Receive instant notification of new columns:
Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
Happy New Year! While there are plenty of gloomy topics floating about in our world these days, high definition television is not one of them. We survived the transition to digital broadcast of television programming (more or less) and now many viewers can enjoy HD shows for free over the air. HDTV prices fell another 20% or more in 2009, and as incredible as it may seem, many analysts expect the same to happen again in the coming year. Plasma and LCD TVs are becoming more energy efficient, and the designs are getting more and more attractive as they get thinner and lighter. Image quality is getting better, and it’s getting harder for the untrained eye to spot the traditional weaknesses of plasma and LCD models. Blu-ray player prices are slowly approaching the “reasonable” price range. Internet delivery of content is rapidly gaining attention and viewers, while cable operators and satellite providers are exploring ways to let you take advantage of your subscription even when you’re away from home and your set-top box connection. Netflix and Blockbuster are working toward delivering movie rentals over the Internet, saving you the trip to the store or even the walk to the mailbox. And now here comes 3D for the home. After some false starts, it appears that the sets and players will be ready in 2010, and we’ll even have a limited amount of content available to watch on them. It will still take a couple years for enough content to be ready, but this coming year will mark the start of this new market. We can’t expect to see OLED TVs in any significant size or quantity this year, and mobile TV will still be trying to find its audience (and it won’t be in HD), but that just gives us something to look forward to in the years to come. And we haven’t even seen what will come out at CES in Las Vegas next week! There’s still some excitement left in the HDTV market, and I’m glad that I get a chance to hang out in this playground. So thanks for your support, and I send my best wishes for a wonderful, high definition new year!
Posted by Alfred Poor, January 1, 2010 5:00 AM
Reader Commentary Alfred, well said, and I agree with your points. However, in one area, I can't avoid being the harbinger of gloom... > We survived the transition to digital broadcast of television programming (more or less) and now many viewers can enjoy HD shows for free over the air. < I have to say, enjoy it while it lasts. When I was a kid, we had 82 OTA channels, and the dial (yes, dial) went up to 83. For most folks, they'll remember their digital readout topping out at 69. On the most recent sellout of the public airwaves, the government reclaimed another 18 channels, and dropped the top end down to 51. By doing so, they raked in more than 20 billion dollars (yes, Billion, with a B). Being the surly pessimist that I've become in my old age (I turned 50 a couple years back), I assumed that within 5 years or so that our "public servants" would see those remaining 50 OTA channels as anot... The dark cloud is the Cell Phone companies and CEA, who want to take away most if not all of the free OTA TV broadcast and replace it with paid high speed internet service and other things. http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90658 http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90656 There are different plans being floated, but it boils down to: (1) Remove all broadcast TV and force everyone to go to cable or satellite TV. Low income families would be given government assistance. (2) Remove all HD Broadcast TV and have all the SD channels on a few 6 MHz carriers. This would require having different networks sharing the same transmitters. The plans are 100% in left field, currently broadcasters are getting ready for Mobile TV and need the extra bandwidth. I guess the cell phone companies want the bandwidth so that they can sell us mobile TV instead. Bob Diaz... Bob, thanks for the links. I was familiar with the second proposal, but not the first. Somehow, after having just completed the "digital transition", if all that were then voided by any plan that takes away public spectrum again so soon, that some heads would roll. Some of the things they're pushing for seem so ludicrous to me that I can't help thinking it's a deliberate plan to ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars; with the strategy being to then back off to something only slightly less ridiculous, which would then look "good" by comparison. And, naturally, if they want to sell folks MobileTV, they sure don't want to have to compete with a free alternative. - Tim... Hi Tim, I'm not against any company making money here, it's just a question of who pays or suffers as a result? There is a third link: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/90654 This is as troubling as the "White Space Devises" in the TV bands. In theory, it shouldn't interfere with TV reception, BUT odds are some company in Asia will make a cheap device with fake FCC stickers and flood the market with it. ... goodbye OTA TV. I haven't heard much on that lately. My hope is the M-DTV is successful and the broadcasters will keep their bandwidth, but in Washington DC, money talks..... Bob Diaz... Well the word Free is a very bad amomg broadcasters and content providers Why would you want to use Spectrum to offer quality hd when you can sell it for the tv watching or online pizza ordering from your phone . Personsally who in their right mind would want to watch tv on their phone? The industry needs to progress beyond that is all about the money and how much crap or targeted advertising that offered on your phone... At risk of getting too far afield here, let me point out that all business is about money, even the non-profits who want money so that they can help people (or other worthy causes). Without the money, a business is out of business. In a way, it's a very democratic system in which consumers vote with their dollars. Watching "free" television over the air is in fact an informal agreement that involves many parties. The content producers (studios) and distributors (networks and broadcasters) make deals with other companies (advertisers) to include some content about their products. And the consumers (viewers) essentially agree to be exposed to the commercial content. The hope is that this exposure will lead to some of the consumers to choose to spend some of their money on the advertisers' products. Nothing earth-shaking here. But when consumers stop watching the commercial content (because they use a DVR or stop watching or whatever reason), the advertisers stop wanting to spend th... Excellent reply . although my point was more to how the govt & others want to use the money The govt wants it for more emergency use bandwidth , Others would like it for more targetted advertising and service fee programs to help you efficently order your pizza from your armchair or mobile. The problem is too many figure Hulu is the model as it is free and provides a qualitysignal. Truly not sustainable and costs will be incurred to be passed on in terms of more advertising or fees. Yet as pointed out the industry needs cash to produce a quality product and we need less reality tv. AS long as the download says free , that's fine . Otherwise its theft and Nation needs to wake up to that OTA is an excellent option as it provides premium signal with some advertising invovled to pay for it The advance of OTA will certainly help rein those cable & sat fees.... More from Alfred Poor
More in Category: General Interest
About Alfred PoorAlfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets. |
advertisement
Authors
Categories
Other Recent Discussion
|
||||||||
© 1998 - 2010 HDTV Magazine, Ltd.
Home |
Advertise | Contact Us | About HDTV Magazine | Help | 
RSS Feedsv3.0
