   
|
||
 July 1, 2005
Special Delivery: Cable or Satellite for HDTV? When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) kicked off the high-definition era in 1996, there was no way to predict how the television-viewing public would react. Now, as we approach 2006, when all US broadcasting is supposed to be digital, it’s clear that the system is taking off. By far the most active area in television-set sales is in widescreen HD-capable models, and although that may in part be because buyers who would normally replace their conventional TVs are holding off, it’s also a vote of confidence in the new system.The popularity of new-technology sets is echoed in Canada, even though only a few stations broadcast digitally north of the border, where the move toward digital TV is a matter of consumer demand and broadcasters’ innovation rather than government fiat. And although the FCC left the door open for a number of broadcast configurations that would be digital but not high-definition, the reality seems to be that HD will become the standard. So, whether or not 2006 will actually see the total switchover in the US that was mandated by the FCC, it’s clear it will happen someday, and analog broadcasting -- over-the-air, anyway -- will disappear. At that time, the various delivery systems will undoubtedly provide those signals in digital form. In the interim, for those who want hi-def signals now, and who can’t or won’t pick them up by rooftop antenna, it’s a matter of choosing cable or satellite as an HD source. Each has its pluses and minuses. Picture quality is not really at issue. As with all digital media, as long as you can pull in HD at all, it will mostly be pristine, whichever system delivers it. Cable has the advantage of being available practically everywhere -- even if you’re not hooked up to it, cable probably runs by your front door. And for the huge number of viewers already connected to cable, the conversion to hi-def will be relatively painless. But for now, many cable companies don’t carry hi-def signals because of bandwidth limitations: in the transition period, they would have to carry the corresponding analog signals as well, and there are only so many channels available on the system. Also, even though cable companies do offer digital services, most of their channels are still bandwidth-hogging analog. Satellite signals reach everywhere too -- even to remote regions beyond cable’s reach -- but not everyone can receive them, or is prepared to pay the premium necessary to buy the receiving equipment. But the number of channels the system can carry is almost infinite (given enough satellites), and all the signals are digital. In most of Canada and in some areas of the US, satellite is the only way to get high-definition. Satellite systems can be adversely affected by weather, however, whereas cable theoretically carries on whatever the conditions outside. Still, satellite signals are not as prone to disruption as one might expect. Eventually, all delivery systems -- off-air, cable, and satellite -- will be completely digital, and there won’t be much to choose between them. For now, cable would seem to have the edge when it comes to availability of service, and satellite when it comes to quantity of material. For now. …Ian G. Masters
|
||
|
