Re: No HDMI a deal-breaker?

In article <dffkrp02l73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 04 Sep 2005 09:22:10 GMT Ranulf Doswell
><usenet-2005-09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>| In article <dfdbho1evi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The other systems weren't HD.

Actually, they exceed the ATSC specifications as what counts as HDTV, in
that they actually had in excess of 1080i lines.

>Who is to blame depends on the circumstances.
>But in the case of HD, the government (FCC, FTC, etc) promoted this new
>thing called HD (and DTV to enable it to be carried). Until they come up
>with the next thing beyond HD, then I expect anything that was marketed as
>HD to work with all HD broadcasts. Note that I am limiting the scope of
>this to OTA and/or referred to as being compatible with HD. For non-OTA,
>call it something else.

And that's exactly the point I'm making. OTA boxes in the US *do* have
component output. In fact, I'd even assert that the number of STB with
component output exceeds the number of sets with ONLY component input.
People are happy right now, because they *can* watch their OTA
broadcasts. If the market shifts to HDCP on OTA broadcasts, then I
suspect the existing STBs will become a commodity on eBay, but they'll
still be available and legal.

That isn't what this discussion is about though. HDCP is not an issue
with OTA. It's an issue with Blu-ray and HD-DVD, both camps of which
have been telling the public at large that HDCP will be required on
launch.

>No one ... NO ONE ...
>who bought an HD set at any time should have to face programming they
>cannot watch.

And that won't change. They have their existing kit, which works.

Ralf.

--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
.