At 10:58 AM 1/22/2003 -0800, Al Rowland wrote:
1. I also remember when web page standards required you to design everything to fit in a 640x400 screen. DTV/HDTV will significantly change your 'not much in the way of image quality loss' yardstick. My viewing habits have changed significantly in the year plus I've been DTV/HDTV. Among other things, I go to the movies a lot less. DVD quality (which is lower than HDTV) is better than most movie theaters and there's no gum/spilled drink (most of the time) on my floor.
Agreed, however the source video that I've seen demoed is from DVD. Side by side comparison shows slight degradation, but solo viewing is more than adequate. This also isn't targetted to people at the end of the bell curve for technology adopters and purists, rather at the fat middle section that isn't upgrading to ( or doesn't care about ) HDTV yet and for whom current "digital video" quality is "just fine".
2. I already have it. It's called broadcast. $100 (could have been less but I always over design) antenna and $20 of coax. No monthly fee. I do pay for the DirecTV feed, but that's a separate flame war.
Last I checked "premium" channels came via Cable or Satellite. :) If you have separate DSL line and DirecTV then you are doubling up on delivery costs. Would the average consumer like to "add" video to their DSL connection? The cable company cuts you a deal if you have video and data on the same line. Wouldn't the telco's like to compete in that market?
Of course, you could just as easily be right.
Who knows? :) Reality will probably end up somewhere in the middle. -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net