On-demand 3D-HDTV: Broadcasting killer by the decade end

On-demand 3D-HDTV: Broadcasting killer by the decade end

Summary: 3DTV showed off at CES 2010 along with high-definition and on-demand programming, broadcasting is facing its final curtain call. Opinion


CES 2010 has introduced television in 3D into the wider public eye, something that has only really been seen before in cinema and IMAX theatres. With special glasses which transfer images from one eye to the other, along with camcorders which take in two images instead of one, the technology is there and ready to be used. Whilst still incredibly expensive for the consumer, the broadcasters could snap it up as a future investment.

3DTV would still work best in an on-demand environment, as opposed to being told by the upcoming broadcast to route around the house looking for the family set of 3D glasses. Along with a massive increase in on-demand television, IPTV and a huge expansion in Blu-ray technology, ordinary broadcast television may not see it through to the end of the decade.

There is hope though. Dedicated 3D channels are soon to start in 2011 with an IMAX experience to be brought to the home, along with rolling 24-hour news channels still needing to be broadcast as the news breaks; these two developments are the only things holding broadcast television up.

Sky+ and TiVo, along with super-fast broadband brought to the homes with cable companies offering their streaming services to let you watch what you want, when you want it, broadcasting is facing its rivals.

Since 2008 when I first mentioned the subject, a huge amount has changed as high-definition television sales rocket and broadcasters back up their programming with on-demand television.

But the BBC notes that 3DTV has no industry format standard been agreed upon yet, highlighting the possibility of a HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray style format war on the horizon.

But bigger televisions with OLED technology for brighter, richer displays, on-demand is becoming more and more promising. High-definition 3DTV probably wouldn't even come close to standing up on the broadcasting wavelengths as it is, so the Internet has to be the pipe that feeds the viewing public.

Most of the television I watch is upstairs in my office and on my computer. My 32" LCD TV downstairs is only to watch the BBC News and the remaining time it's streaming content through my media center extender.

Perhaps the end of the 9 to 5 working day has killed of television broadcast. We used to be stuck with what was on the terrestrial channels but now with our lives blurring between work and home life, we choose to watch what we want and when we want to, and not have it dictated by the broadcaster.

Will on-demand 3D HDTV be the revolution in television experiences?

Topics: Data Centers, Cloud, Hardware, Mobility

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • 3D, oh the humanity ....

    How many times has this story been written since the 1950's? I'll give you a hint, it's about every 5 years or so, and I will boldly say it's not gonna happen this time either. Forget 3D but Broadcasting will die a quick death, though, thanks to Al Gore and his Internet invention. The cable co's have been double billing us for long enough and that revenue stream is coming to an end, hense the consolidation of cable co's and content providers most recently Comcast. They know it's coming. We do not need Internet AND cable TV. The cable co's are all switching to an on demand (IPTV) model, which is what the internet already provides. Which brings up another question. WHY can't I buy my programming from a provider that does a better job at providing content, eg Time Warner and their lack of NFL network vs Comcast? And why am I stuck with this total piece of crap Time warner DVR just because I live where I live? It's time to tear down this artificial wall built on 1970's technology.
    • re: 3D, oh the humanity...........

      [i]I'll give you a hint, it's about every 5 years or so, and I will boldly say it's not gonna happen this time either. [/i]

      Yup. You got that right.
    • Buy yourself a clue

      Are you willing to pay for 3 or 4 different cables run to your house so you can chose which one you like better? If the cable isn't owned by some one (be it fiber, coax, twisted pair, whatever) who's going to install it, service it, repair it, upgrade it. Why do you think the deregulation of the telephone industry has lead right back to them re-consolidating? If I own the cables that run to your house, in other words, I've invested in the network that connects your house to various services, why should I open that up to my competitors?
      If these networks where owned like the roads and highways of your town, county and state then you might see what you want. But that would be to socially intelligent for such a capitalistic money grubbing society.
  • And what about people who wear eyeglasses?

    Are these 3D goggles going to be something that will fit COMFORTABLY over my glasses? Not likely.

    So then I guess some whiz-kid is going to come up with prescription 3D goggles, to be sold for a king's ransom. Sure...I can really see this as the killer broadcast medium in ten years. Keep dreaming.
  • 3D wars will last for a while

    5 years later we may see a winner. Until then there is no reason to buy anything that may be obsolete/abandoned 6 months later.
    • Life involves risk....sometimes it's worth taking the chance

      If one waits five yeara, one doesn't get to enjoy what works during those years.

      Yes, buying now means rolling some dice on who wins, but I don't regret my HDDVD player or my Beta VCR, because I enjoyed them at the time.

      At the end of the day, 5 years is a long time if you're not 25 or 30, and one may as well enjoy those years too, provided the funds are not too dear.
      • Not everyone has your income

        to go out and spend 600 dollars this month, then six months down the road yet again.

        He is right, wait for it. Nothing that important that it can not wait a little bit.

        And you don't even miss it.
  • RE: On-demand 3D-HDTV: Broadcasting killer by the decade end

    No! I don't want 3D HDTV. 3D is ok for short films for rides at Disney and Universal but leave my TV alone please. Or at least offer the content in non 3D.

  • Broadcasting Killer By The Decade End

    Broadcasting Killer By The Decade End -- wow!! Less than a year away!
  • RE: On-demand 3D-HDTV: Broadcasting killer by the decade end

    Don't expect to see much actual 3D content until well after the format wars end. It took years from the introduction of HD for significant actual HD content to become available. Even now, a lot of what you see on HD cable channels was shot in SD.
  • Until they get rid of the silly little glasses...

    this is unlikely to catch on.

    If I lose the remote, I can still watch TV (even though a pain to switch channels, adjust volume). If I lose the glasses, more of a problem. Also, I only need *one* remote for the TV. I will need the glasses for every individual who will be watching at a given moment. Any household with kids would be constantly dealing with missing/broken glasses.
  • The fundamental problem,

    as I see it, with all TV, whether delivered by broadcasters
    over the air, via cable, or via satellite is that good
    entertaining and/or informative content is so limited.
    Several months ago, our local cable operator, Comcast,
    offered an introductory deal for a very low price. At the
    same time Direct TV had another promotion for an
    attractive price. Both of these offers and all of the others
    I've seen since then run for a limited time, at the end of
    which the charges revert to their normal list prices for the
    balance of the time the contract runs that the customer is
    required to sign up for.

    I downloaded the weekly program offerings from all of the
    competing cable and satellite providers serving my area
    and determined that I would have to pay over $10 per hour
    to watch the shows via cable or satellite that I cannot get
    over my rabbit ears. View-on-Demand was extra. That's a
    no-brainer. For $18-$20 I can take my wife to a first-run
    movie that plays for maybe 90-120 minutes without the
    annoyance of 18 minutes of commercials every hour that
    interrupt the programs (except those from PBS) sent over
    the RF channels.

    I can record TV shows off-air via either VHS tape or DVD-
    ROM, fast-forward through the commercials, and watch
    any programs I want at my leisure. I can't get everything I
    would like, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

    The advent of digital broadcasting and HDTV has not
    improved anything that I can see, so why should I pay
    anything additional to watch 3D TV if the bulk of the
    program content is likely to remain so crappy and

  • Sit back and sip your route beer...

    Another example of why we still need human error correction...
  • Not unless it looks seamless. Period

    It has to have the look and feel, the color, and texture that we see on television today.

    It must be an unnoticable migration form one to the other.

    Goofey glasses, (with batteries, cords, rechargable)? Viewing angles, colors, textures, detail, depth: It has to be as good if not better then what is here now.

    If it's too much trouble each time, then it will not go over so well.