dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to MURICA

Re: Ultra HD at CES

First, where did I say that 4k will NEVER catch on? I didn't say that! Go back and read my postings. I said it will catch on, but uptake will be very slow. Eventually it'll be like 1080p - accepted because it's the default.

You may not care about Rainbow channels, but my point there is that they're not the only ones doing it! So, unless you don't also care about, say, the Discovery suite of channels, or the Disney suite of channels, or... just pick. They're all doing that. Maybe not to the degree that Rainbow is, but they're all over-compressed. Not to mention the fact that Verizon apparently cares about Rainbow - quite a bit. How much? When FiOS TV first came out, they didn't carry the Rainbow channels because CV wouldn't give them over. They went to the FCC who mandated that they be handed over. Still Rainbow played games with the channels, only offering up the SD versions, after the HD feeds became available. Again they refused to hand over the HD feeds because they thought they were cute about it - they claimed that the regulation only required that they give over A feed. Not EVERY type of feed. Again, Verizon was so non-plussed by the whole thing... the filed another formal complaint with the FCC. And again the FCC forced the issue. So... I have to ask... if NO ONE cares about Rainbow... why the hell did Verizon jump through so many hoops to get the channels? Just to stick it to CV? Um... no. Because they knew that without those channels, they would have a harder time getting customers. They were right - initially when FiOS TV was offered in my neighborhood (we already had internet at the time), I decided against it because they were missing one channel that was kinda key for me - AMC. That one channel stopped me from making the switch. But right... no one cares about those channels.

Now, maybe the solution to that bottle neck is as easy as many on here make it sound. But the question remains - if it's that easy/cheap... and they're still not doing it (and we're suffering pixellation and less than optimal PQ as a result) why on God's green earth do you think they would be just giddy about making those changes for UHD? Foot dragging is foot dragging. WHY they foot drag is utterly and totally irrelevent. It's simply not enough to get Verizon to up its bandwidth to your house. Bandwidth has to be increased TO Verizon as well.

Finally, with regard to 3D... that's not an impressive number. That's a lack-luster 'will this technology still be around a year from now' type of number. 3D is not in its infancy. Yes, it's still new, but when you compare the number of TVs sold last year with the number sold that had 3D... the numbers for 3D are, well, pathetic. You also ignored my comment, also made in that article, that many who have 3D sets didn't get them because they're 3D. They got them because they wanted higher end sets and 3D just happens to be a feature already baked in. Heck, a good number didn't even know the TV they were buyinig was 3D! There's no burning desire for 3D. Eventually it'll get there, but uptake will be slow. And it'll be slow because there's no burning desire for it. IF the TV manufacturers continue to produce technology for 3D, then you'll see it just filter down into most TVs sold, at some point. But that's a big IF. Also, you may be impressed with the 3% number, but clearly the interested parties (the manufacturers, the analysts, investors) are not. The article makes it clear that uptake for 3D is WAY below what the TV manufacturers themselves were predicting.

Yes, UHD will get there (as I said repeatedly), but slowly. It won't catch fire like HD did. That's my take on it.