CBS Threatens to Stop HDTV (1 Viewer)

[DeathStar1]

>Plus, they would LOVE to get rid of all tim-shifting, because they know that people skip the ads when watching recorded material. Just look at the controversy over ReplayTV and their ad-skip feature.
>

I really wish they'd devote their time to coming up a system that works without adds. That way time shifting wouldn't be a problem. The directors of shows would probably appreciate this, as people would stay tuned in and not lose interest during 5 minute commercial breaks.

I'm surprised commercials work at all. I mean, do you see a new car add and say, "Oh cool! They make it jump in the air like Kitt from Knight Rider! I'm going to spend 15,000 on it right now!"

 

[SteveA]

I've owned a HDTV ready set for a year and a half and have yet to purchase a set top box of any kind b/c none of the manufacturers can seem to get one right!

What exactly are you waiting for? Everyone I know is very pleased with their STBs.

 

[Dennis Reno]

I love my STB and I love my DirecTivo. Would I like to be able to PVR HD shows for later viewing? Of course! But not being able to is not a deal breaker for me. I look at it as a trade off - if a show is available in HD I'm willing to put up with commercials. If it is only available in standard def then it gets Tivo'd 95% of the time.

CBS will not stop their HD feeds. Why would a company purposefully surrender the position as a "leader" in any industry so easily? IMO they have spent too much time and money to simply throw in the towel.

 

[RickGr]

Well some of us work second shift and the only way to see primetime TV is to timeshift.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Is anyone else ready to say "Screw it, I'll stick with analog"?

No. If everyone gives up on HDTV, I'm giving up on TV. Period. I'll choose the original alternative- reading.
Todd

 

[MickeS]

Dennis, that's all well and good - the problem is that in a few years there won't be an analog alternative to time-shift on. When everything is in SDTV with a "no recording" flag, we'll look back at the good old days of time-shifting...

 

[Dave Miller]

What exactly are you waiting for?

Steve,

Like most, I'm on a budget. So it's a big deal to plop down $500 to $1000. Ideally, I'd love to have an HDTV PVR set top box that also does OTA HDTV. I knew that would be a while when I bought my TV, so I've patiently waited. Last month, our local affiliates just began broadcasting in HD, so it is not like I've been missing a ton of stuff that's been available.

The idea of an HDTV PVR ever becoming a reality is a serious question mark. Please don't repond by showing me links to announcements from companies that they are just months away from having one on the market. I've read a ton of them for the past year and it's all vaporware until I can go buy it online or at a store. I'm thrilled for the people in Japan and Korea that have the new Sony unit or Zenith unit, but meanwhile here in the US, we wait as Dish Network continues to delay the release of the PVR-921.

I have been watching the discussions at the AVS Forum, Home Theater Spot, as well as the ones here at the HTF on this subject. Even if I ditch the idea of holding out for a HDTV PVR w/ OAT capabilities, I'm still not sure of what I'd buy. Obviously, I'd want a set top box that does HDTV and also has an "always on" s-video connection so I could at least record standard stuff on a VCR. From what I've read, there is currently only one set top box that has that capability (Sammy TS-160) and I'm amazed at some major issues I read about with that set top box.

Am I waiting for a set top box that is perfect? No

Am I waiting for a set top box that has gone through some sort of beta testing or quality control process? That would be nice.

Am I waiting for a HDTV PVR that does OTA HDTV also? Yes, but my hopes fade weekly.

As for some other current options, I don't have the time to mess with an HTPC or the money to invest in D-VHS

I hope I've answered your question and I'm sure I'm not alone in my frustration.

Peace,

DM

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Dave,
For the power user, there is no perfect STB yet. All of them have various issues. You are absolutely right.
That's one of the reasons I'm happy to pay $5 a month for my HD cable box right now, I don't WANT to own an STB yet...especially not for the price.
Of course, if/when I switch from cable, I'll need to spend hundreds on a quality attic/rooftop antenna setup as well!

 

[RobertR]

if/when I switch from cable, I'll need to spend hundreds on a quality attic/rooftop antenna setup as well!

Huh? A friend of mine just spent a whopping 4 bucks on a big rooftop antenna.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

What they need, and HAVE needed for years is a service where any and every show is available for $1-2 an episode on demand. You can watch it in Real Time for free (with ads) at the appointed broadcast time, or pay later. If I had access to every show on cable that way,I'd do it

 

[Lew Crippen]

I too understand Dave’s frustration, but I took the opposite approach. Picked up a Hughes E86 for under $450, even with its disadvantages: no simultaneous HD and analog output and no 720p output.

On the other hand, I can watch HDNet and HBO in HD, as well as a good many network shows in HD now (ok excepting Fox). For time shifting, I use my bedroom setup (no HD STB, yet) or switch the E86 to analog output (when I’m not around). Plus I get the 5.1 sound now.

When the right box comes along (I too am skeptical about HD PVRs), I’ll buy that and move the E86 to the bedroom.

I figure that waiting for the ‘right’ STB is like waiting for the best time to buy a computer. There is always something better just around the corner.

I really wish they'd devote their time to coming up a system that works without adds. That way time shifting wouldn't be a problem. The directors of shows would probably appreciate this, as people would stay tuned in and not lose interest during 5 minute commercial breaks.

This exists already. Premium (non-broadcast) channels such as HBO and Showtime exist without commercials by getting their money by subscription. Or by pay-per-view, which has been so successful, that you almost never see boxing on commercial TV anymore. In some countries this problem is addressed by the government collecting a fee for each TV owned by each home. Unlike HBO, you don’t have the option to not pay. You pay if you have a TV. The money goes to a State-run network which uses the money to produce shows (this is how the BBC used to work, and maybe still does).

The money has to come from somewhere.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying a-la carte TV. Wanna see this week's Friends? $1.

 

[Mike McNertney]

Someone mentioned they wanted a system that was pay-per-episode. I think this is highly unlikely. Pay-per-view has proven to be an unpopular option except for special events and somewhat for movies. I really don't think pay-per-view would work well for standard television, people just don't like being nickel-and-dimed to death.

On the other hand, people seem to be perfectly happy paying for subscription based TV. I read somewhere that HBO is now the most profitable network, so obviously there is a great potential for subscription based networks. Really, I only watch a few shows these days. If I could get one or two channels that covered all my favorite shows, and pay $10-20 a month for that, I would jump on it in a second.

 

[Martin Rendall]

Let 'em. When HDTV picks up more steam (and it will in time), they'll see the effect on the bottom line. Then it'll be back.

Martin.

 

[Ken Chan]

I really don't think pay-per-view would work well for standard television, people just don't like being nickel-and-dimed to death.

True, people will go out of their way to avoid paying, which is in their short term self-interest, and not even consider what will happen in the long term.

But let's not pretend that people have some inalienable right to free quality television. (And never mind that the studios and networks are also stupid and greedy, that's a separate issue.) If advertiser don't think people are watching their ads, then why pay for them? With no money for shows, no one makes them.

I'm certainly willing to pay some nominal fee to see good shows with no commercials, especially if they are guaranteed an entire season run. You could pay a flat monthly fee, or some tiers based on how many hours you watch, and the money goes to the shows you actually watch. Tie that in with some VOD service; make new episodes available on particular days (e.g. new episodes of 24 every Tuesday at 9 eastern) and let you rewatch as many times as you want. That seems better than what we've got now.

//Ken

 

[Mark_Wilson]

CBS can stop broadcasting in HD and all the TV stations can implement the 'broadcast flag' WHEN they pay for the DAMN spectrum WE gave them! This is our trump card and the broadcasters are terrified of it. Someone needs to start grass roots organization to put a stop to the broadcast flag, 'bugs' (logos), etc with the threat that we go to our congressmen asking them to auction the spectrum to the Broadcasters! That'll shut them up in a hurry. Hell, this is why we have HDTV today! If it wasn't for the threat of congress taking back tv spectrum to auction we wouldn't have it.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Huh? A friend of mine just spent a whopping 4 bucks on a big rooftop antenna.

Um, my house is older and has many wiring issues (I know, I've wired some of it for ethernet, speaker wire, and an additional phone jack, and it was a BITCH compared to many newer houses.
And the house is 3 stories high and has a STEEP roof.
So I'm looking at substantial installation, and I'm going to have to pay somebody else to deal with the frustration and risk their neck.
Also, my HD stations are in 3 different directions with hills in all directions creating multipath, so I'll need a rotor. Ever try to get a Tivo to turn a rotor when it is time to record a show?
Thankfully, I have digital cable (with HD-HBO, HD-SHO, and HD-LOCALS for around the same price as DirecTV, but no expensive hardware expense. And my picture quality is better than DirecTV for the standard-def channels. All my friends with DirecTV agree and want to watch the game at MY house.
Those who love the current expense and hassle of hardware and antennas to get DBS and HD locals, well, more power to you. But it's a lot more than $4 expense to me, and there would still be a lot of issues when I was done with it all.

 

[Graeme Clark]

What they need, and HAVE needed for years is a service where any and every show is available for $1-2 an episode on demand.

While I doubt it will every replace broadcast TV, It would be a nice alternative. The cable company here has already launched a service (only in Calgary right now) that will allow you to do that. If you have their digital cable, and cable internet you can use this service. Use the computer to order a movie, when you do you have 24 Hours to watch the movie. You can pause, rewind, fast forward etc.

Currently it looks as if they're are only using it for movies, but have plans to offer classic and current TV shows as well as music videos.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Huh? A friend of mine just spent a whopping 4 bucks on a big rooftop antenna.

IIRC, Michael is in Cincy. They have hills there. He needs to move to the top of one instead of living in a valley.
But, yes, my $30 investment in a pair of UHF and VHF antennas is working just fine inside my house.
Maybe he meant the dish (though those are basically free when you sign up with most deals lately).
What bugs me about all this is that basically these companies are trying to prevent (this time) what already happened with VHS. At the time few people had better quality viewing at home than VHS (new) quality. The time-shifting quality was the same as what was coming OTA basically.
Then for a brief moment the studios especially were able to sell higher quality video via DVD and now HD tapes than the mostly digital broadcast video (thanks to compression and progressive players). But when regular TV steps up to that HD level, we will be back to where we were with VHS. Equal quality with a tape you made versus what was just shown (roughly).
They just want to stick their foot in this time to stop that due to some panicky idea that this time it will mean the end of sales or something.
To be fair, it's quite likely that what CBS intends to do is limit only certain broadcasts, most likely films, from being copied.
But I think putting in the marker sets a bad precedent and could really open up a can of worms. Maybe CBS should put more money into creating and selling their own PVRs instead and make their money that way.
I wonder if CBS realizes that time-shifting often means their shows are MORE LIKELY to get watched, even if it means skipping the adverts.
IMO, the whole shebang should go PAY PER VIEW and get rid of adverts. It's not like you aren't paying for TV as it is, unless you think the money for beer commercials comes from the magic pot of gold that they keep hidden away.
So rather than ding me with an extra 5 cents per can of Pepsi, how about just charging me 10 cents everytime I watch Friends or Simpsons. Then no one needs to care about cropping out the adverts. Front-end investment works just fine for entertainment like films and albums, just do the same with TV.
Obviously, that will never happen though.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Pay per use/view will never work because of greed. Simply put, I don't think the studios would be able to help themselves, and would put advertisements in anyway. This would lead the consumer to think "why am I PAYING for this?" and viewership would stop.
Plus, could you see going to spend your $1 on Friends, and then getting a "this show now costs $3 to view, due the compensation demands of the studio and its actors."
Todd