Interest in HDTV is declining in the US.

[SmokieStover]

"In a series of seven end-user surveys, U.S. consumers exhibited reduced interest in HD TVs says Michael Inouye, In-Stat analyst. “Respondents most interested in HD TVs, for instance, fell from 17% in 2006 to 13% in 2007, while those least interested increased 12 percentage points in 2007 to 65%."

Me thinks many of those 65% have seen first hand (and not at a CE Store or WalMart) just how bad SDTV (any SDTV Except DVD) looks on an HDTV, and they don't like TV well enough to put up a $500 antenna or pump up their cable bill from say $45 to $90 or more just to be able to watch something that does not look like crap.

http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=2083&sku=IN0703427ME

[Soopafresh]

Thank the 2 standards and the nebulous way the networks "explained" the technology to the sea of unwashed masses

[rumplestiltskin]

Soon those unwashed masses will realize how the switchover to digital in 2009 will really screw them. Then let 'em do another survey.

[Rich86]

Blame competing high def standards and nonsense advertising and confusing standards to those who do not do their homework on this debacle. The industry is digging their own hole here - and they deserve it!

[RabidDog]

As the interest in a new technology wanes because it is not new technology any more.
This is another of their quotes

Microsoft Vista is a robust platform that extends the consumer's multimedia experience

research paper available $400 @ House of Dog research (cash only) 8)

[josetjr]

I blame the lack of advertising about the impeding doom of Feb 2009. I see a few stickers and small banners in some stores, but nothing on tv or on a larger scale. There are going to be a lot of people highly disappointed and not ready for the over-the-air analog shutoff of Feb 2009. Especially those still using old tv sets and those that cant really afford a new set, a digital converter, or those that dont believe it will happen.

[DereX888]

The 2 standards (of players) have nothing to do with it, it is about HD TV (television).

First of all:
I find it peculiar.

The majorities of Joe Averages in every country certainly ARE interested in HD TV en masse, so I call it bullshit as it is.
If someone can dig deeper, I suspect we find this survey was manufactured by tv stations conglomerates and is just a plain lie.
Why?
because they rather serve us 3-4 low quality "near-HD channels" (as they will call it) instead of 1 real HD quality.
Think of it: 4x more commercials aired in the same time on a same bandwidth versus just a single channel... suddenly an hour (~20 minutes of commercials) is *more* than an hour! (80 minutes of commercial airtime sold!)
Isnt it something?
And with clever compression techniques, they can stretch it two fold... instead of getting revenues from mere 26min/hr of commercials, with the digital transition (sans HD) suddenly they can sell 4, 5, even 6 times more per channel instead of a single full HD channel
Its just medial orgasm for all the broadcasters - being paid for airing crap 80min per hour

If you dont own any ABC, CBS or FOX stock - now is the time...

Thats why now, with the "switch" date deadline coming soon, there will be plenty of such surveys proving "market not ready" for HD broadcast... and we will get what we deserve (as a society): more channels of more commercials in the same crappy quality, but all-digital

[josetjr]

the extra channels aren't just for nothing though. In my area I get 1080i hd signals & programs while having another channel #-2 for weather or the Tube (music channel) or whatever else. So the future actually brings more free tv channels, of which you dont have to hassle with the antenna to refine the signal from the snow (just to find the signal if you live far from the antennas).

[valvehead]

I wonder what percentage of the population know of the impending doom of analog broadcast. Also, what percentage currently have some form of digital service? Does the FCC require that networks cut off all analog service immediately in Feb. 2009? I have a feeling that this is going to raise hell.

I for one have no cable or satellite service. I don't watch enough TV to justify paying $50 a month. I just use an antenna for the local networks. So if I don't get a new TV by 2009, I'm screwed. According to the FCC each household can get two $40 coupons toward the purchase of a digital tuner. How much is a tuner going to cost? How about all the people who can't afford any upgrades? What will happen with all of the analog sets out there? I hope the FCC has some sort of solution for all of the waste that will be created.

Now don't get me wrong, I love all of this new technology. I'd love to have a 1080p projector, a nice surround setup with massive subs, a next-gen disc player (whichever format wins) and 10000 HD channels. Everything just costs too much. I have priorities elsewhere and I'm sure many other people do too.

[DereX888]

I wonder what percentage of the population know of the impending doom of analog broadcast. Also, what percentage currently have some form of digital service? Does the FCC require that networks cut off all analog service immediately in Feb. 2009? I have a feeling that this is going to raise hell.

I for one have no cable or satellite service. I don't watch enough TV to justify paying $50 a month. I just use an antenna for the local networks. So if I don't get a new TV by 2009, I'm screwed. According to the FCC each household can get two $40 coupons toward the purchase of a digital tuner. How much is a tuner going to cost? How about all the people who can't afford any upgrades? What will happen with all of the analog sets out there? I hope the FCC has some sort of solution for all of the waste that will be created.

Now don't get me wrong, I love all of this new technology. I'd love to have a 1080p projector, a nice surround setup with massive subs, a next-gen disc player (whichever format wins) and 10000 HD channels. Everything just costs too much. I have priorities elsewhere and I'm sure many other people do too.

That is understandable.
Every new gadgets always cost more than majority can afford.
But Im sure you own a dvd player, right? It also used to cost almost $2K when they came out.
Same thing will happen will HD TV, make no mistake - within next 10 years you *will* have HDTV set in your home.

But you have raised very legitimate concern.
I, for once, work in a govt. controlled media-related company, and from what I see, read and hear, I gather that majority (and I mean real majority, like 2/3 - 3/4) of Americans still don't know about it, or simply have no clue whatsoever what it means to them (that their analog tv tuners won't be able to pickup *anything* after that).
Granted, majority of American pay for their tv "delivered" to their homes (cable, sat) They won't notice it until they go out camping in the Summer of 2009 and try to catch some tv on the rabbit ears

But IMHO it ought to be US Govt's dog duty to deliver at least a pamphlet to each household with objective explanations written in plain and understandable by a commoner language...
I guess they will do it - after the deadline, when nothing can be done anymore about it With a cherry on top (the tuner rebate check) to minimize the anger...

PS
Tuners will be in high demand initially, and their retail prices will skyrocket for sure.
If I were you, I would look for one NOW.

[SmokieStover]

Blame competing high def standards and nonsense advertising and confusing standards to those who do not do their homework on this debacle. The industry is digging their own hole here - and they deserve it!

The consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers have created the illusion that all TV is HD or soon will be. Hell, for over 2 years all the big retailers have almost hidden the analog sets, thus creating said illusion. Now, there are no good analog sets made. The reason is greed. Very small margins in a highly mature TV set market, verses extremely high profit margins in the latest and greatest thing.....all those old sets must be replaced by Feb 2009! Bullshit!

85% of US households subscribe to Cable or Sat TV. Analog will be around on cable for at least the next 10 years.

If my cable ready analog sets don't work come Feb 2009, I stop paying the bill. If I loose only the re-broadcast network crap, that will be OK provided my bill is cut by the cost of those channels alone ($15). In our home no one watches even one network program on a regular basis. In fact, I would drop them all now if it saved $15/month. But hey, with cable service you pay for one layer added on to the next and the next ad infinitum. And this practice results in an unreasonable cost for all TV service, especially HDTV.

The Sat subscribers can't be fooled. They know their analog sets work fine with their all digital service and they know what it takes to watch HDTV. Most don't want it!

[lordsmurf]

Most legitimate research I've seen says the same thing: people don't care about HDTV, HD discs, or anything else "special".

And many who do get swept into HD-buying fever are disappointed after seeing how bad SD material now looks on the so-called "improved" device, and how minimally better HD material is. These can become especially true on the certain sized sets, with sub-50" (HD, big deal?) and 50"+ (analog looks worse than SD sets).

You find a small number of people online, and a few people offline, who like HD, but that's about it.

[valvehead]

That is understandable.
Every new gadgets always cost more than majority can afford.
But Im sure you own a dvd player, right? It also used to cost almost $2K when they came out.
Same thing will happen will HD TV, make no mistake - within next 10 years you *will* have HDTV set in your home.

Yes, I have a Denon DVD-1600. When I bought it a few years ago, it was top rated by Secrets. I buy based primarily on quality. When I can't afford what I want, I wait until I can. I am looking at HDTVs, but I'm waiting until 1080p is more affordable. Prices are dropping fast so it may be soon.

[edDV]

I wonder what percentage of the population know of the impending doom of analog broadcast. Also, what percentage currently have some form of digital service? Does the FCC require that networks cut off all analog service immediately in Feb. 2009? I have a feeling that this is going to raise hell.

About 85% are on cable or satellite and won't be immediately* affected. Most cable systems are already getting the feed digitally over fiber or microwave from the TV stations.

The 15% like you that get all TV over the air will need a government subsidized (2x $40) ATSC tuner. Good news is they will be cheap to near free. The cheapest models will convert everything to 480i analog components, S-Video, composite video or good old RF channel 3/4 NTSC. Fancier models will support 720p/1080i output over analog component or HDMI to early "HD ready" TV sets.

So analog TV sets will continue to work (except the tuner). You will get the joy of multiple remotes like the rest of us. Most forget the VCR which will be most affected. Programmed over the air tuning will no longer work. These will need to be fed from a digital tuner as well. Starting this summer, DVD recorders/VCRs are required to either have an ATSC tuner or be sold as tunerless.

Some viewers will be affected by the channel frequency changes particularly those at distance. Most DTV stations are moving to UHF but not all. Some viewers will need UHF/VHF capable antennas to get all the stations.

The people most affected by this will be the isolated elderly who will probably need help. The TV stations will probably be organizing volunteer groups to offer in home assistance and training. It is in their interest to keep viewer ratings constant.

Once the new tuner is hooked up, the OTA viewer will be pleasantly rewarded with many more channels/subchannels/services and a better picture.

I for one have no cable or satellite service. I don't watch enough TV to justify paying $50 a month. I just use an antenna for the local networks. So if I don't get a new TV by 2009, I'm screwed. According to the FCC each household can get two $40 coupons toward the purchase of a digital tuner. How much is a tuner going to cost? How about all the people who can't afford any upgrades? What will happen with all of the analog sets out there? I hope the FCC has some sort of solution for all of the waste that will be created.

The analog sets will remain useful using the external ATSC tuner. I'd estimate a basic digital tuner for analog TV sets would list for around $39 without a government subsidy and around $79 with a $40 government subsidy half joking.

Tuners intended for "HD Ready" monitors will sell for more. Currently these sell for $130-200. I'd expect the prices to reduce 50% by 2009.

Now don't get me wrong, I love all of this new technology. I'd love to have a 1080p projector, a nice surround setup with massive subs, a next-gen disc player (whichever format wins) and 10000 HD channels. Everything just costs too much. I have priorities elsewhere and I'm sure many other people do too.

Price will continue to fall, quality will improve and people will buy what they want.


* analog channels on "extended cable" will drop in quantity as HD service is increased. Each 6MHz analog channel on cable uses the equivalent bandwidth of 2 HD or 10 SD MPeg2 channels. The FCC will demand locals be offered in analog and digital form for a reasonable transition time.

[edDV]

...
If someone can dig deeper, I suspect we find this survey was manufactured by tv stations conglomerates and is just a plain lie.
Why?
because they rather serve us 3-4 low quality "near-HD channels" (as they will call it) instead of 1 real HD quality.
Think of it: 4x more commercials aired in the same time on a same bandwidth versus just a single channel... suddenly an hour (~20 minutes of commercials) is *more* than an hour! (80 minutes of commercial airtime sold!)
Isnt it something?

The TV stations are free to do as they please with the 19Mb/s bandwidth. The FCC only requires they maintain one 3Mb/s VBR 704x480 SD channel. If a station pleases, it can use the remaining 16 Mb/s for pure data or encrypted horse racing feeds to the local Indian casinos.

Major network stations will be required to pass the network's HD programming on the main channel but they can switch to SD the rest of the day if they think that will make them more money. It will be fun to see what the independents do. They could offer encrypted 1080p MPeg4 movie subchannels if they desire. Some independent stations are already using the extra subchannels to feed closed MPeg4 TV service to local hotels/motels. Some religious or foreign language stations are subsidized from business use of the remaining bandwidth.

The good thing about digital broadcasting is stations can be placed closer together in frequency so a given city can have more new channels. Digital broadcasting is the new wild west.

[jman98]

Me thinks many of those 65% have seen first hand (and not at a CE Store or WalMart) just how bad SDTV (any SDTV Except DVD) looks on an HDTV

This is 100% nonsense. I'm really tired of seeing people say this. You can get excellent, yes, excellent results from SDTV on an HDTV. It's not magic. There are 2 things you MUST do. You MUST do both. Do one or none (most do none), and you'll get crap results from SD on HDTV.

1) You must have a high quality connection from your SD source to the HDTV.
High quality connections are:
component
DVI
HDMI
Cable Card

High quality connections are NOT:
S-video
composite
old style coax cable like used in the USA for cable TV

2) Stop watching SD video in 16:9! If your source is 4:3, watch it in 4:3. Expanding a 4:3 source to 16:9, which many morons do, just magnifies all the defects in the source video.

I've lost count of how many people have praised my SD cable picture quality, which I watch on an HDTV. I have a high quality connection and I don't watch SD in 16:9. It makes all the difference in the world.

[TBoneit]

Well I leave true 4:3 Content alone and watch it as 4:3. OTOH I prefer to zoom 16:9 letterboxed content on a SD channel so it fills the screen. If you prefer watching it with black bars on all four sides, freedom of choice.

Considering that my SD channels start off a 544 by 480 or 640 by 480 before being sent to the HDTV via HDMi they look pretty good even after the effective decrease in resolution of letterboxing.

[jman98]

Well I lesve true 4:3 Content alone and watch it as 4:3. OTOH I prefer to zoom 16:9 letterboxed content on a SD channel so it fills the screen. If you prefer watching it with black bars on all four sides, freedom of choice.

Zooming is OK if you like it (I don't, but that's just me), but I deliberately don't mention it as it just confuses the newbies who are convinced that "all SD sux on HDTV". Most people just stretch everything, not zoom but stretch, to 16:9 and all SD looks like crap that way.

[TheFamilyMan]

You can get excellent, yes, excellent results from SDTV on an HDTV. It's not magic.

Thanks for the advise. Unfortunately this is the exception and not the rule. Lots of times I've been in Good Guys or Circuit City only to see a really crappy quality sports broadcast being displayed simultaneously on all their HD sets. I can't think of a worst way to market HD as a superior technology. Another factor is that "going HD" has a perceived high "hassle factor" (and cost too) that IMO is a big turn off for most non-tech savy consumers. I think that most of the 65% fall into this catagory.

[handyguy]

I don't want to pay $800 just to get a sharper picture. LCD tvs are not repairable out of warrentee according to another site. Just not practical to do it. (Btw Office depot has a 37" Olevia for $700 today)

'Soon those unwashed masses will realize how the switchover to digital in 2009 will really screw them.'

That's just for OTA. Comcast can keep analog channels if they want according to a guy I know who works for them. Analog converter boxes are going to be free for a year from them too. Assuming you don't want to buy one for OTA.

[edDV]

That's just for OTA. Comcast can keep analog channels if they want according to a guy I know who works for them. Analog converter boxes are going to be free for a year from them too. Assuming you don't want to buy one for OTA.

The cable companies are in a tight spot. Their main competition satellite and phone company services are moving rapidly to MPeg4 giving satellite+telco the advantage for # of HD programs. In order to raise the number of HD channels on cable they need to

1. Upgrade remaining 550MHz systems to 750MHz to 1 GHz new technology.

2. Decrease the number of analog "enhanced basic" (under Ch 99) channels. Every one analog channel kicked up to MPeg2 frees bandwidth for two more HD MPeg2 cable channels. Eventually a cable box will be needed to get anything over the basic "must carry" analog service (~20 analog channels). When they do this they will make room for ~100 more HD channels.

3. In the future cable will also change from MPeg2 to MPeg4 and this will allow 2x to 3x more digital SD or HD channels. This would require a major system wide upgrade.

Cable is "bleeding from the head" if they lose many of their high end $125/mo. customers to satellite in order to save analog for the $45/mo. extended basic customer.

[SingSing]

My TV feed from FIOS is not as good as my previous comast feed, especially on black level.

I hope cable analog is going to be around for backup who don't like those re-digitised boradcast.

[edDV]

My TV feed from FIOS is not as good as my previous comast feed, especially on black level.

I hope cable analog is going to be around for backup who don't like those re-digitised boradcast.

FIOS is in the early stages of development. IP based systems will first play out in urban and high density new construction areas. The vast majority are now on cable with satellite as the #2.

[lenti_75]

is it Feb 2009 now ??? it used to be like july 07......

that means, I still got 2 yrs on my tv.... unless they will change it again, and probaly that will happen.

[Heywould3]

i just got a 42 LCD and i think the SD pictures look great in some cases better. the tv i got is a progressive scan tv( i think most are with 3:2 2:2 pull down) but anyway i leave all 4:3 content at 4:3 i have the ability to zoom, pan and scan or convert o 16:9 which is basicly zoom but has a different affect. at 4:3 the pic on SD looks great some have noise but they do on a standart tv also. some HD content at 1080I will actually come in as 4:3 and i think that looks great also. the 720P at 16:9 seems to look the best but im not sure if its the content or what. because it changes from channel to channel. a channel broadcasting 1080i show might be showing a tv show that was recorded to tape at a tape resolutions even with upconverting i wont look right. i was watching NFL the other day in HD 1080I 16:9 and i could see the blades of grass, sweat, strands of hair. it was awsome.. i think it was the best purchase ive made in a long time,.. and i debated it for weeks before i made the leap

[edDV]

In simple sports terms 1080i/29.97 is pretty for blades of grass and seeing faces when everything is still but it goes all blurry during action. 720p/59.94 is a sequence of sharp frames even during action.

As for 480i SD on a progressive screen, the test is when things move. A good deinterlacer will keep edges sharp and defined through movement. Sports and zooming graphics are the worst case. Movies and TV series keep movement constrained to accommodate 24fps.

[Rich86]

The 2 standards (of players) have nothing to do with it, it is about HD TV (television).

You're wrong. The combination of competing high def disc players, confusing definitions of what high def actually is (is it 720 - is it 1080 - is it interlaced video - progressive video, etc.?), the fact that many high def stations just cram a standard def picture into the center of the screen and surround it with a high def "border" and the relationship to the abandonment of analog tv broadcasts (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with high def) all leads to confusion - and then inaction - on the part of the consumer. When you add that to the general apathy many folks feel towards the quality broadcast television these days, folks just aren't willing to invest the time and money it takes to get involved with high def properly.

The industry needs to migrate everything to the best possible quality (1080 everywhere), make more stations available via high def, and make those stations actually broadcast in full high def (from the source material to the TV screen).

[DereX888]

The 2 standards (of players) have nothing to do with it, it is about HD TV (television).

You're wrong. The combination of competing high def disc players, confusing definitions of what high def actually is (is it 720 - is it 1080 - is it interlaced video - progressive video, etc.?), the fact that many high def stations just cram a standard def picture into the center of the screen and surround it with a high def "border" and the relationship to the abandonment of analog tv broadcasts (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with high def) all leads to confusion - and then inaction - on the part of the consumer. When you add that to the general apathy many folks feel towards the quality broadcast television these days, folks just aren't willing to invest the time and money it takes to get involved with high def properly.

The industry needs to migrate everything to the best possible quality (1080 everywhere), make more stations available via high def, and make those stations actually broadcast in full high def (from the source material to the TV screen).

Im right, youre confused
All your examples regard High Def TELEVISION, not the two competing highdef disc formats. Both of them are able deliver exactly same quality picture, the difference between them is insignificant and transparent to the user. Alas they have nothing to do with HD TV.

[RLT69]

2009 means absolutely nothing as edDv pointed out. 2009 does not mean a switch over to HDTV. It means a switch to a digital signal! The signal is still in standard definition. You're TV will still work in 2009. You will just need to purchase a digital tuner for your tv if you do not have cable or satellite.

I think the survey is spot on as Lord Smurf pointed out. People could give a rats ass about HD content, nor do they want to plunk down $2 grand on an HD set. Yes standard def looks like crap on HDTVs and you need to spend $$$ to get a decent LCD or plasma HD that will show a good SD picture.

Complain all you want but we are a long way off from HD. Ten years is about right. By 2017 - 2020 I can see most people having HDTVs. Though don't be fooled. 2017 - 2020 will have been about 20+ years for adoption of HD. HD has been talking about since the '90s.

It takes Americans time to cotton to new technology :P

[TBoneit]

[quote="Rich86"]

Snipped
The industry needs to migrate everything to the best possible quality (1080 everywhere), make more stations available via high def, and make those stations actually broadcast in full high def (from the source material to the TV screen).

1080i, Interlaced better resolution and picture on still or slow moving images and poor picture for fast moving.
720p, Non Interlaced more frames much better for fast action.
1080p most HDTVs out right now are not 1080P.

It would be nice if everything was one of those two choices, however reality intrudes itself. Does anyone thing they are going to stop showing all of the huge SD library and limit themselves to the relatively small amount of HD content?