I remember when flat panel TVs first started making their way into retail outlets, and by flat panel I mean the Plasma and LCD types, not the bogus and misleading flat screen tube types. Whenever my wife and I would enter a store, and witness people oo-ing and ah-ing over the "wonderful" image and size of the picture when it was actually stretched, squashed, pulled, or letterboxed, we actually would comment "...does anybody else see the Emperor naked or is it just us?"
That was ten years ago.
Today I still see the Emperor naked. He's ten years older and believe me it ain't a pretty sight! Now HDTV is all the rage and everybody and his brother (sister) are trying to keep up with the Joneses, even though the Joneses are being conned.
Let me explain. Last year my father-in-law, who is retired after many years of hard work, decided to treat himself to a 52" HDTV. While I have to admit there are significant quality of image differences between his HDTV and my now 12-year-old CRT TV, I can live with those differences considering the cost and headache that goes with upgrading to HDTV.
Having the HDTV is not enough. Then you have to have an HD receiver for your channel source (be it cable or satellite). Then you have to count on the source station transmitting in true HD (and they can only do that if the program they are sending over the broadband frequency was actually filmed in true HD). Then you have to rely on your provider to send that signal to your receiver in true HD, and only after paying more for the privilege. Then you have to have an HDMI cable to carry that HD signal from the receiver into your TV. Even if all these things were lined up in a row and happening (and they are not) you still have to "tell" your TV to zoom, stretch, s-stretch or normalize the picture leaving you stuck with the old style letterboxes on some channels, full screen on others, and pillar bars on still more channels. Heck, some channels are completely surrounded by black bars!
Basically you cannot watch HDTV today for any length of time without gluing that remote control to your hand. My father-in-law's words not mine. With my SDTV I just flip to the channel and set down the remote until I'm ready to surf again. Now my hands are free to hold my drink and grab up a fistful of popcorn. Don't you HD users miss eating while you're being entertained?
Anyway, getting back to my father-in-law. So after getting his HDTV he obviously contacted his satellite provider to upgrade to a HD package. Why not? He had a HDTV and wanted the HD programming so that he can enjoy better quality...right? Well he's actually had nothing but trouble with the upgrade since, and to be honest, even on his setup the difference between his SD and HD channels was not significant enough to justify the cost of having a HD package.
First there came the install of the upgrade. The tech puts a second dish on the roof pointed in a different direction from the other one that was already in place. Then he cables the two dishes together with splices and a splitter that he plugs into INPUT 1 and 2 on the receiver. Gee, how much further did this degrade an already degraded signal? Now, had my father-in-law been a new subscriber instead of the detestable existing customer he would have gotten a single new dish that would pick up both HD and SD transmissions. So the tech programs the remote to operate both the receiver and HDTV, gets my father-in-law to sign on the dotted line, and goes away.
Needless to say neither my father-in-law nor I was impressed with the so-called HD signals. There just was not a whole lot of quality difference between them. In some cases the SD channel came in better and filled up more of the screen than the HD channel.
For those of you wondering if it might be the TV that's the problem it's not. The Blu-ray player that came with it plays crystal clear movies and this is because there is not any signal degradation between the player and the HDTV so long as you are using an HDMI cable and he is.
A week later my father-in-law calls his satellite provider informing them that he is not happy with what he has just started paying more for. The customer service representative took him through the ridiculous troubleshooting steps. We all know the kind I'm talking about: the person, usually foreign, who reads to you from a binder sitting in front of him (her). The most these folks know is how to turn the page. In the end the problem could not be resolved this way and so another tech was dispatched.
This tech replaces the receiver, programs the new remote, leaves cables between the receiver in the living room and the receiver in the bedroom poking out of the wall and spliced, gets my father-in-law to sign on the dotted line and leaves. Gee another splice. More degraded signal strength.
For a couple of months after this last visit the system worked well enough that my father-in-law could live with it. Then one day recently things only got worse. His satellite remote could no longer manipulate the HD channel from zoom to stretch to normal, but could still operate the HDTV power, volume, and SD modes.
He called and the customer service rep, after taking him again through those ridiculous troubleshooting steps, concluded that my father-in-law would have to use two remotes (the one for his HDTV and the one for his receiver). The man informed the rep that he was damned if he was going to settle for that, especially considering that until that moment he was using only one remote. So the brilliant rep concludes that maybe the remote is bad and he would send out a new one.
The remote comes in, my father-in-law programs it, but the problem persists. So he calls technical support again (I think the patience of this man comes after long years of putting up with idiots). Now the brilliant conclusion is that he will need a replacement receiver and they send that out.
That comes in, my father-in-law installs it, programs that remote and guess what? The problem persists. Now the man is really ticked. I pity the poor rep who got his last call because he tried to take my father-in-law through those ridiculous troubleshooting steps, but was cut short almost as soon as he began, and was informed as politely as possible to just send someone out to get this fixed and make sure they come with the old standard receivers, because if they cannot fix this he wants to cancel his HD upgrade entirely and revert to what he had prior.
The tech comes out today and programs yet a forth remote. The problem persists. My father-in-law asks him if he can see any difference between the HD signal and the SD signal. The tech says, "...I wouldn't know, sir. I don't have HD I'm too poor."
What the heck is that! At least send someone who knows what HD should look like and can do more than plug in a few cables.
Well, even this tech could not get the remote to manipulate the HD signals and has the audacity to tell my father-in-law that to shift between the zoom, stretch, and normal modes he would have to use the SD ZOOM function. Oh, this guy was a real piece of work. Needless to say my father-in-law told him to just revert to his old standard receiver, but the tech did not bring one. So in the end the tech took the standard receiver from the bedroom and installed it in the living room. With the standard receiver hooked up almost all of the channels now fill the screen or have very narrow horizontal bars. No more pillars. No more completely surround with black bars. Go figure, and HD was supposed to be better. I guess if your last name is Jones.
Now you may wonder why the tirade. First of all, I know my father-in-law is not alone and he wanted me to share this experience with others so that the buyer be warned. I write this blog at his behest. What follows is my assessment of what is actually occurring out there in the HD ethos.
Customer service has been the first thing to go out the window since the beginning of this economic downturn and what's left is outright lying to customers or deceiving them. Not only that, but I discovered after perusing the net that it would appear some of the cable and satellite companies may have been purposely downgrading their HD signal transmissions (sometimes not transmitting it at all) to offset the cost of leasing enough broadband to accommodate best quality images. They may have started doing this as recently as the summer of 2008.
[Hmmm, didn't the economy begin its free fall around that time?]
Also they may have been sending more channels down a single frequency, thereby reducing not only the quality of the signal, but their costs as well. And they are not telling the consumer, which leaves people like me open to criticism as conspiracy theorists, further taking attention away from the real problem -- them. So be it.
It's this blogger's opinion that the extension to June of 2009 of the digital conversion is not to allow more time for "the little guy" to get ready, but actually to keep the providers from having to fork out money they don't have right now to invest in their part of the conversion. I look for another extension come this summer if there's not a bailout first, of course.
As it happens I have never had nor do I have any intention of "upgrading" to HD until such time as the technology is second nature or I am forced to. Somehow I believe I will be forced to. Hey, I held onto WindowsME for as long as I could folks!
More, like my father-in-law, may now see the Emperor naked, but because of the lack of outrage from the public and the absence of any media attention to this problem I am left to conclude that too many HD users still see the Emperor arrayed. Maybe you're better off; the true image is really an unattractive one.
