Tauzin to deliver DTV bill

Members of Congress and congressional staff all appeared stumped over how to handle the issue of whether cable operators should be required to carry multicast digital-broadcast signals.



The best way to handle that is to let the cable companies do what they want with that issue. If the cable companies do not provide enough bandwidth for all multicast channels, maybe that will force the local stations to broadcast only one high quality HD channel rather than many low quality SD digital channels.


If there really is compelling programming on a sub channel, the market will sooner or later demand that the sub channel be available on their cable service.


I'm stumped over how Congress members and congressional staff are stumped on this issue.



Tauzin believes TV-set manufacturers ought to build affordable sets that will both receive and pass through digital-TV signals, whether they are delivered over-the-air or by cable, although set makers do not appear to be on that path thus far.


HDMI and/or Firewire anyone?

I also received my Sunday Ticket please don't cancel letter where it stated there may be games in HD; so I'm reviving this thread in hopes of getting a clear understanding (I know good luck) of where we are now in mid-May.


Where is this bill now? Is it buried in committee or will we see it on the floor before the August recess?


Does the FCC have the authority to develop broadcast flag regulations or is this bill needed to allow the FCC to make a decision? Or will this bill make the decision for the FCC? The FCC doesn't seem to want to touch the broadcast flag issue with a ten foot pole with the CFA, CEA, broadcasters and Hollywood all duking it out here.


It has been mentioned in this forum that the broadcast flag will not greatly impede non PPV HD viewing and will not automatically downrez stuff viewed with legacy equipment. So why not do this as a compromise as long as it is in line with the fair use intent? If it can get the digital transition over the hump and moving forward, I support it.


If the bill is not passed and signed into law by the August recess, then Viacom (CBS) will have to make a decision about their fall HD lineup and intentions regarding NFL games in HD. That leaves us only about 10 weeks to wrap this up and I can easily jump to the conclusion that there is no way in hell that is going to happen. I do hope that CBS decides to initiate weekly NFL HD games as that is truly the killer app; they could get upstaged by ABC/Disney in a major way here if they actually decide to put HD on the shelf.


Could anyone shed some light on where we are with this specific bill and how the FCC fits in?


Thanks,

Don

dony,
Quote:
A lot of people on this forum work in the computer / IT industry. The broadcast flag isn't likely to impact those that use standard set-top boxes, D-VHS recorders, or PVRs to watch or timeshift content, but it does have serious ramifications for those solutions that integrate with computers. People whose employment (or interests) will be impacted by the convergence of computing and digital television obviously do not want additional regulation imposed on computer hardware and software that would integrate local digital broadcast viewing.

Quote:
Of course, it's not just CBS. All of the major studios support the broadcast flag and are touting its necessity to the future of high-definition on network television. Viacom just happens to be the only one that has publicly threatened to withhold content this year--and a Viacom decision would ultimately impact a lot more than just CBS. Several members who work at FOX affiliates have also speculated that there will no HDTV on that network until a broadcast flag is in place. FOX developed the broadcast flag and has been its most vocal advocate in industry publications.


HDTV on cable is here to stay; the future of HDTV on broadcast television is unclear. On cable, the studios already have access to far more substantial protections than the networks would gain with a broadcast flag. If the studios can't obtain such protections for the broadcast medium, they will simply move their content to cable where it is protected (or use an encrypted subchannel for HD). Obviously, that would be a loss for those that enjoy free HDTV, and would render existing HDTV set-top boxes for OTA all but worthless for anything but SDTV. The withdrawal of free HDTV would also represent a serious blow to the DTV transition and adoption, such that we'd probably see fewer HD channels on cable (and in a less timely manner) than we would have otherwise.


Is the withdrawal of HDTV from network television, and the very real possibility of fewer HDTV channels on cable, worth it just to prevent any possible limitations on the integration of computers and OTA television? Some would say so, but I would not. I don't agree with much of the broadcast flag proposal (as is), but I do agree with the studios that there need to be some protections or limitations in place to discourage the future distribution (piracy) of broadcast content on the Internet. We've all seen what's happened with the music industry, which nobody could have predicted just five or six years ago.

Quote:
A lot of people everywhere work in the computer / IT industry. It's still a growth area for jobs and industry, notwithstanding the year 2000 hangover and the burst of the Internet bubble.

Quote:
The integration of computer and TV technology has made possible things like Tivo's, powerful home video scalers, and DVD's.


DVD is a good example where it was regulated by a Hollywood committee. In additon to copy protection there are region coding, sections of non-skippable commercials, and a requirement that it not be displayed scaled above 480 lines no matter how badly you need that on a huge display.


We already know that some broadcasters and Hollywood interests feel it is illegal to skip commercials in Tivo's. Do we really want to give them this sort of veto power over new technology? I think most would agree no.


So, yes, the broadcasters maybe want additional protection. But the burden is on them to come up with a better compromise. And I personally feel that logos, pop-ups, overlays, dynamic product placements, commercials, and cut "airplane versions" are probably all the protections they really need.


- Tom

Quote:
That would be a perfect impetus for passing a whopping spectrum tax.


But again, the broadcasters are mostly owned by Hollywood companies now and if they choose to withhold their content I think they should be allowed to do so.


So what!


If they don't provide then someone else will. That would open up the market. It would be much better than giving an existing oligopoly legal veto power over which devices are allowed to be built to receive signals over the public airwaves.


- Tom

trbarry has already beat me to the punch, but again, so what???


If the broadcasters and MPAA devise a draconian copy-protection scheme, people will just ignore it and will NEVER be adopted by the consumers. They already have DVD and Digital Cable, why go through the hassels?


And DVD/DivX fiasco has already proved that when given a choice, consumers will opt for less controlling medium. Look at the adoption rate for DVD-A and HDCD; tight copy protection+ no digital output = no consumer support (especially compared to CD when it was first introduced)


If the networks don't want to offer digital content, they are free to do so, as long as they return the spectrums that they are using for FREE. Once they are returned, I am sure entrepreneurs like Mark Cuban will be more than happy to use them for HD programming.


Seems like a win-win situation for consumers.


P.S. I am not going to get dragged back into why the "no-copy" flag will make current technology obsolete. But here is a reminder....


The statements "Absolutely no copies can be made (to be distributed on P2P network)" AND "Must be backward compatible to existing A/V equipment" are mutually exclusive (and any person with ANY technical background can tell you why).

Interesting debate so far and I'd just like to say to all that have so much faith in the "free-market" is that it isn't really free because many consumers are steered in some way or other by corporations.


Look at people like Tucker, an innovator which, if given a chance, the free-market would have probably embraced, but Detroit shut him down.


I would hate to see Mark go that way too.



The DVD/DivX thing wasn't really just an example of how controlling made people go away from it. It was partially because consumers did not understand the concept of DivX, the same reason why there is confusion now over some of the music services online where they are subscriptions rather than outright purchases.


Consumers can't figure out why when they buy something, it is not theirs. Until computer software hit the market, most people never even paid attention to EULA and the little small print on every recording that says you don't own it.