Well it's an Apple product, their users are used to paying for more and getting less, all the while babbling on and on about how great it is.

I mean..... PAY ... for a cell phone? With real money? Up front?? Doesn't make much sense does it.

Probably because HDNet has an exclusive deal with D*. Comcast couldn't "carry" it if they wanted to.

I don't know about all the country but here FIOS is absolutely NO competition for cable. VERY limited area, and the service absolutely sucks - slow channel changing and only 1 HD channel to the entire house at once! (Kiss your dual-tuner DVR byebye..)

Satellite is a little better but still suffers from "HD lite" not to mention heavy equipment expenses and long term contracts. Plus, no Tivo S3 in sight...

Also, "increasingly limited amount of bandwidth" - where do you get this crap? I don't know about your area but here the cable co(s) have done nothing but INcrease bandwidth. They are even shutting off analog which will free up much MUCH more b/w for more HD channels.

Cable is absolutely just fine where they are right now.

Bit-rates can be misleading if you are talking about 2 different codecs, for sure.

MPEG2 looks like (poopie) at the same bit-rates where MPEG4 (AVC & VC-1) look terrific.

Also where do you get off saying The Fountain is the most important release?! (I know this is opinion...)

Having only the most bare-bones DVD release, of questionable audio and video quality... THE ROAD WARRIOR is obviously the best and most important release this week! =)

Both actually.

Well the fat lady hasn't started singing yet, but she is putting on her makeup....

Oh I don't know. With PowerBoost I get 24-28Mbits down and 2.4Mbits up (on the first 50MB of every file - after that 6mb/384k - SF Bay area).

Don't have fiber to the home here and no plans to install it. Can't get Verizon FIOS either and AT&T uVerse is only just rolling out to a few select neighborhoodsm and the word is, it stinks on ice (and the advertised speeds are no better than Comcast anyway - ie 6-8mb).

Wow so much FUD. Where to begin? Let's see...

1. Actually the article is mostly correct, even if the headline is misleading. It IS true that *currently* the PS3 can not bit-stream either of the HD audio codecs. As mentioned of course, it can decode TrueHD (all 1 title there is..) and output it as uncompressed (loss-less) 7.1 LPCM. It can not *currently* decode DTS-HDMA, though support for that is promised "coming soon". Support for bitstream may or may not be added, however, and as some have pointed out, is not even permitted in some cases.

2. The Xbox 360, yes even the "l33t" edition with HDMI ... does not do bitstream output either. In fact, it can't, it uses HDMI version 1.2, which is incapable of bitstreaming the HD codecs. To make matters worse however, the 360 down-converts TrueHD and DTS-HDMA (and uncompressed PCM) soundtracks into standard 5.1 channel *lossy* AC3 (aka Dolby Digital). It does not do LPCM output, AT ALL.

3. Some have mentioned this but it bears repeating. Having the player decode the soundtrack and output LPCM is actually the *preferred* method, since the player can then mix in the interactive sounds. It also means you can buy a HDMI 1.1 (etc) receiver now, one that accepts 7.1 LPCM via HDMI that is, and not worry about future codecs, etc.. because they will simply be converted to LPCM by the player.

Neither TrueHD nor DTS-HD support are required for Blu-ray Disc players. (TrueHD is required for HD-DVD, but DTS-HD is not.)

The HDMI 1.3 port on the PS3 is *capable* of bitstream support for both codecs, otherwise it couldn't be certified as 1.3 - but actual support by the player is *not* required.

No actually what they said last month was that the firmware update would *allow* for this feature but that the games themselves would need to be updated for them to work (and re-loaded, at no charge).

I think he means they cost more than the DVD version which is generally true.

Next-gen games $10 cost more than last gen games but that true for Xbox as well.