Not sure if this is the right forum, but I don’t see any better category.
I’ve heard plenty of reasons why, from regulatory requirements on the bandwidth cable can use to just because nobody broadcasts in 1080p. But I have yet to find a solid answer. I know some things (like PPV) broadcast in 1080p, but why is it limited to that?
If nobody broadcasts in 1080p, why? You see the same shows on iTunes, et al in 1080p. The bandwidth is there. The cameras are cheap. The storage is available.
If it’s because of DRM and not wanting to broadcast in >720p because you can’t encrypt a coax signal, why not encrypt the signal up to the cable box? You need the cable box either way, so why not basically start doing TV over IP (if that’s a thing)? Offer a non-encrypted signal for basic cable, as basic cable doesn’t have HD channels to begin with.
If it’s because of regulatory requirements (someone said this to me IRL, never was able to verify it), couldn’t they switch from MPEG-2 streams to, say, the H.265 codec? They still get to pay licensing fees, but they use a lot less bandwidth in the process.
Considering you still need the cable box, why not do a software update to support higher resolutions and have cable boxes negotiate what they can handle when they first come online like you have with Ethernet, so boxes stuck on MPEG-2 won’t be receiving an H.265 stream?
Does it all come down to cable companies just being that cheap? Because considering how much they want to retain the cable TV subscription base (rather than, you know, compete as an ISP), being able to say “well WE have 1080p, while everyone else has 720p and 1080i” would be a good selling point.
Companies use archaic practices because it costs so much to change even smallest thing.
An example would be when Air Lingus (Irish Airways) changed the picture on the back of their planes from a shamrock facing left to one facing right. The cost was enormous and nearly bankrupted the company.
With cable companies they have to change nearly all their infrastructure to deal with new encoding. They have enough money to do it, but without their competition doing it they don't feel the need. If I was an investor, I would vote no to the change because the competition isn't there.
Once a company starts providing 4K they'll have to improve.
I've personally seen the introduction of High speed internet in my area (optic). When the Company came around to question people about the internet after it was introduced only 5 out of 1200 people noticed the internet had increased in speed. It was introduced as an experiment.
The sad truth is most people don't know or care. I've only watched a few things on my 4K...
They don't use 1080p bc it can be easily captured and they worry about pirated content. So they broadcast in 1080i which is interlaced frames at 60fps and not the full picture. That way if it is captured it is incredibly hard to work with worth.
I work for a small ISP, and we also provide services powered by Dish. We have old stuff coming through coax but we are gradually making the switch to clearQAM and installing smartboxes in the head that way the transcoders can pick up the digital content.
The H.265 codec is designed mostly to be a more efficient one. That way 4k quality will fit on disks like Blue-Ray. And it also improves the streaming bc the bitrate is high and not everyone in the world has fast internet that can handle.
In order to do what you are asking with the new content in H.265 to the home, that cannot be done with a simple software update. It doesn't work that way. To put it simply, there is a heavy amount of infrastructure that is in place in order to deliver the current standard. You cannot just change the standard over night with the flip of the switch. There are people that need to be trained, hardware that needs to replaced, infrastructure that needs to be changed, etc.
Are cable companies/ISP's cheap? In a way yes. But as long as the content that they provide is enough to get the job done(within reason), then everything is okay. That is where the companies set their goal. They are not bleeding edge and they never will be.
Over in the UK BT is about to launch 4K TV channels
so that's nice. Doubt they'll be cheap though :P
likes out of pity
Its a smaller country that's all... The amount left to upgrade is incredible. Even on the Isle of Man where we are the experiment for you guys, we still only have a loop of fibre on the main roads. I think its estimated at 500 million to do the rest of the homes, and that's in a 30 by 15 mile radius. Think how much it would cost in the US.
There aren't enough splicers. That's a good job to train in now I think.
I just click like on everything....
70% by 2017 and 90% rollout by 2019 targeted by the government.
We are the most 'internet based economy' in the G20 so the government is keeping that market safe. The upgrades really don't cost that much. As for being a smaller we are bigger than most states but comparable to Texas.
But then that's not that relevant. The fibre rollout it in cities first, you don't need to do everyone, and your cities are as sparse or dense as ours.
Yeah, your right. Doing everyone is what costs the money. I really like what B4RN did in Lancashire.
I think that will be the domestic model.
A 1000 megabit per second symmetrical (same speeds up as well as down) futureproof fibre to the home connection costs £30 a month, with £150 connection fee. - See more at: http://b4rn.org.uk/shares#sthash.gorzDCFd.dpuf
We are already light years ahead of the UK, lol. Estonia is the real competition!!! They really have it together over there.
Hyper Optic has gigabit at £50/month unlimited in the big cities in England already though it's difficult to get.
Virgin Media is the fastest of the big 6 ISPs.
Pretty much anyone can pay BT Openreach to run a fibre optic cable to their house for 330Mbps (soon to be 1Gbps).