No Business Case for HDTV? 525
Lev13than writes "The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation argues that there is no business model for HDTV. Speaking at a regulatory hearing being held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), CBC president Robert Rabinovitch noted that 'There's no evidence either in Canada or the United States that we have found for advertisers willing to pay a premium for a program that's in HD.' In order to cope with infrastructure and programming costs that are roughly 25 per cent higher, Rabinovitch proposes that the CBC start charging cable and satellite companies to carry their signal, and to limit over-the-air transmission. HDTV — good for Best Buy, bad for broadcasters?"
no common sense case (Score:5, Interesting)
Good gosh, HDTV would fly by itself if the industry practiced a little common sense about the rollout. I remember in 1998 a sales guy trying to talk me into buying a sexy looking HDTV on demo on the floor. Yeah, I was drooling.
This unit came sans tuner, and the universe as we know it was still pretty much standard definition tv, i.e., if you could find any HD content, it was for eye candy only, nobody was broadcasting HD anywhere on anything remotely regular.
I told him I'd wait for the prices to come down, and the for some content to show up -- he shook his finger at me, "These prices [$10,000 for the unit I was looking at] won't come down and might go up! And, there's more and more new HD content available every day"
Prices went way down (though still way too high) and content eventually showed up. The problem? Way too many ways to set up for HD with way too many ways to find out your setup isn't correct after spending big bucks.
The minefield that is setting up for HD is too confusing, too expensive, and yeah, if I were an advertiser I'd find it a tough sell to pay any extra for an uncertain market.
It's too bad, I eventually settled on a Samsung 50" DLP a 2 years ago, absolutely LOVE it, but no thanks to any help I got from anyone anywhere! Freak, even the Comcast HD cable box is still a piece of garbage that regularly freezes, never behaves, and offers a very limited range of HD (not entirely their fault, come on networks!).
Toss in the confusing choices and still uncertain future of HD on DVD, sheesh, it's a wonder the market is as penetrated as it is.
Hey, and toss in the $50 HDMI cable lots of people have to buy, they didn't even know about it until "after". Yeah, and what about the almost non-existent HD On Demand (another unfulfilled promise... aside from incredibly poor selection, Comcast's On Demand movies have only a few HD, and all of them (HD and standard) are so compressed, it hurts to watch on a good TV). Oh, and don't forget, or don't forget to plan for, DRM. Don't assume what's true today will still be true by the time you set up your system, but assume if it's not the same it's going to be more restrictive.
Shit, the more I prattle, the less I like about HD. I'm in as deep as I want for what the market has offered so far, but am not chomping at the byte for any more investment until the industry sorts itself out.
Pull your head out of your ass before talking (Score:3, Interesting)
2) All of the HDTV I watch is over the air.
3) I'm still in a bad mood since my local PBS station decided to only broadcast about 4 hours of HD programming each day.
That said, I'm not saying that HD commands higher ad rates - but it should. Too bad HD programming usually has SD commercials.
there was no business case for TV at all (Score:4, Interesting)
HDTV is the same thing. the manufacturers have an interest. it's a paradigm shift for broadcasters, and it will cannabilize their existing businesses, just like TV did, and color TV was just a gawd-awful money eater for stations in the 1960s.
but the FCC wants to sell those juicy frequencies near the cell phone bands, and congress spent the money a thousand times over, so your present TV system (NTSC, PAL, SECAM, doesn't matter) is headed down the dumper for HDTV versions.
that's how the future works. you can go into your back room and play your edison cylinders now... at least, the ones that aren't all fuzzy black mold by now. most folks eventually fall for pretty pictures and better sounds.
Pornography is the Driver of Video (Score:1, Interesting)
In the first decade of the 21st century, pornography will drive the commercial development of the high-definition television. If you doubt what I am saying, then ask yourself what is the #1 video image that you want to see in absolute clarity and in shockingly graphic detail.
The Canadians are prudes and just refuse to say what the facts are.
Whinge whinge whinge (Score:3, Interesting)
Do it the way that everyone else does it when they are financially constrained, buy HD when the life cycles end. So the cameras and other stuff that CBC would normally replace every 2 years (Provided they act like the other TV stations I know), go HD then. The video editing suite, that will eventually need to be upgraded (Usually happens every 4 - 5 years), do it then. Most people that do digital content creation pay for themselves (Make a profit) anyway, so just tell them they need to HD and then go back to playing golf.
Yes, there are financial constraints to going HD, but then there are financial constraints to running a business too. Over the next few years everyone else will be replacing kit, and they will be buying HD which means that sooner or later, everything that CBC gets given for broadcast is going to be HD.
25%, quite possibly now, that's fine, but in the future, everything is going to be HD and CBC aren't going to have an option as few people will be providing SD equipment to purchase. IF it's there, it will cost more money and won't be standard with the rest of the kit.
Really, this is a null and void arguement that they make that everyone else is going through.
Upgrading kit and increasing the quality of the standard broadcast costs a LOT of money, I know this all too well. Considering however that a major overhaul like this hasn't gone through the industry for 30 years in most countries, the amount of expenditure up front to move now is scaring people. It's the same with Vista and Office 2007 and everything else.
Idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Many cable and stellite companies charge extra for HD channels - and people pay up. So if he wants to charge delivery companies extra for HD programming, well there is your friggen business case, on a silver platter.
DOH.
No business case for TV (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, as for HD-TV...
I just witnessed a 277-run ashes victory against in full SD Digital TV, and the step up from shadowed fuzzy PAL broadcast was unbelievable.
I can't wait to see us beat the Poms in 1080p full color
I wonder how long it'll take the sports ground owners to start sueing broadcasters for loss of revinue because you get a better view of the game at home than you do with 10x binoculars from front-row seats?
so where is the HD porn? (Score:1, Interesting)
If there is one thing that will make technogeeks shell out thousands to upgrade, it's higher quality T&A!
Re:GOVERNMENT is the Driver of HDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus the original article is correct- there's no business case for it, that's why the FCC mandated it.
No, the consumer does not matter! (Score:1, Interesting)
No, the consumer does not matter!
HD isn't about the consumer. It's about profiteering on the backs of the consumer.
HD represents the interests of the media companies.
HD represents the interests of the electronics companies - albeit to a lesser extent.
But it does not represent the interests of the consumer. It was specifically designed to leave the consumer out in the cold:
With the exception of the resolution, 20 years ago a tv with a vcr was more enjoyable and offered more features than will be present in even the highest end HD systems. And it cost less in terms of real dollars.
No, HD isn't for the consumer; it's for the electronics and movie industries. And it's lack of adoption isn't a technical problem; it's a social problem. People want new features, not restrictions.
I sell HD editing/post-production systems... (Score:5, Interesting)
HD is happening, and the adoption rate both for consumers, content creators, and broadcasters is accelerating. I have seen MUCH acceleration in 2006, and I think 2007 will be the year HD really takes command of the market. Let me put it this way -- perhaps the SUITS at broadcast organizations can't find a case for HD. But I will tell you this -- the engineers, editors, etc. are VERY MUCH ready for HD, and know it is happening, and there's no looking back. This isn't really up for debate, it's the fact of the matter.
What I find a little strange about this guy's comments is that he's basically trying to justify keeping a 50-year-old broadcast standard, well into the 21st century. Let's think about that for a moment -- what would have happened if the computer industry had decided to stay with, say, the standards that were in place for computing in the 1950s, through today. Yeeeaaaah... As bizarre as this scenario sounds, this is the reality that the broadcast market has perpetuated for the last 50 years or so. I would think that consumers would be demanding a much quicker adoption of HD! Oh, so you need to buy a new TeeVee set? Me cry you a river. That's like saying I should be forced to use a building-sized supercomputer that runs on punchcards to handle basic arithmetic problems, just because you don't feel you should need to upgrade your computer. But it's even more ridiculous than that, because we tolerate "needing" to buy a new computer every 5 years or so, but sheesh, needing to upgrade your TV once per fifty years? IT'S A TRAVESTY!
And on another note -- if those idiots can't command higher ad rates for HD advertisements, well, please fire them and hire me to do your HD advertising sales, because your current ad sales team SUCKS and is not worth what you're paying them. I am pretty certain I could do a better job myself. And I'm not just throwing that out there -- again, I make my living largely "selling" video content producers on HD.
Finally, another interesting debate/issue concerns the video/post/broadcast world's move to tapeless workflows, where you are essentially recording video _files_ right onto flash RAM/hard drives/optical discs/SANs/etc. And video tapes go the way of the dodo. This is another HUGE shift in the broadcast market, which is only recently incorporating "IT technologies" into the systems that drive broadcast facilities. A lot of broadcasters are going to go for "two for the price of one" -- let's go tapeless, and let's make sure our upgrades are HD-capable at least.
OK OK, one laaast point -- anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked. I recommend doing an A/B comparison between SD and HD, of the same content. HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long? BRING ON MORE HD!!!
Consider the zero TV households (Score:3, Interesting)
I dare the CBC to try it... (Score:5, Interesting)
it lasted one day. Several local channels tried it 5 years ago and bent over instantly when they had their plug pulled with a warning message on the channel. Discovery tried it to comcast 3 years ago as well and gave up 2 days later.
CBC has no chance, if they start charging, they get dropped and then they wither away. Boo hoo that the studios have to upgrade their technology from 20 year old hardware and that the customers think they shouldn't pay more for it.
Translation: CBC doesn't want to pay for it (Score:5, Interesting)
Black & White - Color - HD (Score:2, Interesting)
The metaphorical dial, of course. If your TV has a dial, you need to kill yourself. Preferably through starvation, from the debt of buying an HDTV.
No business case for live sports (Score:1, Interesting)
The only people wondering that are the pasty guys glued to their TVs. Everyone else knows the difference between live and Memorex.
MPEG 2 Artifacts for ALL!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:no common sense case (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have a Tivo. It's a SageTV box (WinXP + Sage) - I haven't felt like spending the time to work with Myth, so I went the Windows route. I do run Linux for my home firewall and file server; but again, I get to the point where I feel like I'm beating my head against a rock sometimes (FC6 on an IBM T42 - no sound, no wireless; followed "how-tos" on the 'net, nada.) I don't like using my time to fix something when I could be doing more interesting things nowadays.
Re:And what about for the consumer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm... no.
HDTV is almost universally piggybacked onto digital TV (it takes more than one channel's spectrum to broadcast analog HDTV). Unless they're screwing with the signal (which would raise some legal issues, I would assume), it's the exact same stream of bits flowing through the cable or through the air.
If anything, cable at least gives you decent reception. For some reason, the FCC mandated that digital TV has to use less power than analog, which means that every car that drives past my house makes my signal all choppy and jittery. To the FCC and broadcasters, I say: AMP THAT BITCH, DAMMIT.
Great point (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a marketing book that's worth reading, and it's about this exact situation. Products do not move smoothly from early adopters to early majority. There's a pit in between the two that many products fall into.
The book, "Crossing the Chasm", explains that you have to make the transition to your new product as smooth and slick as teflon on teflon, or normal people will never generate good word of mouth. An example of a brilliant success at this is the Toyota Prius, which spends a significant amount of software simulating the artifacts of a 20th-century car, just to allow buyers to slide right into it without an adjustment.
If the HD industry were poised for success you'd see plug-and-play installations that didn't require setup by a consultant, no obstructive DRM, and standardized cabling.