set of HD viewing choices.


Vic W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I guesstimate that 100 million plus can tune in DTV broadcasts TODAY.



'Broadcasters Moving Forward on DTV,' Remarks by Edward O. Fritts, President/CEO, National Association of Broadcasters



May 15 , 2002


Thanks so much for the kind introduction, Mark. NAB appreciates the great work that ATSC has done over the years to keep the digital television train running. ATSC's work in developing technical standards has brought us to the brink of a new era in television that we hope will surpass the expectations of even the most optimistic DTV advocate.


NAB and local broadcasters have always been believers in the promise of digital and high definition television. That's why more than a decade ago we embarked on our historic private-public partnership to bring to American consumers the best free television the world has ever seen.


We embraced DTV and HDTV because it was clear that every other communications technology was either going digital or was digital from the get-go, from telephones to cable to satellite to computers. We recognized that for free, over-the-air television to remain technically competitive, digital was the ticket to our future.




Now I would be the first to admit that there have been bumps on our DTV journey. But I stand here today to report that the progress that broadcasters are making on behalf of American consumers is real.


As of today, there are 410 local TV stations on air in DTV, and that number will grow in ensuing months. 422 as of 6/4/02


Moreover, hundreds more DTV transmitters are on order for delivery this year. That suggests that scores of additional stations are only a few short months from being on air.


In the top 30 markets, 113 out of 119 network-affiliated stations are on air right now, and that number would be higher were it not for an unthinkable terrorist attack that took down some DTV signals in New York.


More than 86% of all U.S. homes are in markets with at least one DTV signal. Nearly half of all U.S. households are in markets with at least four DTV signals! All that, despite the fact that there is almost no cable carriage of local DTV stations, and despite the dearth of DTV tuners in so-called "DTV sets." Frankly it's hard to find DTV sets with digital tuners available for consumers to purchase.



Read the entire article 'Broadcasters Moving Forward on DTV,' Remarks by Edward O. Fritts, President/CEO, National Association of Broadcasters

www.nab.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
Do all the errors we find in HDTV related articles and news stories make anyone else question the quility of news in general, I am left to wonder about the accurcy of other reporting on subjects of which i am less knownageble.


I just can't beleive how offten prices are misrepresented and supossed lack of programing is used as reasoning for writting a negitive article on HDTV. It happens so offten it is mind boggleing.


Also how is it these reporters can never get any neweer more up to date and accurate information; They must be all useing each others inaccurate articles as references, so the myths are continued; instead of researching the subject themselves.


-tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
I find reasonably educated people ignorant on most HDTV issues and content.


I'd be extremely happy with about 9 good quality HD stations if they were major. ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,UPN,HBO,SHO,HDNET, DISC would be a good mix.

20 would be heaven.


Of course I'll probably die first, but I really don't need 200 crap channels. Interactive TV would be the first to go, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I totallly agree with tonyb100's post. (About two above this one.) Almost every time I read an article on a subject I know from direct experience, the reporter has confused the facts. Reporters take journalism courses in college, and usually nothing that would teach them about critical thinking. They don't get paid much, either.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top