Raleigh, NC - HDTV [Text View] - Page 23

posg

06-29-06, 08:56 AM

Cable’s Blueprint for Interactivity

By Karen Brown, STAFF
(Multichannel News) _ After nine years of development around the OpenCable Applications Platform and nine promises from backers that this is the year of OCAP the interactive-television technology may finally be ready to play in digital-cable customers' living rooms.

OCAP, billed as a unifying standard that would allow snazzy new interactive-TV applications to run on a wide array of cable set-top boxes in participating operators' systems, is finally set to go from drawing board to deployment. Rollouts are planned in nine markets by the end of this year.

During a recent Webcast sponsored by the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing, experts said OCAP is also set to evolve even more capabilities, including home networking and whole-home digital video recording.

SHARED BLUEPRINT
OCAP provides a shared blueprint for applications providers, so they don't have to worry about what set-top box their applications will end up on, and what cable operators field it. It is based largely on Java, a programming language almost universally accepted among consumer-electronics and computer-products suppliers.

While nine years of development of technology has led to a final first version now being in place, OCAP hasn't seen wide adoption among cable operators.

It's a classic chicken-and-egg problem: applications providers haven't wanted to create products that can run in an OCAP scheme until they see cable operators adopt it, and operators have hesitated to put the OCAP scheme in place until they see more applications.

That might be changing. At January's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, a group of cable operators including Time Warner Cable promised to roll out OCAP systems by October, and there are signs that work is under way. Time Warner Cable has stated it will roll OCAP applications out in New York City; Milwaukee; Green Bay, Wis.; Lincoln, Neb.; and Waco, Texas, while Comcast Corp. has pledged to do so in Philadelphia, Denver and Northern New Jersey.
Joan Gillman, vice president of interactive TV and advanced advertising at Time Warner Cable, said work is under way to meet the October target date for rolling out OCAP in Time Warner's initial markets.

'BUILDING REACH'
For Time Warner, the key selling point for adopting OCAP is creating a nationwide system for interactive TV applications spanning multiple cable operators' systems, and giving cable operators scale in applications development critical as they face increasing competition.

"It's building reach we believe will give us the long-term competitive advantage," Gillman said.

Time Warner has assigned a team of engineers to work on the OCAP project, and is requiring all new applications providers to conform their products to OCAP. Still, the cable firm is taking a step-by-step approach in rolling OCAP out, so as not to disrupt existing services.

At headends in the six initial OCAP markets, Time Warner engineers are making the needed upgrades, Gillman said. That includes installing servers that will support dual OCAP and the older non-OCAP interactive programming guides beamed to digital cable customers and making sure the initial group of OCAP applications can run on common servers.

The OCAP engineering team also is meeting with each division to walk people there through the rollout process, including what equipment needs to be ordered and what training will be needed for headend operations engineers "so everyone is on deck and ready to go in the next few months," Gillman said.

Gillman said if all goes well, Time Warner should be able to extend the OCAP rollout across its entire footprint, even as it starts into interactive TV market trials in 2007.

PREDICTABLE HURDLES
As it goes into these trials, the OCAP technology faces predictable hurdles going from the drawing board to the TV set or set-top box.

One major issue that has already cropped up is the problem of applications competing for resources within the OCAP device, be it a TV set or a set-top box.

This is particularly true in more advanced, high-definition products that have more functions to manage, Don Dulchinos, senior vice president of advanced platforms and services at CableLabs, said.

For example, if a cable application like on-demand video is running and the viewer also activates a photo viewer to run on the TV screen, the OCAP-enabled TV has to decide which has the priority.

There also is talk of layering on interfaces that will allow Internet Protocol-based data to stream onto the TV or set-top box.

Even as these systems roll out using the original OCAP specification, work is now under way for an upgrade version that would include features such as home networking and multi-room digital video recording.

Tentatively dubbed OCAP 1.1, the specification may be ready for release by CableLabs some time in the third quarter this year.

OCAP 1.1 may also provide extensions allowing it extend beyond the set-top to including DVD players, gaming consoles and portable players.

"We want to think about how the OCAP software can allow the customer to access each of these devices on the network," Dulchinos said.

ABC AWAITS
On the content side, ABC Interactive has been developing interactive products mostly for Internet audiences for the last six years, and now it is looking to extend to the TV using OCAP, said Jonathan Bokor, senior director of business development and sales for Walt Disney Internet Group/ABC Enhanced TV.

The fact OCAP is creating a common platform across multiple devices and cable operators "is crucial for us," Bokor said, adding that it not only simplifies applications development, but it can reach enough viewers to in turn attract advertisers.

ABC Interactive has been involved in the OCAP testing and it even demonstrated an OCAP-based interactive application surrounding the hit series Lost at this spring's National Show.

It also is working on a feature that would provide a link pointing a viewer watching a program to an on-demand, long-format ad with the click of a remote.

"That is a crucial element for our advertising partners, and it could offset loss in advertising viewing on DVR systems," Bokor said.

There are still some areas that need improvement. Bokor said if developers such as ABC Interactive were provided with some templates that are pre-certified and tested to work with OCAP, "that would make it easier for us." He added: "If a central service for doing that service could be made available, that could make it cheaper for us to develop more robust applications and then deploy those applications."

SET-TOP EAGERNESS
Cable set-top box makers also lining up for OCAP. They include Pace Micro Technology, which will show off a new DVR set-top box based on OCAP at this week's Society of Cable and Telecommunications Engineers' Expo show in Denver.

Motorola Inc. is preparing for the final arrival of OCAP, as part of a wider initiative to completely revamp the software systems it uses to drive set-top boxes, cell phones and other consumer electronics devices.

With every device going forward tapping the Java programming language and the Linux operating system, Motorola is hoping its Seamless Mobility initiative will lead products able to ship around content anywhere, to any device.

That new software architecture is readying for trials, and it now has samples of that software in several although unnamed major cable operators' technology labs.

"As it turns out, OCAP for us tends to be a byproduct of that," said John Burke, Motorola's corporate vice president and general manager of digital video solutions. "As we have developed our new architecture, we also included an OCAP middleware solution that is fully compliant with the current 1.0 standard that exists for OCAP."

But while OCAP plays a role, Motorola's software architecture also extends beyond the interactive-TV world, providing plugs to funnel content onto Internet and mobile devices OCAP itself doesn't cover, Burke noted.

EVOLVING STANDARD
Down the road, the OCAP standard will evolve.

"I wouldn't be surprised if some of the extensions that we have in our solution don't become candidates to get baked into the OCAP standards long-term and we are more than happy to support that," Burke said. "But the world of innovation is not a static state. Standards are great, and we fully support standards, but we can't just sit and wait for the standards to be established."

Another advantage for Motorola: its new software scheme can be downloaded into most of the advanced set-top boxes it has already deployed, including its DCT 5100 and DCT 6100 high-definition boxes and its 6400-series DVR boxes as well as a good portion of its lower-end DCT 2500 standard definition boxes. All have the memory and the processing capability to accept its new software including the OCAP capability.

"What we are seeing happening in the lab environment today with most of the larger service providers is they've got our OCAP implementation and they are doing their lab-based trials on the hardware they've been buying from us for a while now," Burke said.

With those trials, 2006 may well be the year OCAP finally becomes a technical reality.

"For lots of different reasons, the standard has been slow to evolve and emerge," Burke said. "But we really are at the point now where I think elements of all of this are becoming a reality."

Copyright The Associated Press 2006. All Rights Reserved

posg

06-29-06, 09:04 AM

Switched Digital Surges at SCTE Expo

By Karen Brown, STAFF
(Multichannel News) _ Denve If last week's SCTE Cable Tec-Expo is any indication, the cable industry is getting turned on by switched digital broadcast technology.

From myriad booth demonstrations, talk in several key panel sessions and a flood of new product announcements, switched digital video was easily the winner in the "it" new technology contest at the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers show staged at the Denver Convention Center.

"It's not a matter of if or when switched digital is the way cable has to go," Jim Chiddix, chairman and CEO of OpenTV Corp., said during a breakfast panel. OpenTV also was among several vendors staging live demos of switched digital video at their booths.

BANDWIDTH SAVINGS
In switched digital broadcast, only the video channels that customers are viewing are funneled to their digital set-top boxes, rather than the full spectrum of channels cable systems now deliver.

The technology promises huge bandwidth savings for operators and opens the door for more niche networks targeted to smaller ethnic and other demographic viewer segments.

Time Warner Cable has field trials up and running in Austin, Texas, and Columbia, S.C., and so far there are indications of a 60% bandwidth efficiency gain, according Time Warner chief technology officer Mike LaJoie.

"There have been a few hiccups," he said. "But generally speaking the switched digital technology we are using has worked pretty well."

As it evolves, switched digital has also developed a split personality in a good way.

Systems have been created to offer unicast streams beaming one video channel to one viewer and multicast, where a group of users in a local node all tune to the same switched channel and tap onto a single stream.

In Time Warner's trial, the first person in a node who requests a particular channel is sent the video in unicast. But when others in the same area also select that channel, the system switches to a multicast format and all are served by that one common stream.

That's far more efficient that limiting switched digital to one stream per user, LaJoie said.

So far, the Time Warner trials don't indicate any problems with scaling the technology, or of the system being overwhelmed by thousands of users channel surfing. LaJoie credited the switching being handled at each node, which is only responsible for a relatively small number of viewers.

"You think of it as large scale, but what you are actually managing is a small group of customers," he said.

posg

06-29-06, 09:38 AM

One more item of interest regarding your friendly local cable operator. The acquistion of Adelphia by Comcast and TWC has been approved by the bankruptcy court, leaving only FCC approval to complete the deal. The net subscriber gain of 3.5 million subscribers will put TWC near the 15 million mark. As the 2nd largest cable operator, TWC and it's relationship with Brighthouse will control programming content in nearly 25% of the cable households in the country.

With that much clout, programmers will have to be a little more aggressive on gaining shelf space on TWC's footprint. That, coupled with the remarks in the previous posts, guarantees some exciting changes coming soon, but probably not soon enough for some.

dslate69

06-29-06, 09:58 AM

...
With that much clout, programmers will have to be a little more aggressive on gaining shelf space on TWC's footprint. That, coupled with the remarks in the previous posts, guarantees some exciting changes coming soon, but probably not soon enough for some.
Just so we can all play along at home, what is your definition of "soon"?

All of your TWC Locker Room speeches talks about all the great things to come, but they never come.

VisionOn

06-29-06, 10:01 AM

That might be changing. At January's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, a group of cable operators including Time Warner Cable promised to roll out OCAP systems by October, and there are signs that work is under way. Time Warner Cable has stated it will roll OCAP applications out in New York City; Milwaukee; Green Bay, Wis.; Lincoln, Neb.; and Waco, Texas, while Comcast Corp. has pledged to do so in Philadelphia, Denver and Northern New Jersey.
This applies more to Motorola boxes than the Sci-Atl boxes that most of us use. So it will probably be a long time before most Raleigh users see it. I posted a story about this in the 8000/8300 thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7858957&&#post7858957

DonB2

06-29-06, 10:17 AM

"Receiving 28 digitals way down east. 28-2 is awesome! But they need to add a stereo surround channel to it. Monural quality is what I am getting. "

jspenc,

I agree, in fact this morning I checked to see if it was surround sound and see that it comes up as stereo- at least it says it is stereo.

OTA ATSC seems to be gaining channels as fast as TWC and SAT!!! Woo Hooo

-DonB2

posg

06-29-06, 10:32 AM

Just so we can all play along at home, what is your definition of "soon"?

All of your TWC Locker Room speeches talks about all the great things to come, but they never come.

As indicated, some markets get OCAP this year, others get Switched Video, others get Start Over. I'm sure they have seperate engineering SWAT teams that go from market to market and initiate upgrades. One to two years would be a reasonable expectation to have all systems up and running with all these initiatives, and by that time there will be something else. Perhaps complete conversion to all digital, who knows.

Raleigh was one of the first markets for digital simulcast. It will probably have at least one of these initiatives operational this year. That's the way these things work.

Since I've been in Raleigh (three years), the following upgrades have happened:
DVR service, HD DVR service, telephone service, several RoadRunner upgrades, digital simulcast, Video On Demand for pay and free content, and probably more than I know of. Oh, and record growth and profit.

It's taken the broadcast industry ten years to provide 20% of their schedule in HD, the satellite guys are just starting to roll out local into local HD.

But you will get Food HD first. :mad: :mad: :mad:

VisionOn

06-29-06, 11:29 AM

Since I've been in Raleigh (three years), the following upgrades have happened:
DVR service, HD DVR service, telephone service, several RoadRunner upgrades, digital simulcast, Video On Demand for pay and free content, and probably more than I know of. Oh, and record growth and profit.

It's taken the broadcast industry ten years to provide 20% of their schedule in HD, the satellite guys are just starting to roll out local into local HD.

if you want to compare television services directly, then in less than three years Dish Network has:
DVR Service, HD DVR Service, Movies on Demand, more HD channels, a widescreen IPG, better interactive services.

Road Runner and Digital Phone are irrelevant to this argument. It's not an upgrade of service if you never have it.

The only place were TWC stands out for service is the VOD stuff. However most of that is fluff and the movie channel not always obtainable on a busy night.

And since this is the HDTV thread, Time Warner NC may have started out of the gate pretty well with HD, but their (in)activity of late makes it look like they pulled over at a rest stop and just keep resting.

dslate69

06-29-06, 11:42 AM

... One to two years would be a reasonable expectation to have all systems up and running with all these initiatives, and by that time there will be something else. Perhaps complete conversion to all digital, who knows.
...
One ??? Did you type that with a straight face? The most optimistic for any major change for TWC in the Raleigh area would be two. And let's not forget you are the only optimistic one with regards to TWC, so more like 3-5.
I am glad you clarified what "soon" means to you. Most of us don't measure it with years.

Since I've been in Raleigh (three years), the following upgrades have happened:
DVR service, HD DVR service, telephone service, several RoadRunner upgrades, digital simulcast, Video On Demand for pay and free content, and probably more than I know of. Oh, and record growth and profit.

TWC as it pertains to this discussion is a multi channel provider, not an internet or phone provider. When we discuss HD channels you always pad TWC stats with accomplishments in other business models.
When subscribers call asking why they don't have ESPN2-HD for the World Cup, who cares if they are using TWC VOIP ?

As to your TWC accomplishment of DVR service, I had the original DISH\Microsoft Dishplayer 500 with built in DVR 6 years ago.

But you will get Food HD first. :mad: :mad: :mad:
and every other HD channel. With TWC not even being a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th.

posg

06-29-06, 12:08 PM

TWC as it pertains to this discussion is a multi channel provider, not an internet or phone provider. When we discuss HD channels you always pad TWC stats with accomplishments in other business models.

Of course I do, because it's all about convergence, and if you as a provider are not capable of supporting multiple platforms, video, gaming, IP, voice, you simply can't compete for the long haul. The telcos have figured that out. The reason why they're so desperately trying to get into the video arena is simple, self preservation.

The best strategy for the telcos and sat guys is to bundle each other's services together, or even merge. This is already happening. But it can only buy so much time. They've got to come to the "one wire" solution, or they will always be second dog.

To draw an analogy from another business, it's the same as Walmart and Target getting into the grocery business. Don't think the Kroger's and Safeway's aren't desperately trying to rethink and retool their business models.

gstelmack

06-29-06, 12:09 PM

It's taken the broadcast industry ten years to provide 20% of their schedule in HD, the satellite guys are just starting to roll out local into local HD.

But you will get Food HD first. :mad: :mad: :mad:

And I get to watch ESPN2-HD and NFL Network (with the HD stuff showing up on channel 95 when something HD is shown...) :D

BTW, on my earlier question about DirecTV MPEG-4 rollout, the press release went out yesterday that Raleigh-Durham is now available.

VisionOn

06-29-06, 12:15 PM

Of course I do, because it's all about convergence, and if you as a provider are not capable of supporting multiple platforms, video, gaming, IP, voice, you simply can't compete for the long haul.

which as an argument would be fine, except that it still puts the HD service of TWC way behind other cablecos who compete in VOIP and ISP services as well.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=4022698&&#post4022698

posg

06-29-06, 12:33 PM

which as an argument would be fine, except that it still puts the HD service of TWC way behind other cablecos who compete in VOIP and ISP services as well.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=4022698&&#post4022698

Way behind???? Behind who???? Not Comcast. Not Cox. Not Charter. Not Cablevision. That list, with TWC, accounts for over 75% of the cable households, and they're all pretty much on the same page on the average number of HD channels they offer.

Post one link from one web site from any of the top 10 cable operators channel line-ups that offers a significantly greater number of HD channels and I'll graciously admit defeat. I've personally checked quite a few and quite frankly TWC is ahead of the pack.

I'll give credit to Dish Network for their efforts to snag the impatient early HD adopters, but let's remember that HD is barely in 20% of the US households, (while everyone has a phone).

VisionOn

06-29-06, 12:43 PM

Way behind???? Behind who???? Not Comcast. Not Cox. Not Charter. Not Cablevision. That list, with TWC, accounts for over 75% of the cable households, and they're all pretty much on the same page on the average number of HD channels they offer.

Count them yourself. Cox, Comcast, Brighthouse, Mediacom all have more HD channels than TWC and have done for a long time. TWC has only just started adding Starz and Cinemax HD to the network in a couple of areas and by the time it filters down here that list will be stacked further against TWC.

"Pretty much the same" is how the TWC HD lineup has been for a long time.

posg

06-29-06, 01:03 PM

Count them yourself. Cox, Comcast, Brighthouse, Mediacom all have more HD channels than TWC and have done for a long time. TWC has only just started adding Starz and Cinemax HD to the network in a couple of areas and by the time it filters down here that list will be stacked further against TWC.

"Pretty much the same" is how the TWC HD lineup has been for a long time.

Here's what I read (based on update to TWC: add UHD, MAX, STARZ):
TWC 8 basic/4 pay
Comcast 8 basic/4 pay *
Cox 7 basic/4 pay *
Charter 6 basic/4 pay
Cablevision 4 basic/5 pay
Mediacon 8 basic/4 pay
Brighthouse 8 basic/4 pay *

Dish 10 basic/3 pay (plus 85 VOOM channels) ;)
DirecTV 8 basic/2pay *

*OLN-HD is not a network

Hardly any difference at all in my book. (Remember too that not all systems owned by an operator carry all HD channels.)

HD programming availability is still in the first inning folks. Let's be real.

VisionOn

06-29-06, 01:20 PM

Here's what I read (based on update to TWC: add UHD, MAX, STARZ):
TWC 8 basic/4 pay
Comcast 9 basic/4 pay
Cox 8 basic/4 pay
Charter 6 basic/4 pay
Cablevision 4 basic/5 pay
Mediacon 8 basic/4 pay

Hardly any difference at all in my book. (Remember too that not all systems owned by an operator carry all HD channels.)

HD programming availability is still in the first inning folks. Let's be real.

Max and Starz were added this month in two areas. The other cablecos have had those lineups in more markets for far longer. That's pretty weak for the second largest cableco in the country.

posg

06-29-06, 01:27 PM

Max and Starz were added this month in two areas. The other cablecos have had those lineups in more markets for far longer. That's pretty weak for the second largest cableco in the country.

Cinemax is actually owned by the same parent company as TWC and even they don't see it as an essential HD addition. And Starz, well, who cares ????

PS I made a few corrections to the list above.

dslate69

06-29-06, 01:30 PM

dslate69

06-29-06, 01:37 PM

Cinemax is actually owned by the same parent company as TWC and even they don't see it as an essential HD addition. And Starz, well, who cares ????
Customers see it as essential.

And Starz is by far the best movie channel with more first runs than anyone. HBO might be more of a keeper for it's original programming, but Starz is the best for movies. I like your argument against Starz though, very thought provoking. :rolleyes:

posg

06-29-06, 01:51 PM

Road Runner is great, but don't think for a second if a faster, cheaper, more reliable alternative came along we all wouldn't go with it. Still has nothing to do with HD cable channels being offered.

SunRocket VOIP is great for me at $199 a year ($17 a month) with now monthly fees to worry with. Vonage is another $25 alternative. Great services alot cheaper than TWC $39 rip-off. Still has nothing to do with HD cable channels being offered.

Comcast just added MHD (MTV-HD) and ESPN2-HD (just in time for the World Cup).
TWC isn't known for considering customers when making deals. They have to tow the bottom-line to keep profits sky-rocketing.
College Football and Basketball will soon be here ESPN2-HD will not.
NFL-HD will have 8 exclusive HD games this season; TWC will not.
HGTV-HD and NatGeo-HD are looking great on DISH and soon FOOD-HD, but TWC offers a high priced VOIP. :)

The bottom line is this. Some will shop price, some will shop value, some will shop quality, some will shop status, but MOST will shop simplicity. All of our discussions revolve around an enthusiast's perspective, and we're passionate about our choices.

But the masses will always pay more to get less if you just make it brain dead simple. Cable wins. Walmart wins. Stouffer's beats the home cooked meal. It's America !!! Land of the Lazy. Happy 4th of July !!! :D :D :D

posg

06-29-06, 01:56 PM

Customers see it as essential.

And Starz is by far the best movie channel with more first runs than anyone. HBO might be more of a keeper for it's original programming, but Starz is the best for movies. I like your argument against Starz though, very thought provoking. :rolleyes:

Do YOU subscribe to Starz ???? ;) ;) ;)

VisionOn

06-29-06, 01:57 PM

Cinemax is actually owned by the same parent company as TWC and even they don't see it as an essential HD addition. And Starz, well, who cares ????

"Who cares?" could be applied to lots of TWC services.

VOIP - who cares? Not me, I don't use it. The car showroom on demand? Who cares? Nobody, because it's stuck in the middle of nowhere and is utterly pointless, like the majority of VOD channels. News and info, customer bill-pay ITV? Who cares? Again nobody. It's slow, buggy and buried. Road Runner Premium? The regular consumer doesn't care about a broadband service that costs $90 a month when they barely use their 5mbps ...

When you stack channel listings side by side which looks more impressive to a new customer? - NFL Network and Cinemax HD, or InHD and Universal HD?

dslate69

06-29-06, 02:07 PM

Do YOU subscribe to Starz ???? ;) ;) ;)
Yes, I do.
IMHO, I think Starz and HBO are the only ones worth having. As I said before HBO only gets that vote for original content. I wonder how long before they have a channel just dedicated to that. Showtime and Cinemax for the most part show movies that Starz already showed and of course their in depth look into Brothels and such. :)

posg

06-29-06, 02:16 PM

"Who cares?" could be applied to lots of TWC services.

VOIP - who cares? Not me, I don't use it. The car showroom on demand? Who cares? Nobody, because it's stuck in the middle of nowhere and is utterly pointless, like the majority of VOD channels. News and info, customer bill-pay ITV? Who cares? Again nobody. It's slow, buggy and buried. Road Runner Premium? The regular consumer doesn't care about a broadband service that costs $90 a month when they barely use their 5mbps ...

When you stack channel listings side by side which looks more impressive to a new customer? - NFL Network and Cinemax HD, or InHD and Universal HD?

Quite frankly, personally, I'll take InHD/InHD2. I subscribe to HBO, and there's nothing on Cinemax HD that either hasn't been or won't be on HBO. Not being a football fan, NFL Network is of absolutely no interest. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Universal HD is probably just a "place holder" for USA Network HD (my bet). I kind of like the car channel. But you're right, there's an awful lot of "fluff".

Don't ever loose sight of the fact that whether it's TWC, Dish Network, or Bell South, it's ALL about the bottom line.

posg

06-29-06, 02:22 PM

VisionOn,

Also did dslate69 mention that I'm a huge "Knight Rider" fan ????

VisionOn

06-29-06, 02:25 PM

Quite frankly, personally, I'll take InHD/InHD2. I subscribe to HBO, and there's nothing on Cinemax HD that either hasn't been or won't be on HBO. Not being a football fan, NFL Network is of absolutely no interest. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I don't care about NFL Network either, but a huge number do and they are the ones that need to be appeased. InHD, Universal HD, HDNet and the like are of little interest to the general public. They recognize names and channels and those channels mean nothing to them.

You're right, what appears on Cinemax will probably end up on HBO, but I have Cinemax and it's a pain to sit around and wait for months for a movie I want to see to appear on HBO just so I can see it in HD.

The same applies to Starz. I've been avoiding Sin City for months and months in the hope that it appears on HBO or Showtime so I can see it in HD. If it appears on Cinemax next I'll have to give up waiting. That's an unbalanced situation which shouldn't be happening.

It's a gamble every time a new movie hits the premiums ... will it end up on an HD channel or not? And given that HBO and Showtime are not dedicated movie channels the answer is usually no.

IamtheWolf

06-29-06, 02:43 PM

The bottom line is this. Some will shop price, some will shop value, some will shop quality, some will shop status, but MOST will shop simplicity. All of our discussions revolve around an enthusiast's perspective, and we're passionate about our choices.

But the masses will always pay more to get less if you just make it brain dead simple......Land of the Lazy.

Do you really believe the part about pay more to get less? If so, you must be the cable co. I do have a serious question for you:

Why haven't the cable companies made purchasing more content so compelling that almost every subscriber would take the upper tier packages? The expensive wiring of neighborhoods, homes and investment in STBs is primarily fixed cost (once the consumer is brought on-line), where I'd think the cable co could maximize revenue by having all households subscribe to tiered packages through attractive, bundled pricing. I'm amazed at how many people don't have HBO, Starz, etc but do subscribe to the family or digital tier.

posg

06-29-06, 02:47 PM

I don't care about NFL Network either, but a huge number do and they are the ones that need to be appeased. InHD, Universal HD, HDNet and the like are of little interest to the general public. They recognize names and channels and those channels mean nothing to them.

You're right, what appears on Cinemax will probably end up on HBO, but I have Cinemax and it's a pain to sit around and wait for months for a movie I want to see to appear on HBO just so I can see it in HD.

The same applies to Starz. I've been avoiding Sin City for months and months in the hope that it appears on HBO or Showtime so I can see it in HD. If it appears on Cinemax next I'll have to give up waiting. That's an unbalanced situation which shouldn't be happening.

It's a gamble every time a new movie hits the premiums ... will it end up on an HD channel or not? And given that HBO and Showtime are not dedicated movie channels the answer is usually no.

The problem: Pay channel/studio exclusivity agreements.
The solution: A Netflix subsciption and a HD video player.
The problem: Which one, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. (Having made the Betamax/LaserDisc mistakes, I'm hesitant.)
Alternate solution: HD VOD
The problem: Studios afraid to make product available.
The solution: Go the the theatre and see movies in their true native format.
The problem: Too lazy
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

posg

06-29-06, 02:57 PM

Do you really believe the part about pay more to get less? If so, you must be the cable co. I do have a serious question for you:

Why haven't the cable companies made purchasing more content so compelling that almost every subscriber would take the upper tier packages? The expensive wiring of neighborhoods, homes and investment in STBs is primarily fixed cost (once the consumer is brought on-line), where I'd think the cable co could maximize revenue by having all households subscribe to tiered packages through attractive, bundled pricing. I'm amazed at how many people don't have HBO, Starz, etc but do subscribe to the family or digital tier.

Back when pay TV channels were the only real incremental revenue cable companies could generate, they were very aggressive in marketing them. Anymore, the real money is in VOD, (and I'm not talking the PG rated stuff either.) The goal is to get a mechanism into the subscribers household that facilitates impulse purchase, hence the excitement over OCAP, and the disinterest in one- way cable cards. The pay TV business is mature, there's no real growth, and it's constantly being eroded by VOD, and Netflix, and cheap DVD prices at the checkout stand.

There's simply not much margin in creatively packaging pay channels. Everyone of them wants their full license fee no matter how much the cable operator discounts a bundle of services. Phone, internet, and VOD are the growth opportunities.

posg

06-29-06, 03:09 PM

CBS, Affils Make Digital Deal

By Allison Romano Broadcasting & Cable 6/29/2006

CBS and its affiliates have agreed on the framework for a new revenue-sharing agreement that clears the way for the network to distribute its content on digital platforms and deals affiliates in on potential profit.

The pact, announced Thursday, gives CBS more flexibility to funnel shows to the Internet, video-on-demand (VOD) and other emerging platforms. In return, stations will receive a cut of proceeds, including incentives for driving traffic to CBS' Website and other network platforms where they sample ad-supported CBS fare.

Also as part of the deal, CBS stations will continue to chip into the network's NFL deal for the next three years. Several station groups, including LIN Television, Gannett and Meredith Broadcasting, have already approved the terms, and now the full affiliate body must also give their approval.

CBS and its affiliates have been working on the agreement for months. As the broadcast networks have rushed to put their content on the Internet, iTunes and VOD, affiliates have balked that they play a key role in making shows popular and should be included in profits.

Fox recently reached an agreement with its affiliates to distribute more content on emerging platforms in return for stations receiving about 12% of related revenue. NBC and ABC do not have such deals with their affiliates but have said they are working on ways to partner with stations. NBC is creating a new Web portal, the National Broadband Company, with its stations and ABC included in a handful of stations in its free streaming trial that ends June 30.

The exact terms of the CBS deal were not disclosed, but executives say both sides will benefit.

"In a rapidly changing multiplatform, multimedia universe, CBS and its affiliates must develop new business models and methods that best position us to maximize revenue and branding opportunities," Freedom Broadcasting President Doreen Wade, chairman of the CBS affiliates board, said in a statement. "This agreement moves us in the right direction, recognizing the unique programming and promotional value that both parties bring to network broadcasting."

"We recognize that, in today’s marketplace, it’s in our collective long-term best interest that the Network and the affiliates each leverage the full value of the assets they own," said Peter Schruth, president, affiliate relations, CBS Television Network.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/in...cleID=CA6348372

__________________

dslate69

06-29-06, 03:18 PM

The problem: Pay channel/studio exclusivity agreements.
The solution: A Netflix subsciption and a HD video player.
The problem: Which one, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. (Having made the Betamax/LaserDisc mistakes, I'm hesitant.)
Alternate solution: HD VOD
The problem: Studios afraid to make product available.
The solution: Go the the theatre and see movies in their true native format.
The problem: Too lazy
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
What I think will happen very, very soon that will put the Premium Movie channels on notice is the Netflix VOD model. Imagine any Movie (HD included) available via downloadable tivo-like box. Watch the movies over and over (pause, rewind, etc) until you return it (virtually), then you're box starts downloading the next one in your que. Same monthly rate for 2 or 3 movies (All in Stock) out at a time with instant returns instead of days and hour shipping (downloading) instead of days. :)
Of course you will see Netflix start partnering with DISH, DirecTv and Cable co's (maybe even TWC in 10 years) to add the ability to their existing or new boxes.
Starz, Cinemax and Showtime will have to offer original content to stay alive.

zim2dive

06-29-06, 03:26 PM

Here's what I read (based on update to TWC: add UHD, MAX, STARZ):
TWC 8 basic/4 pay
....
Dish 10 basic/3 pay (plus 85 VOOM channels) ;)

Hardly any difference at all in my book. (Remember too that not all systems owned by an operator carry all HD channels.)

If you want to denigrate the VOOM channels, that's fine, but you are mis-representing the # of channels for DISH.

Dish HD, in their $50/mo pkg offers

Animania HD
Family Room HD
GamePlay HD
Discovery HD Theater
Equator HD
DISH Network PPV in HD
Film Fest HD
HDNet Movies
Kung Fu HD
Monsters HD
World Cinema HD
HDNews
Rave HD
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
NFL Network HD
Rush HD
WorldSport HD
Gallery HD
HDNet
HGTV HD
TNT HD
Treasure HD
Ultra HD
Universal HD

The VOOM content isn't any worse than what is offered on many of the 8 from TWC.

Just keeping the conversation fair...

Mike

dslate69

06-29-06, 03:51 PM

VOOM HD Networks Wins Awards

28th June, 2006

VOOM HD Networks, the largest collection of high-definition channels available anywhere, was presented with TV Week’s “Campaign of Distinction 2006” Award, in recognition of its successful effort to grow and maintain its audience.

The honor was bestowed at last week’s Promax/BDA conference in New York City, where VOOM also collected 16 individual awards for promotion and design excellence at the prestigious event.

The Promax/BDA conference annually gathers the world’s top marketing and design executives in the electronic media. The “Campaign of Distinction 2006” awarded to VOOM recognizes the success of the Networks’ on-air “Bliss” campaign in attracting viewers. According to a Promax/BDA statement, “VOOM has launched 15 channels of high-definition programming available 24-7 designed to appeal to those who have HD sets but complain about the dearth of programming. By becoming the largest producer of HD programming in the world, VOOM’s product obviously looks stellar in its hi-def format. So following the premiere of a new television experience, the service had to show HD set owners ‘that the fuss was worth it.’ VOOM has a growing audience of viewers so honed to HD product, the channels hold viewers longer than traditional TV signals.”

VOOM HD Networks was among nine “Campaign of Distinction” winners including: ABC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, BET Mobile, Sci-Fi, Oxygen and Fox.

During the conference, VOOM was also presented with 16 awards for promotion and design, adding to the 52 previous Promax and BDA statuettes collected by the programmer over the last two years. The 2006 awards are the following:

Nine PROMAX Muse Awards for Promotion and Marketing:

NON-PROMOTIONAL ANIMATION, Gold: VOOM’s Animania HD, "Little Big Blocks"
EDITING, Gold: VOOM’s World Cinema HD, Image Spot
MARKETING PRESENTATION EXTERNAL (MULTIPLE PRODUCTS) – VIDEO, Gold: VOOM HD Networks Sales Tape
SPORTS PROGRAM PROMOTION, Gold: VOOM’s Rush HD, "Focused"
TV PROMOTION – WEBSITE, Gold: VOOM’s RushHD.com
BEST WORK NEVER SEEN, Gold: VOOM ‘s Mondo Monday
INTERSTITIAL/PROMOTAINMENT – MOVIES, Silver: VOOM’s Kung Fu HD "Ass Kick of the Day"
SPECIAL EVENT PROGRAM PROMOTION, Silver: VOOM’s Ultra HD, "Full Frontal Fashion: Fashion Week New York"
USE OF LIBRARY MUSIC FOR A PROMO, Silver: VOOM, "Promax Hotel Spot"

Six BDA Isis Awards for Design:

INFORMATIONAL GRAPHICS, Gold: VOOM’s Family Room HD, Spaced Out Countdown
PROMO FOR WEBSITE, Gold: VOOM’s RushHD.com
ART DIRECTION & DESIGN, Silver: IMAGE PROMO: VOOM’s Ultra HD, January Overview
ART DIRECTION & DESIGN, Silver: TOPICAL PROMO CAMPAIGN: VOOM’s Rave HD Lab, “Groov All Night”
ART DIRECTION & DESIGN / IMAGE CAMPAIGN, Silver: VOOM’s Ultra HD, “What is Beautiful, What is Style”
TOPICAL ON-AIR, Silver: VOOM’s Animania HD, “Little Big Blocks”
ART DIRECTION & DESIGN / IMAGE PROMO, Bronze: VOOM’s Spring 2005 Image Spot

The VOOM HD Networks are the largest and most diverse suite of high definition channels available anywhere. Produced exclusively in true high definition and 5.1 Dolby digital surround sound for distribution in the U.S. through satellite and cable operators, the 15 VOOM HD Networks carry programming in categories as diverse as sports, movies, fashion, music and art. The VOOM HD Networks are commercial-free and available nationally on Echostar's DISH Network. Developed by Rainbow Media to meet the growing demand for quality high definition programming, the VOOM HD Networks build on Rainbow Media's history of original programming innovation

Weblinks: http://www.voom.com

DonB2

06-29-06, 03:59 PM

I wish Voom SAT would come back !! I liked their pricing and line up. They appeared to care about what they offererd the customer.

Probably why they went under.

-DonB2

posg

06-29-06, 04:03 PM

What I think will happen very, very soon that will put the Premium Movie channels on notice is the Netflix VOD model. Imagine any Movie (HD included) available via downloadable tivo-like box. Watch the movies over and over (pause, rewind, etc) until you return it (virtually), then you're box starts downloading the next one in your que. Same monthly rate for 2 or 3 movies (All in Stock) out at a time with instant returns instead of days and hour shipping (downloading) instead of days. :)
Of course you will see Netflix start partnering with DISH, DirecTv and Cable co's (maybe even TWC in 10 years) to add the ability to their existing or new boxes.
Starz, Cinemax and Showtime will have to offer original content to stay alive.

It's a no brainer. But the studios will take years to come to the table.

jamieh1

06-29-06, 05:25 PM

"Receiving 28 digitals way down east. 28-2 is awesome!

-DonB2

Yea, im down in Washington NC 22 miles east of Greenville.
I get most of the RDU channels starting around 5pm.

WRAL, WNCN, WTVD, WB22, WRAZ, WRAY, WRDC

occasionally I get Pax/i 47, and the locals from Winston Salem.

jamieh1

06-29-06, 05:29 PM

posg

06-29-06, 05:33 PM

Do any of you get locals from Greenville Washington New Bern.

7.1 WITN NBC
7.2 WITN 24/7 WEATHER CHANNEL
9.1 WNCT CBS
9.2 LIVE VIPIR RADAR
12.1 WCTI ABC
12.3 UPN 48
19.1 UNC TV
19.2 UNC HD
19.3 UNC KD
19.4 UNC ED
19.5 UNC NC
25.1 UNCTV
25.2 UNC HD
25.3 UNC KD
25.4 UNC ED
25.2 UNC NC

I get 7, 9, & 25 rock solid, 12 occasionally, 19 once or twice. Located near Falls of Nuese & Durant. 77 miles from 7/9 tower.

DonB2

06-30-06, 09:56 AM

"Do any of you get locals from Greenville Washington New Bern."

I am in Holly Springs and have tried to get those stations with my attic mounted antennas but have not been able to.

I would not mind getting 47 Pax I but I think I would have to have an antenna rotator to get it.

-DonB2

posg

06-30-06, 10:52 AM

DirecTV Adds HDTV Programming in Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte Markets
Special To LTW

DirecTV is now making some local high-definition TV service available through its satellite network in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte markets.

Programming from WTVD (ABC) and WNCN (NBC) has been added in the Triangle. Negotiations continue to provide programming from Capitol Broadcasting, which operates the CBS and Fox affiliates, DirecTV said in a statement.

In Charlotte, HDTV programming includes WSOC (ABC), WCCB (Fox) and WCNC (NBC).

DirecTV now offers local HDTV programming in 36 markets and plans to add another 13 this year.

DirecTV: www.directv.com

dslate69

06-30-06, 11:31 AM

...
DirecTV is now making some local high-definition TV service available through its satellite network in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte markets.

Programming from WTVD (ABC) and WNCN (NBC) has been added in the Triangle. Negotiations continue to provide programming from Capitol Broadcasting, which operates the CBS and Fox affiliates, DirecTV said in a statement.
...
This is the part I don't understand. Why should SATs or Cable pay Stations like WRAL a dime to deliver their signal to customers that live in that Stations market.
The resident of that market has a right to that signal whether he gets it OTA or piggy-backed on CABLE or SAT. Cable and SAT are already eating the cost of delivery.
If my neighbor wants to tie into my OTA, do I have to negotiate with all the Stations that will now be recieved on his TV ? :confused:

posg

06-30-06, 12:01 PM

This is the part I don't understand. Why should SATs or Cable pay Stations like WRAL a dime to deliver their signal to customers that live in that Stations market.
The resident of that market has a right to that signal whether he gets it OTA or piggy-backed on CABLE or SAT. Cable and SAT are already eating the cost of delivery.
If my neighbor wants to tie into my OTA, do I have to negotiate with all the Stations that will now be recieved on his TV ? :confused:

Stations have to periodically elect whether they prefer to enjoy either "must-carry" status, or "retransmission consent" status. A broadcaster decides which status gives him the better financial advantage, and declares it. "Must-carry" allows a station to demand carriage on a cable/sat system. "Retransmission consent" allows a station to negociate a fair market price. Broadcasters negociate individually with cable operators in their market, and with the satellite guys.

Until recently, most carriage agreements offered non-cash considerations, but the satellite guys upset the applecart. They simply offered cash, because they sold broadcast signals as an option rather than part of their entry level package, and could absorb the costs based on incremental revenue from those subscribers who actually elected to take the package.

The cable guy has to eat the costs, because his basic rate is more often than not controlled by the franchising agency.

You could argue that the system is flawed, and perhaps it is. But them's the rules.

DonB2

06-30-06, 12:50 PM

posg

06-30-06, 01:27 PM

"If my neighbor wants to tie into my OTA, do I have to negotiate with all the Stations that will now be recieved on his TV ? "

I think you would if you charged your neighbors but maybe not if it was free.

It would be sorta like the 1 antenna on the roof of an apartment Complex which is than ditributed to each apartment free of charge. DOn't think apartments offer this much anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------
In regards to:

"must-carry" - my question is who pays and who gets paid? "Does Sat or cable pay the local tv station ?" Or does the local tv station pay Sat and/or Cable?

"retransmission consent" - my question is who pays and who gets paid? "Does Sat or cable pay the local tv station ?" Or does the local tv station pay Sat and/or Cable?

The above kinda falls in line with one of my early posts on why broadcast stations even exist? Couldn't they generate just as much revenue if they were rebroadcast over cable or Sat as opposed to cost and maintenance of a broadcast antenna. Or is it that if they did not have a broadcast antenna they would than have to pay lots of money to cable/sat for the honor of being rebroadcasted?

-DonB2

A community antenna system that serves less than 1000 households is exempt from must carry/retransmission, (at least last I knew.)

Must-carry: No financial consideration. This is usually what second tier stations choose, religious, spanish, shopping channels, etc.

Retransmission Consent: Cable or satellite company pays cash or gives valuable consideration to station for permission to retransmit signal.

In the end, it's mutually beneficial for the TV station and the cable system to have the station available on cable, and most of the time a reasonable agreement is reached. There are some broadcasters, Sinclair in particular, who ask more than cable operators feel their channel is worth. That's why WLFL-22 HD is not on Time Warner.

DonB2

06-30-06, 01:58 PM

"A community antenna system that serves less than 1000 households is exempt from must carry/retransmission, (at least last I knew.)"

I use to work with a guy who lived in a area of PA where TV reception was bad. He and a couple of other guys put up a large receive antenna and distributed the channels via cable to houses in the area.

Sorta a mini cable company, CABLE had really not even become main stream outside of large cities at that time.

Of course that was high tech compared to another friend of mine who grew up on Barbados Island and the only audio/video they had back than was one radio station that was picked up by one receiver and than sent out to all houses via wire. SO basically everyone had to listen to same thing over a cheap amp and a speaker connected to this wire for each house.

-DonB

dslate69

06-30-06, 02:03 PM

"If my neighbor wants to tie into my OTA, do I have to negotiate with all the Stations that will now be recieved on his TV ? "

I think you would if you charged your neighbors but maybe not if it was free.
...

I think SAT would offer OTA Free if it were free to them. The cost now is to pay the Stations. I am sure they are willing to eat the cost some what if their subscribers are subscribing to more than just the Locals. It just p!$$es me off that my tax dollars are going to subsidize these stations with frequencies and guaranteed locked markets so they can turn around and sell what the government is giving them.
It's funny how a Hotel can give me a free newspaper in the morning because it cost 50 cents, but if the newspaper was free to begin with they would have to negotiate a Distribution Fee.

posg

06-30-06, 02:15 PM

I think SAT would offer OTA Free if it were free to them. The cost now is to pay the Stations. I am sure they are willing to eat the cost some what if their subscribers are subscribing to more than just the Locals. It just p!$$es me off that my tax dollars are going to subsidize these stations with frequencies and guaranteed locked markets so they can turn around and sell what the government is giving them.
It's funny how a Hotel can give me a free newspaper in the morning because it cost 50 cents, but if the newspaper was free to begin with they would have to negotiate a Distribution Fee.

The rules that were written regarding market exclusivity were designed to protect viewers, not stations. Thought being small stations couldn't effectively compete with larger stations if the small station weren't afforded protection, and service would be denied to those who would not pay to access larger stations.

If cable operators and satellite operators were allowed to import Raleigh signals into the Greenville/Washington/New Bern market, those stations would not be financially viable, and the NON cable/satellite households would be denied service.

P.S. OTA stations ARE free to air on UK satellite.

posg

06-30-06, 02:23 PM

By the way, you can see the movement of the networks to "by-pass" local stations by utilizing alternate delivery mechanisms. I've watched entire series on DVD, having never seen a single episode on a broadcast channel. It's acutually my preference. You'll see a lot more web streaming of fresh network product this fall as well.

I see the broadcast TV model becoming less and less important over the next few years.

DonB2

06-30-06, 02:38 PM

"If cable operators and satellite operators were allowed to import Raleigh signals into the Greenville/Washington/New Bern market, those stations would not be financially viable, and the NON cable/satellite households would be denied service."

I guess this sorta answers why xmitters can afford to exist.

So how much local advertising is done during primetime vs national advertising? I would guess the local broadcast stations main source of revenue is local advertising.

Oh and now they can get some additonal revenue from multi-cast channels.

-DonB

posg

06-30-06, 02:46 PM

posg

06-30-06, 03:06 PM

In another CableLabs-related development last month, the heads of Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable spelled out their somewhat divergent visions for recapturing analog bandwidth through the digitization of their company's cable systems.

Making separate appearances at the CableLabs annual briefing for financial analysts in New York, Comcast Chairman & CEO Brian Roberts and Time Warner Cable Chairman & CEO Glenn Britt both stressed the importance of introducing two-way digital TV sets and set-top boxes equipped with OpenCable Application Platform (OCAP) middleware this year. But they differed over the need to roll out switched digital video quickly to boost cable bandwidth.

Appearing before analysts first, Britt said Time Warner intends to roll out switched digital video service in all of its cable systems within three years. He contended that this strategy will give North America's second largest MSO enough bandwidth to launch more high-definition TV (HDTV) channels to compete against DirecTV and EchoStar.

"We're going to carry all the high-def channels we can get our hands on," Britt said. "We'll be fully competitive with satellite."

So far, Time Warner has introduced switched digital in at least three markets, including Austin, TX and Columbia, S.C. Plans call for adding another four to six markets later this year. But Britt wouldn't say which markets would come next.

"We're putting in where we need it most," he said. In Columbia, he noted, Time Warner spent $10 million, or $16 per home passed, to roll out switched digital, digital simulcasting and its new "Start Over" time-shifting service at the same time.

Unlike Time Warner, Roberts said Comcast sees digital simulcasting as the best way to boost system capacity for such new digital video services as HDTV, even though it burns up more bandwidth in the short run. He noted that the continent's largest MSO has already launched digital simulcasting in 80% of its markets.

"We didn't think switched digital was here now ready for us," Roberts said. "So, while we were developing switched digital, we went to digital simulcasts" to reclaim analog spectrum for HD services.

While they don't see eye-to-eye on switched digital, Roberts and Britt agreed that the cable industry must finally move ahead with its oft-delayed rollout of OpenCable TV sets and set-top boxes. The two MSO heads termed OCAP implementation critical to rolling out new cable services and applications across the U.S. faster and more efficiently.

In fact, Britt likened OCAP's import to that of Microsoft's Windows operating system. Like Windows, he said, OCAP is a standardized software layer that will enable developers to write programs just once to run the same application on every cable system.

"It should open up this network to all [sorts of] different things," he said. He said Time Warner remains "on schedule" to introduce OCAP in five markets by year's end.

Roberts concurred that OCAP's pending launch is key to the industry's success. He argued that MSOs need "an open architecture" to create "a national footprint" and "open up innovation" in the equipment business. With Comcast aiming to introduce OCAP in four markets by year's end, he predicted that the industry will see "serious OCAP rollouts certainly within two years," if not one.

"We've been talking about this for too long and we don't have it in place," he said. "That is going to change."

Despite this progress, Britt and Roberts also agreed that the cable industry probably won't upgrade to all-digital networks for at least several more years. With just a "handful" of the 30 million TV sets in Time Warner households able to receive all-digital signals, Britt argued, it wouldn't make sense to force customers to take all-digital set-tops right now.

"If we could wave a magic wand and instantly make everything digital, obviously that's a great technical solution," he said. But, he noted, that's not going to happen.

Roberts confided that Comcast officials have held internal debates over whether 20 channels or 40 channels will remain on the analog tier until at least 2011. He indicated that the MSO will likely keep some level of analog service for customers who won't switch to digital.

"It would be better if we don't have to make hard decisions like that," he said. "It would be better to let consumers decide. If we have to make a big bet and we get it wrong, ouch!"

http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/jun06/jun06-3.html

VisionOn

06-30-06, 04:02 PM

"We're going to carry all the high-def channels we can get our hands on," Britt said. "We'll be fully competitive with satellite."

There's plenty of HD channels around now that they still haven't got their hands on. They are just waiting to be grabbed.

And if it's going to take switched digital to hit a market before they actually bother, then a HD bump for Raleigh is going to be a long time coming.

posg

06-30-06, 04:47 PM

There's plenty of HD channels around now that they still haven't got their hands on. They are just waiting to be grabbed.

And if it's going to take switched digital to hit a market before they actually bother, then a HD bump for Raleigh is going to be a long time coming.

Yeah, it's too bad the magic wands are on back order. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

dslate69

06-30-06, 06:38 PM

Yeah, it's too bad the magic wands are on back order. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Dish got the last one. :)

This post would have been longer but there's something really good on Nat'Geo-HD. :D

posg

06-30-06, 08:04 PM

Dish got the last one. :)

They may need it. ;)

dslate69

06-30-06, 09:14 PM

They may need it. ;)
Touche.

Dish is using that wand up.... Abraca - Food-HD !!!!

Gotta go now something really good is on HGTV-HD. :D

HDTV-NUT

07-01-06, 09:47 AM

dslate69

07-01-06, 10:39 AM

dslate69, I have to admit, the last few days I have really started thinking about going back to dish again and your post are making me want to switch to dish now! lol.

im not sure i would have canceled dish if they would have had the HD DVR and all the new channels they have now.

how is NGCHD? Is all the programming in HD or just some of it? how about HGTVHD?

Thanks

"Luke I am your father." :D .... Sorry, some times this seems to be miscast into a good vs evil decision.

Posg likes to point out how the SATs have contracts (just like his cell phone). But if TWC won't be worth having for 3-4 years, why do I care about signing a 18 month contract. If TWC has a better product, I'm there, right now they don't.
My vip622 did cost me a $299 (now only $199) lease fee, but I'll buy Receivers, DVD Burners, etc and expect them to break right after the warranty is up. The vip622 will last me as long as I want to stay with DISH and get fixed for free.

I have had a few rainfades lately. I never remember so many big thunderstorms as we have had back to back, so maybe this is a fluke. And even then it usually last for a minute or two when the storm is on the SW horizon, when the downpour is on my house the SAT is fine. I justify this with all the extra HD channels and features I have. I do keep the DVR humming so I usually don't watch live tv enough to even notice rainfade.

They do have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee now. From my understanding they don't even charge you for the programming if you cancel in that time.

Now to answer your question.
Nat'Geo-HD still has plenty of SD upconverted material. They are pretty good at putting there good stuff on in prime time. But I set documentaries and such to record at all random times and find I have gotten a SD show. But as always even with Discovery-HD some of the footage or all of the footage is in SD anyway, usually history stuff. I'm sure every month that goes by there will be more HD shows to pool from.
HGTV-HD is awsome, completely awsome. I am finding myself starting new projects around the house because of ideas I got from watching shows I wouldn't have watched if they weren't in HD. All the shows are HD, but I hear that they have a smaller pool of material to grab from so more chance to see repeats. They are pretty good about hiding it cause I haven't noticed. But then again I have 30 other HD channels taking up my time. :)
I don't watch the FOOD channel now. I have been known to watch Rachel Ray with the wife on rare occasions. Now I think I will give Food-HD a chance and maybe spend some alone time with Rachel. :cool:

pen15nv

07-02-06, 12:35 PM

chamill

07-02-06, 12:45 PM

HDTV-NUT

07-02-06, 01:13 PM

"Luke I am your father." :D .... Sorry, some times this seems to be miscast into a good vs evil decision.

Posg likes to point out how the SATs have contracts (just like his cell phone). But if TWC won't be worth having for 3-4 years, why do I care about signing a 18 month contract. If TWC has a better product, I'm there, right now they don't.
My vip622 did cost me a $299 (now only $199) lease fee, but I'll buy Receivers, DVD Burners, etc and expect them to break right after the warranty is up. The vip622 will last me as long as I want to stay with DISH and get fixed for free.

I have had a few rainfades lately. I never remember so many big thunderstorms as we have had back to back, so maybe this is a fluke. And even then it usually last for a minute or two when the storm is on the SW horizon, when the downpour is on my house the SAT is fine. I justify this with all the extra HD channels and features I have. I do keep the DVR humming so I usually don't watch live tv enough to even notice rainfade.

They do have a 30 day satisfaction guarantee now. From my understanding they don't even charge you for the programming if you cancel in that time.

Now to answer your question.
Nat'Geo-HD still has plenty of SD upconverted material. They are pretty good at putting there good stuff on in prime time. But I set documentaries and such to record at all random times and find I have gotten a SD show. But as always even with Discovery-HD some of the footage or all of the footage is in SD anyway, usually history stuff. I'm sure every month that goes by there will be more HD shows to pool from.
HGTV-HD is awsome, completely awsome. I am finding myself starting new projects around the house because of ideas I got from watching shows I wouldn't have watched if they weren't in HD. All the shows are HD, but I hear that they have a smaller pool of material to grab from so more chance to see repeats. They are pretty good about hiding it cause I haven't noticed. But then again I have 30 other HD channels taking up my time. :)
I don't watch the FOOD channel now. I have been known to watch Rachel Ray with the wife on rare occasions. Now I think I will give Food-HD a chance and maybe spend some alone time with Rachel. :cool:
ok thanks. im going to give it some thought. i will let you know what i decide.

HDTV-NUT

07-02-06, 01:14 PM

posg

07-02-06, 02:12 PM

Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster! I have a delimma. I am moving to a new apt complex in Raleigh, and they have 2 TV options...TWC or Directv through a common dish on the roof. They say that HD and DVR services are available. From reading all the postings on here, I was pretty dead set on Dish, but while I'm in this place (~6 months), thats not an option, which service should I choose based soley on HD content?

From what I can see the big give and take is ESPN2 vs INHD...am I missing anything?

Thanks for the input

Be cautious !!! The new DirecTV HD satellites require a different dish, "stacked" LNB downconversion which prohibits use of diplexing off-airs onto the same cable, a different multiswitch, etc. Make sure that the installation will support not only legacy HD service, but the new stuff as it comes along.

Besides, who maintains this DirecTV system and how quickly do they respond to failures???

My advise is that you'd be better off with TWC. No surprise there.

P.S. My inside D* source says it's not likely to see any additional national HD channels until next year.

dslate69

07-02-06, 03:16 PM

Be cautious !!! The new DirecTV HD satellites require a different dish, "stacked" LNB downconversion which prohibits use of diplexing off-airs onto the same cable, a different multiswitch, etc. Make sure that the installation will support not only legacy HD service, but the new stuff as it comes along.

Besides, who maintains this DirecTV system and how quickly do they respond to failures???

My advise is that you'd be better off with TWC. No surprise there.
...

I am going to agree with you. (aaaahhh .... and a calm came over the land.) :)

Although your first point is a good one. Your second, not so much. If DirecTv is going to respond quickly anywhere it would be to a multi-subscriber setup.

Plus if he sits at the TWC Kids Table for 6 months, he will truly appreciate the DISH HD Feast when he graduates to the GrownUps Table. :D

dslate69

07-02-06, 03:17 PM

Oh, and Superman should have stayed gone. :(

pen15nv

07-02-06, 03:21 PM

Thanks for the posts so far...I will check about the contract issue. I believe since I'm just signing a 6mo lease that I only have to sign a 6mo contract.

The management of the dish and service is through INC Group. I'm going to give them a call tomorrow and find out about the contract and the repair issues.

And I am just planning on doing OTA for the locals, so the new HD satelittes won't be an issue.

I am really just wondering if there is an advantage of 1 vs the other in terms of HD offerings. If I'm going to choose based on ESPN2 vs INHD, I'll go for the ESPN2HD, due to college football and basketball offerings. INHD really only becomes an issue for me once hockey season gets into full swing. Anything else I'm missing? DTV doesn't cary NGCHD, MHD or any of the "newer" HD nets, do they?

pen15nv

07-02-06, 03:25 PM

Plus if he sits at the TWC Kids Table for 6 months, he will truly appreciate the DISH HD Feast when he graduates to the GrownUps Table. :D

Buddy, I've spent the last 2 years at the kids table (both apt complexes I lived in included TWC in the rent) and I would really rather not go back...but if even you, mr satellite himself, is recommending TWC...then damn.

PS. dslate69: I have definitely learned a LOT about Dish, their offerings, and their future technological advances from your posts, so thank you very much.

posg: I have done the same from you regarding cable, so I appreciate you keeping me up to speed on those issues.

VisionOn

07-03-06, 12:32 AM

P.S. My inside D* source says it's not likely to see any additional national HD channels until next year.

whaddya know, TWC Raleigh and Dish do have something in common regarding HD!

dslate69

07-03-06, 08:56 AM

whaddya know, TWC Raleigh and Dish do have something in common regarding HD!
D* = DirecTv
E* = DISH (EchoStar)

Posg comment was that his source says DirecTv won't see any HD added this year.
My sources say DISH will definitely add more this summer. At least FOOD-HD, but I read instead of just FOOD-HD it will be another small group of HD channels added next time.

dave_ral

07-04-06, 10:01 PM

My 35" 4:3 10yo XBR just crapped out and I'm thinking of replacing it rather than fixing it with a 40" LCD. It has to fit in an existing cabinet and I've figured out that I can just fit a Samsung 40" HD LCD in there. I see where Samsung has just announced a 1080p version of the same set (for around $400-500 net more), plus it's not available quite yet. My question is what's the outlook for seeing 1080p from the broadcast outlets on a regular basis (and, dare I ask, will TWC or DTV show that format)? I'm more interested in a time line...less than 5 years, more than 5 years, etc....where do the broadcast guys think they will end up and when?

I saw a 1080p demo on a blu ray player at CC and it really looked awesome, but if we're a long way away from seeing on the bulk of what we watch, I'd rather spend my money on something else.

Crystal ball gazing welcome..

pkscout

07-04-06, 10:51 PM

My question is what's the outlook for seeing 1080p from the broadcast outlets on a regular basis (and, dare I ask, will TWC or DTV show that format)? I'm more interested in a time line...less than 5 years, more than 5 years, etc....where do the broadcast guys think they will end up and when?

My personal guess is more than 5 years for broadcast of 1080p. MUCH more than 5 years. 1080p will only really be useful for Blueray/HD-DVD.

dslate69

07-05-06, 03:30 PM

My personal guess is more than 5 years for broadcast of 1080p. MUCH more than 5 years. 1080p will only really be useful for Blueray/HD-DVD.
I agree completely but I would add one more "MUCH". :)

zim2dive

07-05-06, 04:00 PM

I agree completely but I would add one more "MUCH". :)

.... about the same time the high-def DVD format war is finally over :) ;)

Unless you also are using as a computer (surfing, etc)(or possibly gaming console) its value is marginal and I don't see that changing soon. But I think 1080 displays will be more the norm within 2(?) years. Just not sure what we'll be watching on them...

Mike

holl_ands

07-05-06, 11:05 PM

Other than BD & HD-DVD, I wouldn't expect delivery of 1080p via OTA until AT LEAST analog shutdown in Feb2009, which will free up thousands of transmitters to be recycled/modified to do SOMETHING....

The SOMETHING will probaby be PPV programs delivered via E-VSB or A-VSB enhancements to ATSC waveform, using MPEG4 to get the data rate down and of course would require a new ATSC receiver....Say Bye, Bye to Blockbuster and NetFlixs....

In the mean time, I would expect to see PPV services via cable/FiOS and maybe SAT that will allow you to chose what program you want to view from an extensive library of programs/movies....aka OnDemand, PPV or IPTV.

However, due to bandwidth constraints (solvable with SDV on cable) and rarity of 1080p source material, it may take a couple years before we see very much on cable/FiOS. But the MSOs have stated their intention to make available 1000's of programs in the next two years--I expect that some of them will be material that was recorded in 1080p--whenever BD and HD-DVD quit dragging their feet and actually make 1080p readily available.... [I believe the delay in finalizing HDMI v.1.3 may have played a part in this delay...]

Oh, you were hoping for FREE OTA---fat chance, not until most viewers own HDTVs with a 1080p, HDMI 1.3+ interface....

========================================
Although many 1080i Plasmas use internal 1080p (and 720p) processing, most of the 720/768p LCDs and RPVs used a quality sapping downconversion process to deinterlace 1080i. So there is ample reason to buy a set with internal 1080p processing in order to not degrade today's 1080i signals:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7175775&#post7175775

DonB2

07-06-06, 09:27 AM

Did anyone else have OTA ATSC reception issues last night?

I could not get the Raleigh 17.1 in at all. And while I was watching the 11pm news on 5.1 it even locked up a few times.

I looked at where the storm front were and none were even close to me or the Garner farm.

-DonB2

gstelmack

07-06-06, 10:38 AM

DirectV is garbage. bottom line. hands down TWC would be most people's choice on here.

Um, no. Don't get me wrong, DirecTV is slowly working their way down to TWC's level, but there are still some key reasons I remain with DirecTV and haven't gone over to TWC. I keep comparing both regularly and expect that eventually I'll end up making the switch, barring DirecTV fixing their PQ issues and actually using all this new bandwidth from the new satellites to deliver me true HD. But I'll ask the questions that once answered in TWC's favor might get me to switch:

1) Will TWC have the NFL network games in HD for me this fall?

2) Will TWC have ESPN2-HD for college football games and other sports? There are sports besides the World Cup on this; I watched some College World Series games, for example, and I expect a fair number of college football games this fall.

3) Do the TWC DVRs have dual-tuner capability so I can either record two shows at once, or watch one channel while the other is recording? I make heavy use of this feature on our DirecTIVOs.

4) Is TWC all-digital here, or do I still get stuck with a selection of analog channels?

One key point remains: when I upgraded to HDTV almost 3 years ago, I sent e-mails off to TWC and DirecTV via their web page with a selection of questions. DirecTV answered the e-mail and had called me twice by the time I got home from work the next day with answers and some nice deals, while I never heard from TWC. I'm going to have to try that again soon, asking DirecTV some pointed questions about MPEG-4 and PQ, and TWC the questions above, and see who answers. Customer Service seems to remain tipped in DirecTV's favor, although they are slowly working their way down to TWC's level.

DonB2

07-06-06, 10:52 AM

HDTV-NUT

07-06-06, 11:32 AM

1) Will TWC have the NFL network games in HD for me this fall?

2) Will TWC have ESPN2-HD for college football games and other sports? There are sports besides the World Cup on this; I watched some College World Series games, for example, and I expect a fair number of college football games this fall.

3) Do the TWC DVRs have dual-tuner capability so I can either record two shows at once, or watch one channel while the other is recording? I make heavy use of this feature on our DirecTIVOs.

4) Is TWC all-digital here, or do I still get stuck with a selection of analog channels?

Question 1 and 2. I doubt TWC will have the NFL NetworkHD for a very long time. ESPN2HD seems to be questionable. Then again, you dont really have those channels in HD either, D* PQ is not HD. Have you ever seen true HD from Dish or TWC? If you have, im sure you know that there is just no comparison.

Question 3. Yes the SA 8300 HD DVR has Dual Tuners. TWC has had them for some time now.

Question 4. I beleive there are analog channels for those who still need them but TWC also offers the channel in digital in the 200's.

As I said before, D* is complete garbage. There is nothing you can say about them that will change anyone's mind.

gstelmack

07-06-06, 01:24 PM

Question 1 and 2. I doubt TWC will have the NFL NetworkHD for a very long time. ESPN2HD seems to be questionable. Then again, you dont really have those channels in HD either, D* PQ is not HD. Have you ever seen true HD from Dish or TWC? If you have, im sure you know that there is just no comparison.

Agreed that DirecTV HD is not full HD. It's still a heck of a lot better than SD (and I do have a good comparison: OTA HD). A football game on NFL Network HD in DirecTV's HD-Lite is still better than no football game at all.

Not saying that DirecTV is the cat's meow it used to be. I'm currently in the waffling phase; they are annoying me to no end. Not quite badly enough to push me back to TWC, though, and all the annoyances I used to deal with. And some of the missing channels are ones I spend a decent chunk of time watching.

pkscout

07-06-06, 01:40 PM

As I said before, D* is complete garbage. There is nothing you can say about them that will change anyone's mind.

Quoted for truth but modified to say the same about TWC. :D

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's really a matter of chosing which crappy option you would like for your TV viewing. The "competition" seems to be driving all the providers to worse and worse service. I'm more loyal to TiVo than I am to any provider.

paulnccu

07-06-06, 02:42 PM

folks:
i currently have an HDTV (Sony) with a QAM tuner. i get basic cable in raleigh and get the four networks and PBS in HD via my cable connection.
i am considering upgrading TWC cable to get "standard" service.
my questions:
(1) will the upgrade in any way affect my HDTV capabilities? in other words, will i still get 5.1, 11.1, 17.1, 50.2 and 4.0 as high def channels as i do now?
(2) will any other channels come in in "high def," such as TNT, ESPN, or Discovery (the analog channels of these networks come with the "Standard" service)? (I would assume that I will get the analog versions but not the HDTV versions)
(3) are there any more QAM HDTV channels available at this time -- i mean beyond the big 5 listed in (1) (we used to get TNT and Discovery)?

if, for some reasons, the questions annoy or offend anyone, please ignore them in lieu of berating me for posing them. i look forward to hearing from anyone wanting to be helpful, especially those who use a QAM tuner and TW cable.
thanks,
p

cbordman

07-06-06, 03:36 PM

paulnccu

07-06-06, 05:15 PM

pkscout

07-06-06, 07:21 PM

if, for some reasons, the questions annoy or offend anyone, please ignore them in lieu of berating me for posing them.

Gosh. Did we get a reputation sometime as being mean and nasty to new folks in this thread? I thought we waited until we got to know folks before we got mean and nasty. :D

pen15nv

07-06-06, 11:38 PM

pen15nv ,

If you are as long time a viewer of this board as you say you are. Why would you even ask as confrontational question as you did?

Hasn't enough dialog been spent on this board discussing the merits of which service is better?

Can't we move on?

Didn't this board just split off a few weeks ago because of this very topic?

-DONB2

Look, I feel I asked a valid question to the purpose of this board. I was hoping to draw on the experience of the members to solve a dilemma I was facing, not to draw your ire. I don't see how my question was confrontational and judging from the responses I got to it, I don't think anyone else thought it was either.

As a followup, I think I may be able to put a dish out on my balcony and tap into Dish for my HD viewing needs. Now if they would just add MHD to their lineup, I would be completely satisfied :D

toadfannc

07-07-06, 07:11 AM

Question 1 and 2. I doubt TWC will have the NFL NetworkHD for a very long time. ESPN2HD seems to be questionable.

Hmmm ... now why would you say that? Maybe, because TWC hasn't added a HD channel worth anything (Universal-HD is a joke) in 2 years. In the meantime, every major cable company and both satellite providers have the NFL Network and most now have ESPN2HD. I used to think there's no way that TWC would be so arrogant and not add the NFL Network, given that they are the cable provider for several NFL cities (NYC, Charlotte, Cinncinnati, Green Bay, Houston, etc.), but I agree with you-- they don't give a crap what you and I (and thousands of others) want. As for ESPN2HD ... I've been lied to so many times by Dressler on this subject (ex. "will have it by MLB opening day") that I've given up thinking that it will ever happen for TWC subs. Literally, subscribers could be outside of Time Warner's plush offices in New York with torches, and they'd hunker down protecting every last penny.

It's simple ... for the vast majority of us, it's all about programming. Yeah, yeah- I know (Posg, etc.)- TWC has great technology-- here's a little secret ... so does everybody else. The average subscriber wants content. Just as simple ... for TWC, it's all about (your) money. Save your replies about how "complex and difficult" these negotiations are, and how big-bad ABC/Disney is trying to screw poor little TWC-- yada yada yada. Ask yourself this ... why is TWC the only MSO (in the top 10 cable providers) to not carry the NFL Network? Why is ABC/Disney able to get carriage agreements with every other cable/sat provider except TWC?

What I really love are the forums where people rant (like I just have) and threaten to leave TWC. That's the biggest joke of all ... they could care less. Let's face it-- for those of us stuck with TWC (no satellite availability or other reasons), there is no choice- hence, their ability to ignore and collect. What amazes me, though is the arrogance. It's not like other cable companies don't enjoy the same monopolistic benefits. But, unlike Time Warner, they actually seem to care what their subscribers want with regard to programming- and agressively make it happen.

I guess the real answers to all of the "why ..." questions I pose is ... TWC does these these things------ because they can get away with it. Not long ago, I idealistically believed that I could make my feelings known, and if others felt the same way-- it would make a difference. I totally believe otherwise after years of frustration and disgust with TWC. You can call, e-mail, write letters, threaten, etc, etc until the end of time-- the TWC execs absolutely do not care. And, they never will as long as they are the only sheriff in town.

HDTV-NUT

07-07-06, 10:27 AM

Hmmm ... now why would you say that? Maybe, because TWC hasn't added a HD channel worth anything (Universal-HD is a joke) in 2 years. In the meantime, every major cable company and both satellite providers have the NFL Network and most now have ESPN2HD. I used to think there's no way that TWC would be so arrogant and not add the NFL Network, given that they are the cable provider for several NFL cities (NYC, Charlotte, Cinncinnati, Green Bay, Houston, etc.), but I agree with you-- they don't give a crap what you and I (and thousands of others) want. As for ESPN2HD ... I've been lied to so many times by Dressler on this subject (ex. "will have it by MLB opening day") that I've given up thinking that it will ever happen for TWC subs. Literally, subscribers could be outside of Time Warner's plush offices in New York with torches, and they'd hunker down protecting every last penny.

It's simple ... for the vast majority of us, it's all about programming. Yeah, yeah- I know (Posg, etc.)- TWC has great technology-- here's a little secret ... so does everybody else. The average subscriber wants content. Just as simple ... for TWC, it's all about (your) money. Save your replies about how "complex and difficult" these negotiations are, and how big-bad ABC/Disney is trying to screw poor little TWC-- yada yada yada. Ask yourself this ... why is TWC the only MSO (in the top 10 cable providers) to not carry the NFL Network? Why is ABC/Disney able to get carriage agreements with every other cable/sat provider except TWC?

What I really love are the forums where people rant (like I just have) and threaten to leave TWC. That's the biggest joke of all ... they could care less. Let's face it-- for those of us stuck with TWC (no satellite availability or other reasons), there is no choice- hence, their ability to ignore and collect. What amazes me, though is the arrogance. It's not like other cable companies don't enjoy the same monopolistic benefits. But, unlike Time Warner, they actually seem to care what their subscribers want with regard to programming- and agressively make it happen.

I guess the real answers to all of the "why ..." questions I pose is ... TWC does these these things------ because they can get away with it. Not long ago, I idealistically believed that I could make my feelings known, and if others felt the same way-- it would make a difference. I totally believe otherwise after years of frustration and disgust with TWC. You can call, e-mail, write letters, threaten, etc, etc until the end of time-- the TWC execs absolutely do not care. And, they never will as long as they are the only sheriff in town.
you have it all wrong. TWC is just very complex. :D

dslate69

07-07-06, 12:57 PM

If anyone that has HGTV-HD hasn't caught "Offbeat America", check it out.
One guy built a 3-story replica of Bourbon St. in his basement. Talk about the perfect house to party at. :) Unbelievable.

http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/shows_hoba/episode/0,2496,HGTV_22456_39207,00.html

DonB2

07-07-06, 01:34 PM

Does the following offend anyone:

N.C. Senate Gives Unanimous Approval To Cable TV Changes

POSTED: 11:37 am EDT July 7, 2006
UPDATED: 11:37 am EDT July 7, 2006

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Senate gave initial, unanimous approval Thursday to new rules for cable television service that proponents argue would lead to a deregulated video programming market, and hopefully lower prices.

Under the measure, any company that wants to provide pay television phone lines or broadband Internet would apply to the Secretary of State's Office to offer service in a coverage area.

Current rules require video programming providers to enter into franchise agreements with local governments, but traditional phone companies such as BellSouth and Embarq say those deals take too long to complete.

This era of expanding technology makes it the right time to change the regulations, the Senate's chief proponent of the House bill said.

"Let's apply that market principle of competition," said Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, during the debate before the 48-0 vote. "Let that market work for us."

The Senate debate wasn't as robust as last month's debate in the House. Then, several lawmakers unsuccessfully pushed amendments that would require companies to offer television in rural or isolated areas or provide additional consumer protections from poor service.

Several senators said they were pleased about a companion bill now in a Senate committee to provide more money for community public access channels.

The video programming bill, scheduled for a final Senate vote Friday, also would ensure municipalities at least two public access channels to air local or government programming, and money to help with operating costs. If approved, the measure would return to the House, which approved a slightly different version.

-DonB2

paulnccu

07-07-06, 02:07 PM

1 - No, you will still get these channels

2 - No, you must have a cablecard or a cable box to get TNTHD, ESPNHD, INHD, HDNET, etc..

3 - not that i know of

I did not find any of your questions overly offensive.

folks: my TV has a cablecard slot (see 2, above).

thus, if i upgrade to standard TWC service, is there any advantage to connecting via the Cablecard or customary 75-ohm connection? i guess my first question would be if anyone knows if TWC will use a cablecard to connect "standard" service (or do you have to be on some sort of digital cable tier in order to connect via a cablecard)?
second, if i connect "standard" service through a cablecard, will this affect my QAM tuner HDTV reception i now get under "basic" cable (4.0, 5.1, 11.1, 17.1 50.2)? Will i lose these stations with a cablecard?
finally, if it is possible to get standard service via cablecard, will the cablecard connection somehow enable me to get HDTV stations -- say, e.g., espn-hd -- without having to upgrade to a digital service level? in other words, because of my TV's cablecard ability and/or QAM tuner, will i be able to get HD stations that normally aren't available under the "standard" service tier?

thanks in advance for any help you can be.

gstelmack

07-07-06, 02:19 PM

Does the following offend anyone:

Nope. One of the key obstacles to FIOS service being rolled out in other places is the need to negotiate franchise agreements with every single town along the way. If this gets my FIOS (or equivalent) and a much fatter internet pipe and forces the cable companies to compete (and maybe offer some of the missing channels), I'm all for it.

Baler

07-07-06, 04:15 PM

One of the key obstacles to FIOS service being rolled out in other places is the need to negotiate franchise agreements with every single town along the way.

Except, this is the "key obstacle" that cable companies around the country have been dealing with for years. Competition? Great! Gotta play by the same rules though. When's the last time you got a EAS message warning you about impending weather from your dish? Required for cable. What about must-carry? What about local access? Understood, changing times may call for changing rules, but even Big Bad Cable Co. deserves some respect for negotiating the legislative labyrinth all these years.

gstelmack

07-08-06, 10:09 AM

Except, this is the "key obstacle" that cable companies around the country have been dealing with for years. Competition? Great! Gotta play by the same rules though. When's the last time you got a EAS message warning you about impending weather from your dish? Required for cable. What about must-carry? What about local access? Understood, changing times may call for changing rules, but even Big Bad Cable Co. deserves some respect for negotiating the legislative labyrinth all these years.

Well, first off the cable companies have enjoyed a monopoly for decades. I'm not going to feel sorry for them because the rules just changed a little bit. They don't need to provide local channels from across the country, either (which is satellite is being required to do). Must carry affects satellite if they want to enter a market. Plus, they cable companies no longer need to reach local franchise agreements, so they have a much freeer hand.

The key behind this legislation is to make the rules exactly the same across the board for ALL TV providers. Satellite is getting the sales tax hit now as well, for example.

As for EAS, that's a federal requirement, and requirements are being worked on for satellite (DirecTV was working on a system involving the spotbeams that went through some debate with the FCC a while back; it was a while ago and I didn't pay much attention so I don't remember all the details). The FCC is working on levelling the playing field, applying the same rules to all providers with an eye towards increasing competition.

Satellite HAD an easier set of rules to deal with because they were the only competition for cable companies. Now that others are entering the arena (the telcos, plus some independents) and the technology has matured, states and the FCC are working to eliminate all the exceptions and special rules and make everyone play with the same restrictions / benefits. This sate law is one key step in that direction, and another step closer to being able to choose from multiple wired / wireless / satellite providers for telecomm needs.

And as I said above, if this means that in a couple of years I've got a multi-megabit 2-way broadband connection (making it easier to host multiplayer games, something difficult to do with RoadRunner's current limit on upload speeds) with a full HD lineup and no dealing with rain fade / weather, I'll be happy. I won't care if it's TWC, BellSouth, Verizon, Sprint, or DirecTV giving it to me, I'll just love having that option.

And it'd be cool if I could use TIVO as my DVR for whichever provider, using their fantastic UI and ability to stream shows across my LAN to other DVRs in the house to watch what I want when I want...

Greg T

07-09-06, 11:31 AM

gillcup

07-10-06, 10:06 AM

D* VS TWC
I've had TWC for about 2 months now (Free install and $100 credit, so I thought I'd try the 8300 for free and get some DVHS recordings). HBO and ESPN look better on TWC. Discovery and TNT look about the same. HDnet sometimes looks worse on TWC (lots of pixelation on fast moving images vs D*) OTA stations look better than TWC HD locals and I get a lot more of them. I get UPN HD out of Greensboros as well as all of the Greensboro and Raleigh local stations in HD. The HD Tivo box by D* is far superior to the SA8300 (got another HDtivo for free by signing up for Sunday Ticket)
Not sure if everyone knows, but TWC does do rate shaping. Comcast seems to be the only company right now that passes through the HD without modifying. I recorded U2 Chicago tour on both systems and the compression artifacts where horrible on TWC. Albeit, TWC looked a littler sharper than D*.
I also get ESPN2 and Universal HD on D*. I get the two INHD stations on TWC. I prefer ESPN2 and Universal to INHD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7510031&&#post7510031

I'm judging this on a Mitsubishi 65" 9" gunned WS65813.

I'm located in Raleigh and have TWC with an 8300 and for the last year or so the picture has been great. I have HBO, Showtime, HD Suite and all channels are fine. I also have an OTA antenna and the local channels on TWC look the same to me.

When I first got the HD service, there were a lot of problems with the signal strength being either too weak or too strong. They had to replace our lines to the house and make other adjustments to get the signal just right for both the TV and computer. If your picture is as bad as you state, you should call their service and have them check out signal. The problem may be fixable.
Good luck,

CCsoftball7

07-10-06, 11:44 AM

I'm located in Raleigh and have TWC with an 8300 and for the last year or so the picture has been great. I have HBO, Showtime, HD Suite and all channels are fine. I also have an OTA antenna and the local channels on TWC look the same to me.

I'm in Cary and completely agree. The picture via QAM is slightly better than through the 8300, but I would judge it as stellar. Have your lines/connectors checked.

dslate69

07-11-06, 02:15 PM

Charter cable adding two high-def stations in the St. Louis area
http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/07/10/charter-cable-adding-two-high-def-stations-in-the-st-louis-area/

MTV's high-def channel (MHD) coming to Comcast in August?
http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/07/10/mtvs-high-def-channel-mhd-coming-to-comcast-in-august/

TWC may be the only provider without a HD plan. Well, DirecTv too but at least they have Sunday Ticket.

pkscout

07-11-06, 03:00 PM

TWC may be the only provider without a HD plan. Well, DirecTv too but at least they have Sunday Ticket.

Now, now. They have a plan. It just doesn't involve adding any HD channels until the next great thing in cable delivery comes out. You know that switched digital thing is such a flash in a pan. But you wait. In 10 years cable will have the greatest technology ever, and TWC will be right on the forefront. :rolleyes:

okeefer

07-11-06, 09:18 PM

dslate69

07-12-06, 09:00 AM

I'm getting Dish network installed Friday morning. I understand Raleigh HD locals are uplinked and will be available soon on 119 (or 118.75) satellite. What dish do I need installed to receive these channels in addition to the Platinum HD channels?

I think they are planning to install a dish 1000. Do I need to get a 1000+ ?
You will definitely need a + dish to get 118.7 but, I don't think they will install it for you now if they even have one unless you are getting International channels.
There hasn't been an official HD-Locals announcement for this area so you will probably have to get a 1000 now and have them upgrade to a + later.
You may be better off postponing the install for a couple of weeks to see if they make the move to +'s in this area.

DonB2

07-12-06, 02:53 PM

dslate69,

Dish and Direct TV won't be accessing the same satellite for local HD broadcasts will they?

-DonB2

dslate69

07-12-06, 03:55 PM

dslate69,

Dish and Direct TV won't be accessing the same satellite for local HD broadcasts will they?

-DonB2
No, they don't play well together. :(

DonB2

07-12-06, 04:06 PM

dslate69 ,

Thought so, but all of a sudden I got thinking that maybe dish and direct had taken off the gloves and there was a standard sat that they both were accessing.

-DonB2

dslate69

07-12-06, 04:20 PM

dslate69 ,

Thought so, but all of a sudden I got thinking that maybe dish and direct had taken off the gloves and there was a standard sat that they both were accessing.

-DonB2
There has been talk in the past and even fairly recent speculation of combining the overlap (ecspecially locals; SD and HD). But if anything were to ever happen it would be on the backend (delivery to the SATs) first, then 5 to 10 years before the 2 SATs could swap all their customers out to a universal SAT box.
The only way I see it ever happening is a full fledged merger, which Cable would fight tooth and nail like they did before.
But with more competition in the market with FIOS, IPTV and Wireless options, I can see it getting past the FCC next go round. The big question is; would the consumer be better off? I think so, if Charlie were at the helm.

holl_ands

07-12-06, 07:53 PM

The ultimate goal is "plug and play". Go to Best Buy, pick out a TV, bring it home, connect it to your cable drop, activate your account on screen, order a VOD HDTV movie immediately without having to wait through a phone queue, wait for an installer, etc.

You see my friend, truck rolls are extremely expensive. There's the vehicle, and the insurance, and the gas, and the labor. And the lost revenue while the potential customer waits, OCAP potentially eliminates all that.

It will take a few years to get there. But once you're there, your DONE. One way CableCARD is a silly stop gap that is only a response to a government mandate.

Things worth having are worth waiting for, or at least I've been told. :D
Many CableCARD problems are fixed by a firmware update to the HDTV....but only after many CC swapouts, multiple visits and waiting for the customer to rustle up the fix from the HDTV manfacturer....

Checkout both Jun 2006 "Regulatory Filings" by NCTA for nitty gritty details re CableCARD problems--and solutions:
http://www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contentId=2711

Seems a waste to debug the next gen two-way M-Cards (CC-II) with OCAP when DCAS goes operational a year later....

posg

07-12-06, 08:14 PM

Many CableCARD problems are fixed by a firmware update to the HDTV....but only after many CC swapouts, multiple visits and waiting for the customer to rustle up the fix from the HDTV manfacturer....

Checkout both Jun 2006 "Regulatory Filings" by NCTA for nitty gritty details re CableCARD problems--and solutions:
http://www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contentId=2711

Seems a waste to debug the next gen two-way M-Cards (CC-II) with OCAP when DCAS goes operational a year later....

Don't try to confuse anybody here with facts ;) .

DonB2

07-13-06, 09:40 AM

dslate69

07-13-06, 11:33 AM

I turned on OTA PBS HD 4.1 a little early last night before the Coustou special and see PBS is dropping Carolina Now - something about not having enough money in the budget which I find surprising when I look at how the Raleigh area has grown in the last 5 years. But I guess that does not mean they are receiving any more money from people.

-DonB2
This would be the perfect time for PBS to go "For Profit".
If PBS-HD and PBS-Kids were national channels, who here thinks they wouldn't make it? And by "it", I mean lots and lots of money.

DonB2

07-13-06, 11:45 AM

dslate69,

So are you saying that "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" are unique to Raleigh only?

I thought most of the "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" were produced nationally for all the PBS stations to share.

-DonB2

dslate69

07-13-06, 12:19 PM

dslate69,

So are you saying that "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" are unique to Raleigh only?

I thought most of the "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" were produced nationally for all the PBS stations to share.

-DonB2
No that's not what I am saying.
I mean for "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" to go national in the since "Discovery-HD and Noggin" are national. There is no need for a PBS local affiliate if they can't compete without Tax dollars. They need to say good-bye to OTA if they can't make a profit selling commercials in any given market.
My point (and I appologize for not being clearer) is that if they market PBS-HD as "a Discovery-HD want-a-be" and PBS-Kids as a "Noggin want-a-be" they will surely make lots of money.
Now it may be possible that they could compete in the OTA market "For Profit" but not as easily. Although if PBS dropped the shows people don't watch and simulcasted in HD, it would be doable.

posg

07-13-06, 12:25 PM

Rumours abound that INHD2 is to be discontinued by In Demand networks effective August 1. If anything, it will put pressure on TWC to find a replacement, perhaps finally ESPN2HD??? Big fat yawn....

Also, in the "I told you so" department, USDTV filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. Maybe General Motors can bail them out.

DonB2

07-13-06, 12:45 PM

dslate69 ,

Now I get it , thanks.

posg,

"USDTV filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection."

Hmm. I went to their website at:

http://www.usdtv.com/

And I don't see any mention of that East Coast Market they were expanding into. Maybe that fell through.

However I see they are offering STARZ now.

-DonB2

dslate69

07-13-06, 12:57 PM

...
Also, in the "I told you so" department, USDTV filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. ...
One more reason for TWC to go on with business as usual.
Once TWC actually has to compete, I wonder if they will remember how. :rolleyes:

DonB2

07-13-06, 01:19 PM

"One more reason for TWC to go on with business as usual.
Once TWC actually has to compete, I wonder if they will remember how. "

Maybe TWC should do like service departments at major car dealers do and split up in to competive Red Teams and Blue teams.

-DonB2

quango

07-13-06, 01:52 PM

Maybe TWC should do like service departments at major car dealers do and split up in to competive Red Teams and Blue teams.

I don't know... that might cost as much as a truck roll, which we all know is To Be Avoided At All Costs, hence TWC's enthusiastic support for self-installs of CableCARDs and DVRs.

Zilla

07-13-06, 08:11 PM

Fox HD (ch. 113.4) goes in and out. Is this normal?

jkiddcarolina

07-13-06, 10:21 PM

jkiddcarolina

07-13-06, 10:37 PM

Also,
anyone local selling (or know a retailer who has) an LG or Sony OTA HD DVR?

Tweeter has clearanced the sony's, but of course don't have any left. CC used to carry the LG, but I didn't see it in the Raleigh Stores last week.

Thanks again.

posg

07-14-06, 08:59 AM

Apparently WRAZ-DT has dropped the grey side bars from 4:3 content nested in their 16:9 transmission.

tommy122

07-14-06, 09:06 AM

Apparently WRAZ-DT has dropped the grey side bars from 4:3 content nested in their 16:9 transmission.

I noticed that last night also. Hope that was just a fluke. For some reason, the gray sidebars are more pleasing to me than black on 4:3 content.

cbordman

07-14-06, 09:27 AM

Got a question for you guys.

I have standard TWC, no box or HD (I do have a HD TV).

If I bring my neighbors HD8300 to my house, can we watch HD and all the stations he gets but I don't? Or is TWC set up to where each box only works at one address?

Also, If I buy an 8300 on ebay (or wherever) will it work with TWC here in Raleigh?

Thanks for the help.

The neighbor's would probably work. But buying one off of EBAY probably would not, as it would not be authorized in the TWC system.

When we moved from raleigh to holly springs, we took the 8300HD with us. It wouldn't do anything at the new house until cable was installed. we couldn't even watch programs that were already recorded.

dslate69

07-14-06, 09:49 AM

Got a question for you guys.

I have standard TWC, no box or HD (I do have a HD TV).

If I bring my neighbors HD8300 to my house, can we watch HD and all the stations he gets but I don't? Or is TWC set up to where each box only works at one address?
...
Is there a reason you just don't try it ?
I think the general consensus would be it won't blow up the box.

It may not work because of a trap on the line, although it might. Until you actually try it you won't know.

A little advice: You always learn more by doing than asking.

DonB2

07-14-06, 10:09 AM

jkiddcarolina,

Just curious why you need these two specific models "LG or Sony OTA HD DVR" are they being phased out and not replaced?

-Don

jkiddcarolina

07-14-06, 01:22 PM

DonB2,
Well, I just need a DVR that is QAM capable. And I'd like to get one on the cheap. These are just the two units I've found that meet the requirement.

I don't think they are being replaced though, seems like OTA DVR's aren't very popular.

jkiddcarolina

07-14-06, 01:25 PM

DonB2

07-14-06, 01:26 PM

"OTA DVR's aren't very popular"

I hear you. The choice of OTA HD ATSC tuners appears to be shrinking also.

Does CC have a online Web page with any?

-DonB2

jkiddcarolina

07-14-06, 01:27 PM

Thanks cbordman,
ebay has the 8000HD model for Buy It Now $60. Seems like a good deal, but I guess you would have to know someone on the "inside" of TWC to get it to function.

jkiddcarolina

07-14-06, 01:28 PM

"Does CC have a online Web page with any"

they have a samsung and a generic model, but no DVR's

Oldemanphil

07-14-06, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by jkiddcarolina
Got a question for you guys.

I have standard TWC, no box or HD (I do have a HD TV).

If I bring my neighbors HD8300 to my house, can we watch HD and all the stations he gets but I don't? Or is TWC set up to where each box only works at one address?
...

If you're on the same head-end server (usually neighborhood) that he is on, it'll probally work, however TWC can measue the signal return path times to the headend and tell if the box has been moved to a different location unless he/she just lives next door. If he/she is on a different headend server, they will probally just shut the HD8300 down and you'll have to call TWC to get it reactivated.

The number of boxes on a headend has to be limited so that they all/nearly all can watch "different" on-demand programs without exceeded the available cable bandwidth.

These opinions are based on long time TWC customer and reading a lot of forum entries on how the Raleigh TWC system works. It's amazingly complex and interesting setup. ;)

DonB2

07-14-06, 01:31 PM

I just got back from Sears at Southpoint and was looking at the HD and ED Plasmas, they all had the same Dish "VOOM" promo being displayed.

I honestly can't say I saw any improvement in the picture quality between any of the HD and ED Plasmas.

I am guessing the Dish Promo was not truly in 16:9 HD but possibly more in line with DVD quality res.

But of course not sure and didn't ask a salesperson because I did not expect they would know.

And why do they call it "Southpoint"? What is it south of ?

DONB2

cbordman

07-14-06, 02:27 PM

dslate69,
I just didn't want to hassle with it if it were obvious to you folks that it would't work.

Just a thought though; if it does work, whats to keep my neighbor from adding another box to his account ($10 or so) and giving it to me to use?

Just seems like I'm missing something.

It should only be about $10 to add digital service to your account and get a free box. A 2nd DVR is $9 box fee + $7 DVR fee, $16 a month.

DonB2

07-14-06, 02:41 PM

"Originally Posted by jkiddcarolina
dslate69,
I just didn't want to hassle with it if it were obvious to you folks that it would't work.

Just a thought though; if it does work, whats to keep my neighbor from adding another box to his account ($10 or so) and giving it to me to use?

Just seems like I'm missing something."

Maybe the third neighbor who would turn you in to TWC if he found out. But just a guess.

-DonB2

holl_ands

07-14-06, 03:54 PM

DonB2

07-14-06, 04:07 PM

"In the Diagnostic Menu, you'll see that STBs measure the time delay back to the local node.
Your STB can turn you in as a cable thief if you have abnormal wiring length. "

How long a distance is that typically ? Less than a mile?

TWC must use some very accurate equipment to measure that minute a delay considering how fast an electron moves.

It would seem that just changes in temperature which in turn would effect the conductivity would be enough to throw off the measurement let alone a bad Balon or two.

But what do I know, Law enforcement officers measure speed vs distance all day long with radar guns.

-DonB2

pen15nv

07-14-06, 06:39 PM

Greg T

07-16-06, 10:13 PM

pkscout

07-17-06, 08:19 AM

Anyone have any luck with TWC and CableCard? I just got cablecard setup on my Toshiba 42HP95 Plasma on Saturday. I'ts been a glitchy nighmare every since. I'm to the point now where I can get INHDs, Discover, TNT, the HDnets and ESPN HD perfectly. Both of the HBO's say that I don't have enough signal. PBS breaks up and NBC breaks up. Anyone having issues with their QAM tuners with these stations?

I've always been under the impression that CableCard is an access and descrambling device, so if you're having signal strength problems that is more likely your location than the cablecard.

Greg T

07-17-06, 11:11 AM

I think it's just buggy. This Morning I got HBOHD, but no HDnet.

DonB2

07-17-06, 11:28 AM

"1. Yeah, I just bought a washer and dryer there this week and was browsing the TV dept...their displays looked like ****...I'm guessing poor setup.

2. I think its at the south point of Durham... "

1. Thats possible.
2. Yeah that must be where they came up with the name.

-Thanks Don

mhs1970

07-17-06, 03:33 PM

Somewhat disapointed as I was misled by the sales guy that I would "definitely" get locals in HD in my area. That was a lie.

My observation/confusion: I have a Panasonic EDTV 42" plasma display. Since day 1 of ownership (now two years), have only used the BNC component terminal board inputs. HD picture quality w/ TWC was decent. Display (or cable box?) would self-adjust signal (720, 1080, etc.) to be compatible with monitor and fill screen. In other words, I would not have to use the zoom feature on the monitor to fill screen.

With DISH HD signal, I must manually zoom the display so that the signal fills my screen. Picture quality seems comparible; no drastic difference.

Questions from a self-admitted novice:
1) Why the difference?
2) Would this be similar if I used the DVI input/interface instead (which I don't yet have)?
3) Would picture quality be significantly improved with DVI board?
4) Are local channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) in HD via satelite right around the corner (this year), or is this a crock? What's the hold-up?

Thanks.

DonB2

07-17-06, 05:10 PM

"Somewhat disapointed as I was misled by the sales guy that I would "definitely" get locals in HD in my area. That was a lie."

So you were misled that you would "definitely" get locals in HD by the Dish salesperson or you were misled by the salesperson that sold you the Panasonic EDTV two years ago?

-DonB2

mhs1970

07-17-06, 09:17 PM

The former; I knew I was getting ED when I purchased the plasma, and I'm satisfied with it. But the DISH guy telling me I would have locals in "HD" was misleading.

dslate69

07-17-06, 09:52 PM

The former; I knew I was getting ED when I purchased the plasma, and I'm satisfied with it. But the DISH guy telling me I would have locals in "HD" was misleading.
You will have locals in "HD", just not tonight.

They have been uplinked and will be available as one of the next couple of cities. I say within 30 days or so. The problem is no one knows their plan. If they are made active where they were uplinked (118) then you will have to participate in a dish swap to a + dish. If they move them off 118 to 129 after they finish shuffling the Internationals then as long as you have a 1000, you will get them.

Did you get the vip622 as your receiver ? If so you already have HD locals via OTA tuner built in.

TWC's reciever would handshake with your tv on every channel if you had 1080i,720p,480p and 480i all checked. DISH's current software does not do pass-thru. You pick a resolution and that is it. They are planning a software release to add pass-thru, supposedly Summer but more likely Fall.

mhs1970

07-18-06, 08:22 AM

Thanks for the info dslate69. I have the 1000 and the vip622 tuner. When you say I already get "HD locals via OTA tuner built in", you mean if I purchase and mount my own antenna, right?

Thanks.

Scooper

07-18-06, 08:28 AM

Exactly.

Buy and install an OTA antenna and you can watch the locals in HD tonight.

Otherwise, you'll have to wait for Dish to make them available.

dslate69

07-18-06, 08:53 AM

Thanks for the info dslate69. I have the 1000 and the vip622 tuner. When you say I already get "HD locals via OTA tuner built in", you mean if I purchase and mount my own antenna, right?

Thanks.

I do have an 8-Bay Chimney mounted antenna and it works great.
However if you ask the question I am sure you will get an answer to the cheapest best quality indoor antenna from the plethora of HDTV experienced forum readers.

My guess would be that you could buy a $10 cheapie and get some depending where you live. Remember most places (walmart, BB) have liberal return policies.

Any questions on the vip622, let me know. Being able to record 3 HD channels at once, 30-sec skip ahead, 9day 16:9 guide, hide channels in the guide, keyword recordings; are just the tip of the iceberg. :D

Oh, and welcome to High-Def Heaven. :cool:

dslate69

07-18-06, 09:11 AM

The NFL Network announced its plans to air 52 preseason games in 24 days - 15 of which will be offered in high definition, six will be live.
During the NFL's four-week preseason beginning Aug. 10, the NFL Network will air every game throughout the preseason except for the 13 nationally-televised games by league partners CBS, ESPN, FOX and NBC.

For most of the games, NFL Network will use the television feeds of local broadcasters and make use of both sets of announcers, the net said.

In addition to the preseason games, NFL Network will air three NFL Total Access: No Huddle shows. 'No Huddle' is a live look-in show that drops in around the league during live games.

A complete schedule can be found at http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork.

:D

gstelmack

07-18-06, 11:44 AM

No that's not what I am saying.
I mean for "PBS-HD and PBS-Kids" to go national in the since "Discovery-HD and Noggin" are national.

"Sprout" is the PBS-Kids national channel. My kids watch it most nights ("The Goodnight Show") before bed on DirecTV.

toadfannc

07-18-06, 12:28 PM

dslate69

07-18-06, 12:52 PM

Uh ... that's nice. But, for us unfortunate TWC customers, the NFL Network is nowhere to be seen. Enjoy satellite subs.
I know. I was being a stinker. :D
It was actually news today on skyreport. I knew I would get 8 reg season games but the preseason is a nice bonus.
I am secure enough with my masculinity to tell ya, I have been watching more HGTV-HD than anything lately. Of course that will change very soon.

Come over to the darkside. There is plenty of HD for everyone.

mhs1970

07-18-06, 01:01 PM

Ok all, what's the cheapest best quality indoor HD antenna out there?

mhs1970

07-18-06, 01:05 PM

dslate69:

I'm very interested in how to record 3 HD channels at once, 30-sec skip ahead, 9day 16:9 guide, hide channels in the guide, keyword recordings...

...still trying to learn all the vip622 has to offer. I suppose I could read the manual...

I would love to learn how to hide channels that I don't have or want to see in the guide. That would be nirvana.

cbordman

07-18-06, 02:24 PM

I know. I was being a stinker. :D
It was actually news today on skyreport. I knew I would get 8 reg season games but the preseason is a nice bonus.
I am secure enough with my masculinity to tell ya, I have been watching more HGTV-HD than anything lately. Of course that will change very soon.

Come over to the darkside. There is plenty of HD for everyone.

Does anyone really watch re-runs of pre-season games??

DonB2

07-18-06, 03:00 PM

"Does anyone really watch re-runs of pre-season games?? "

My guess is yes IF they are in HD.

-DonB2

DonB2

07-18-06, 03:05 PM

"Ok all, what's the cheapest best quality indoor HD antenna out there?"

For this neck of the woods you will need one that at least does UHF. I would go with a around $50.00 powered one from Walmart or Radio Shack if it does not work return it.

There also is that Silver something - I forget the exact name. It is not powered and sorta looks like a Jet Model placed on a stand. Worked pretty good for me but kept coming apart so I took it back.

-DonB2

holl_ands

07-18-06, 03:31 PM

The highly rated Zenith/Philips/Gemini SILVER SENSOR come both unamplified (ZHDTV1, ZHDTV1Z, PHDTV1)
without VHF rabbit ears....and amplified with VHF rabbit ears in a protective case (PHDTV3):
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/103-8542353-0363021?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&keywords=silver+sensor&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Also note that Terk makes unamplified (HDTVi) and amplified (HDTVa) equivalent models, both with VHF rabbit ears.

DonB2

07-18-06, 03:38 PM

holl_ands,

Thanks, that is it the Silver Sensor.

One problem I have found with powered indoor antennas is that if you find the need to move it around attempting to get a better signal, you will find it is a PITA also dragging the power cord around.

Don't ask me how I know.

Sometimes you can just find someone to borrow an indoor antenna from.

-DonB2

dslate69

07-18-06, 03:40 PM

... I would love to learn how to hide channels that I don't have or want to see in the guide. That would be nirvana.
This a feature every receiver should have. I hated TWC's box that shows XXX channel listings and even PPV's that I would never purchase.

The vip622 has a feature to create several personalized guides called Favorites (under preferences) that you can cycle thru by pressing the guide button repeatedly. By default there is an "All Channels", "All Subscribed", "All HD Channels". The Personalized Favorites won't show unless you have created them.

A more advanced way that I also do is Lock all the channels that I don't want to see then Hide Locked in the settings. There is also a setting to Hide PPV and Hide Adult, but I Lock those anyway so they would already be hidden. This is great for Hiding channels you don't subscribe to in all Guide views, even the "All Channels".
I even Hide all the music channels that I don't listen to frequently to have a less cluttered guide. It is very easy to Unhide Locked when in the mood to listen to music or get a PPV.

You just got a HUGE upgrade in Receiver Power so it will take some time to understand you can accomplish what TWC made impossible. :cool:

dslate69

07-18-06, 03:47 PM

Does anyone really watch re-runs of pre-season games??
Without checking I think 6 are Live.

Remember that aren't re-runs unless they were run the first time.

Of the delayed showings I will most assuredly watch the Redskins that weren't shown Live. Of the rest, Sportscenter will have told me the games worth catching even knowing the outcome.

dslate69

07-19-06, 10:41 AM

Posg, where are you ?
Are you on hold with TWC ? :)

posg

07-19-06, 11:43 AM

Posg, where are you ?
Are you on hold with TWC ? :)

Remember the old cartoon of the skeleton sitting in front of the computer monitor with the caption "Waiting on Tech Support"???

I've updated it to a skeleton of myself sitting in front of my HDTV with the caption "Waiting on new HD channels from TWC".

Actually been on the road lately, and when I am home it's all I can do to empty the DVR and catch up with the Netflix.

Sidebar: WNCN has sure gotten it's act together since Media General took over. Last week's misspellings included "Hot & Humind", "Hot & Humis", and "Choc. Showers".

"Choc. Showers" = Chocolate Showers ????

posg

07-19-06, 03:13 PM

dslate69

07-19-06, 03:25 PM

This may be the worst night of network TV in history. Can you say American Idol Redux???

CBS - Rockstar Supernova
NBC - America's Got Talent
ABC - The One
UPN - America's Next Top Model
FOX - So You Think You Can Dance

Too bad these shows have absolutely no rerun value, or we'd be seeing "TSN - Talent Show Network" popping up on a cable or satellite provider near you.
Actually, America's Got Talent is pretty good. Not to be taken serious as American Idol is, i guess. I think of it more like The Gong Show with really bad celebrity judges. Hasselhoff has used the "Kit get me out of here" line already. :(

cbordman

07-19-06, 03:48 PM

This may be the worst night of network TV in history. Can you say American Idol Redux???

CBS - Rockstar Supernova
NBC - America's Got Talent
ABC - The One
UPN - America's Next Top Model
FOX - So You Think You Can Dance

Too bad these shows have absolutely no rerun value, or we'd be seeing "TSN - Talent Show Network" popping up on a cable or satellite provider near you.

It would be on a Time Warner tier that no one pays for. ( a la GSN)

posg

07-19-06, 05:00 PM

It would be on a Time Warner tier that no one pays for. ( a la GSN)

Yes, one that I certainly wouldn't pay for.

dslate, I'm shocked. America's Got Talent isn't even HD. I surprised anyone with VOOM would ever....well never mind. ;) ;) ;)

Oh, the latest rumour is that Rupert may try to buy Charlie out. I think Rupert could pull it off. I think he's considerably more savvy navigating the political waters than Chuck.

VisionOn

07-20-06, 02:16 AM

This may be the worst night of network TV in history. Can you say American Idol Redux???

CBS - Rockstar Supernova
NBC - America's Got Talent
ABC - The One
UPN - America's Next Top Model
FOX - So You Think You Can Dance

Too bad these shows have absolutely no rerun value, or we'd be seeing "TSN - Talent Show Network" popping up on a cable or satellite provider near you.

I don't even look at networks over the Summer months. Plenty of new stuff to watch on TNT, USA, Sci-Fi, HBO, FX ... I'm actually quite glad the networks are a Dead Zone of their own. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to keep up.

toadfannc

07-20-06, 08:05 AM

dslate69

07-20-06, 10:43 AM

...
dslate, I'm shocked. America's Got Talent isn't even HD. I surprised anyone with VOOM would ever....well never mind. ;) ;) ;)
I always liked the Gong Show. I am boggled that it is not in HD, it would only take 3-4 HD cameras. At least give me FOX High Resolution WideScreen.

Oh, the latest rumour is that Rupert may try to buy Charlie out. I think Rupert could pull it off. I think he's considerably more savvy navigating the political waters than Chuck.
If this happens, it will be because Washington finally came to it's senses and realized one Big SAT company wouldn't be a monopoly like Cable IS a monopoly.
But instead it would still be one small player competing to provide channels to every home in america. I don't see the difference with a rural house that's only choice is SAT and the many more houses and apartments whose only choice is cable. Instead of blocking a merger make Cable run lines to every house in america then SAT couldn't be a monopoly. As far as the merger goes, I don't know if it would be a good thing or not, but I would feel more comfortable if Charlie was at the helm keeping prices low.
If the last merger didn't go thru before because Chuck is stupid, so be it. I like to think the reason the last merger didn't go thru is because Washington is stupid.

posg

07-20-06, 10:48 AM

BTW ... through a friend who e-mailed Dressler (VP, TWC Programming) a couple of days ago about whether ESPN2HD and the NFL Network (SD and/or HD) will be available by September 1st ...

In his typical fashion, he responded- "we are negotiating hard and are very hopeful". Translation: no **'ing way.

ESPN2HD has exactly 9.5 hours of HD programming this week, of which 2 is softball and 7.5 is National Hot Rod Association.

This channel is a total piece of crap which I hope Time Warner never wastes the bandwidth which could be used for something worthwhile !!!!!!!!!

NFL Network is a niche network that should be sold as a premium service to sports junkies, and I mean junkies. Problem is the NFL is greedy and wants to dig into everyone's pockets. They already get enough out of mine.

If you want to watch reruns of Sundays games, get a frickin' DVR already !!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot about the six live throw away games per year to sweeten the pot. YAWN !!!!!

Speaking only for myself and the 80% of the population who couldn't give a crap about regular season NFL football.

toadfannc

07-20-06, 11:02 AM

ESPN2HD has exactly 9.5 hours of HD programming this week, of which 2 is softball and 7.5 is National Hot Rod Association.

This channel is a total piece of crap which I hope Time Warner never wastes the bandwidth which could be used for something worthwhile !!!!!!!!!

NFL Network is a niche network that should be sold as a premium service to sports junkies, and I mean junkies. Problem is the NFL is greedy and wants to dig into everyone's pockets. They already get enough out of mine.

If you want to watch reruns of Sundays games, get a frickin' DVR already !!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot about the six live throw away games per year to sweeten the pot. YAWN !!!!!

Speaking only for myself and the 80% of the population who couldn't give a crap about regular season NFL football.

Guess you'd rather have Universal-HD and the other worthless all-HD channels that show the same 5 1980s re-runs continuously.

Who cares how many total hours are in HD? I'll admit, I'm a sports junkie. And, you're right about the NFL-- they don't want their channel relagated to some tier, clumped with the Tennis Channel and the Game Show Network. But ... to say that 80% of the population doesn't care about the NFL-- what century are you living in, buddy? The NFL transcends sports-- it's one of the most popular TV entities that exists today. Every other major cable provider and satellite company knows this and offers the NFL Network. But not TWC-- oh no, they'd rather give you more shopping networks and On-Demand Solataire.

Just because you don't like sports, don't assume everyone out there would prefer "Knight Rider" and "Quantum Leap" re-runs.

dslate69

07-20-06, 11:15 AM

ESPN2HD has exactly 9.5 hours of HD programming this week, of which 2 is softball and 7.5 is National Hot Rod Association.

This channel is a total piece of crap which I hope Time Warner never wastes the bandwidth which could be used for something worthwhile !!!!!!!!!

The same could be said for the networks this time of year. When College Football and Basketball rolls around see if you can make the same comment. You do have a point, I would settle for them only making it available during the sports seasons that I care about to save money. I wonder if a la carte will penalize me for this.

NFL Network is a niche network that should be sold as a premium service to sports junkies, and I mean junkies. Problem is the NFL is greedy and wants to dig into everyone's pockets. They already get enough out of mine.

If you want to watch reruns of Sundays games, get a frickin' DVR already !!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot about the six live throw away games per year to sweeten the pot. YAWN !!!!!

Speaking only for myself and the 80% of the population who couldn't give a crap about regular season NFL football.
NFL Network is niche, but it's my niche. They will have 14 Live HD games, 6 of those being preseason. And I think you are a little off with your math the NFL is Americas #1 national sport for TV viewers. As much as some people pay to go to games or pay for Sunday Ticket to see games they wouldn't ordinarily have gotten, having NFL Network for 14 Live games and replays of all of your favorite teams games that weren't shown in your market, seems like a bargain to me. Of course I have it and I am happy about that. :D And if a Football fan that doesn't have it wants to rationalize on why it's ok not to have it, that's fine. What ever makes them sleep at night.

posg

07-20-06, 11:23 AM

Guess you'd rather have Universal-HD and the other worthless all-HD channels that show the same 5 1980s re-runs continuously.

Who cares how many total hours are in HD? I'll admit, I'm a sports junkie. And, you're right about the NFL-- they don't want their channel relagated to some tier, clumped with the Tennis Channel and the Game Show Network. But ... to say that 80% of the population doesn't care about the NFL-- what century are you living in, buddy? The NFL transcends sports-- it's one of the most popular TV entities that exists today. Every other major cable provider and satellite company knows this and offers the NFL Network. But not TWC-- oh no, they'd rather give you more shopping networks and On-Demand Solataire.

Just because you don't like sports, don't assume everyone out there would prefer "Knight Rider" and "Quantum Leap" re-runs.

I never watch Universal HD, but they aren't charging the cable operator $2.95/month/sub either.

While play-off and home town audiences may be large, I think you'd be surprised at how small NFL audiences actually are. Regular season games are typically way less than 10% of available households.

ESPN weekly circulation is typically somewhere in the 6% of total TV households. That number indicates the percentage of households that view the channel at least once a week, not a percentage of viewers tuned in at any time. That means that 94% of the households don't use it at all.

ESPN is often not even in the top ten CABLE networks. Their viewer numbers are typically in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions.

As a non-sports fan, I think a large enough portion of my cable bill already goes to programming I don't use. ESPN and NFL Networks are simply being greedy, and are willing to give their channels away to the satellite providers in order to hold the cable operators hostage.

The thing I dislike most about sports is that the competition has become subserviant to the money. It's ALL about the money.

posg

07-20-06, 11:50 AM

I always liked the Gong Show. I am boggled that it is not in HD, it would only take 3-4 HD cameras. At least give me FOX High Resolution WideScreen.

If this happens, it will be because Washington finally came to it's senses and realized one Big SAT company wouldn't be a monopoly like Cable IS a monopoly.
But instead it would still be one small player competing to provide channels to every home in america. I don't see the difference with a rural house that's only choice is SAT and the many more houses and apartments whose only choice is cable. Instead of blocking a merger make Cable run lines to every house in america then SAT couldn't be a monopoly. As far as the merger goes, I don't know if it would be a good thing or not, but I would feel more comfortable if Charlie was at the helm keeping prices low.
If the last merger didn't go thru before because Chuck is stupid, so be it. I like to think the reason the last merger didn't go thru is because Washington is stupid.

A combined DirecTV/Dish Network would bring nearly over 30% of the subscription households under a single provider, and make it by far the largest provider. The benefit is obvious, and maybe essential, to relieve the unnecessary duplication of every channel in the universe, allowing for much efficient use of the finite bandwidth in the sky. More channels with less compression. The downside is not having "Cheapskate Charlie" rasslin' with them big city nitwirks ta keep them prices low. (He should have been in the car bidness.)

dslate69

07-20-06, 01:23 PM

A combined DirecTV/Dish Network would bring nearly over 30% of the subscription households under a single provider, and make it by far the largest provider. The benefit is obvious, and maybe essential, to relieve the unnecessary duplication of every channel in the universe, allowing for much efficient use of the finite bandwidth in the sky. More channels with less compression. The downside is not having "Cheapskate Charlie" rasslin' with them big city nitwirks ta keep them prices low. (He should have been in the car bidness.)
You are saying right now, 30% of households (homes, apartments, condos) that pay for channels are getting them from DISH & DirecTv.
And they got there without "no compete" contracts handed out by every local government like cable has. I find it hard to believe.

I would like to see those numbers.
Pie chart, preferred; I don't like to think too much while I'm at work. :)

toadfannc

07-20-06, 01:28 PM

I never watch Universal HD, but they aren't charging the cable operator $2.95/month/sub either.

While play-off and home town audiences may be large, I think you'd be surprised at how small NFL audiences actually are. Regular season games are typically way less than 10% of available households.

ESPN weekly circulation is typically somewhere in the 6% of total TV households. That number indicates the percentage of households that view the channel at least once a week, not a percentage of viewers tuned in at any time. That means that 94% of the households don't use it at all.

ESPN is often not even in the top ten CABLE networks. Their viewer numbers are typically in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions.

As a non-sports fan, I think a large enough portion of my cable bill already goes to programming I don't use. ESPN and NFL Networks are simply being greedy, and are willing to give their channels away to the satellite providers in order to hold the cable operators hostage.

The thing I dislike most about sports is that the competition has become subserviant to the money. It's ALL about the money.

While I appreciate the Nielsen statistics, I would just say:

1. If Universal-HD is charging $.0001/subscriber, it's too much. The NFL charges $2.95 because they CAN .. the same reason why TWC over-charges us. If TWC hadn't sat on their butts for the past 2 years, they could have gotten it for much less. Now, they'll eventually cave because they will continue to be exposed (ex. click on the NFL Network link on the NFL's web site). I guess I shouldn't assume that-- they haven't cared in the past about what their customers want.

FACT: It's not just satellite providers who have the NFL Network. ALL of the top 5 cable providers do ... EXCEPT TWC.
FACT: Regular season, post-season, even pre-season NFL games get better ratings, and definitely pull in more advertising dollars than the vast majority of network and cable programming.
FACT: TWC grudgingly admits that the NFL Network is the most requested SD or HD addition ... BY FAR.

2. ESPN may not be the #1 cable network, but it is one of (if not THE) the most popular HD channel. Hence, the tremendous demand for ESPN2-HD. It wouldn't matter if they only had 1 HD per year ... it's more appealing than the constantly repeated garbage on the other all-HD networks.

FACT: According to a TWC executive-- if ESPN-HD was not part of the HD tier, subscription would immediately decrease by 50%. For the other 50%, ESPNHD is the ONLY reason to pay that $6.95/mo.

DonB2

07-20-06, 01:37 PM

"The -- it's one of the most popular TV entities that exists today. Every other major cable provider and satellite company knows this and offers the NFL Network. But not TWC-- oh no, they'd rather give you more shopping networks and On-Demand Solataire.

Just because you don't like sports, don't assume everyone out there would prefer "Knight Rider" and "Quantum Leap" re-runs. "

Quantum Leap sounds good to me !

-DonB2

posg

07-20-06, 01:37 PM

You are saying right now, 30% of households (homes, apartments, condos) that pay for channels are getting them from DISH & DirecTv.
And they got there without "no compete" contracts handed out by every local government like cable has. I find it hard to believe.

I would like to see those numbers.
Pie chart, preferred; I don't like to think too much while I'm at work. :)

92,000,000 out of 110,000,000 TV households subscribe to cable or sat: 84%
12,000,000 E* + 15,000,000 D* = 27,000,000 out of those 92,000,000 households subscribe to sat: 29%

Probably higher sat numbers in single family than MDU as compared to cable, but yes these are the fax ma'am.

P.S. I don't do pie charts :mad: :mad: :mad: :D

posg

07-20-06, 01:48 PM

While I appreciate the Nielsen statistics, I would just say:

1. If Universal-HD is charging $.0001/subscriber, it's too much. The NFL charges $2.95 because they CAN .. the same reason why TWC over-charges us. If TWC hadn't sat on their butts for the past 2 years, they could have gotten it for much less. Now, they'll eventually cave because they will continue to be exposed (ex. click on the NFL Network link on the NFL's web site). I guess I shouldn't assume that-- they haven't cared in the past about what their customers want.

FACT: It's not just satellite providers who have the NFL Network. ALL of the top 5 cable providers do ... EXCEPT TWC.
FACT: Regular season, post-season, even pre-season NFL games get better ratings, and definitely pull in more advertising dollars than the vast majority of network and cable programming.
FACT: TWC grudgingly admits that the NFL Network is the most requested SD or HD addition ... BY FAR.

2. ESPN may not be the #1 cable network, but it is one of (if not THE) the most popular HD channel. Hence, the tremendous demand for ESPN2-HD. It wouldn't matter if they only had 1 HD per year ... it's more appealing than the constantly repeated garbage on the other all-HD networks.

FACT: According to a TWC executive-- if ESPN-HD was not part of the HD tier, subscription would immediately decrease by 50%. For the other 50%, ESPNHD is the ONLY reason to pay that $6.95/mo.

FACT: While NFL may pull in advertising dollars, it barely, and sometimes doesn't (MNF) cover the costs. It's a loss leader at best for the networks. Trust me, FOX makes more money off one episode of American Idol than the whole NFL season.

There are many things I'm passionate about that I also realize most people don't give a crap about, and I'm perfectly OK with that.

I get annoyed when people who have their own passions try to make them mine as well. It's the root of all the strife in the world. There's more than enough NFL on TV. What we need is more Knight Rider !!! :D

dslate69

07-20-06, 02:18 PM

92,000,000 out of 110,000,000 TV households subscribe to cable or sat: 84%
12,000,000 E* + 15,000,000 D* = 27,000,000 out of those 92,000,000 households subscribe to sat: 29%

Probably higher sat numbers in single family than MDU as compared to cable, but yes these are the fax ma'am.

P.S. I don't do pie charts :mad: :mad: :mad: :D
Now how long would it have taken you to throw that into Visio ? :)

That makes my day, actually. First E* is right on D* heels without Sunday Ticket, the head start and national distribution chains D* has.

I still can't believe all these apartments and houses that can't see the SW are getting by on OTA. Does DISH have some "no compete" city contracts that I haven't heard about. Now that I think about it they did rename a city; DISH. I never knew DISH had more negotiating clout than TWC or other cable providers that hold whole Cities hostage.

This makes FIOS even more interesting from a market share perspective. I would imagine Cable would lose a much higher percentage of customers since to most potential subscribers FIOS will look like just another Cable company with allot more to offer. SAT on the other hand is a completely different technology and does have pretty strong roots in the rural communities.

Cable is going to need more than just new technology. They are going to need something that they haven't shown up to this point; "a will to survive". It is definitely cheaper to retain customers than to steal them away from a competitor. But TWC for example thinks it is ok to lose customers to SAT or FIOS, thinking they will have a better system down the road that will get them back. Instead it would be more effective to provide it's customers with enough appetizers until the meal gets here. Even if they have to sign a not so great deal with NFL or ESPN2-HD and the VOIP or RR revenue has to subsidize the Digital Cable side for a year or two, in the long run you have happy customers that won't jump ship as soon as a competitor comes to town.

dgmayor

07-20-06, 02:40 PM

toadfannc

07-20-06, 02:44 PM

I'd LOVE to see some facts behind your ridiculous 80% ;)

AMEN!!!!

posg

07-20-06, 02:47 PM

Now how long would it have taken you to throw that into Visio ? :)

That makes my day, actually. First E* is right on D* heels without Sunday Ticket, the head start and national distribution chains D* has.

I still can't believe all these apartments and houses that can't see the SW are getting by on OTA. Does DISH have some "no compete" city contracts that I haven't heard about. Now that I think about it they did rename a city; DISH. I never knew DISH had more negotiating clout than TWC or other cable providers that hold whole Cities hostage.

This makes FIOS even more interesting from a market share perspective. I would imagine Cable would lose a much higher percentage of customers since to most potential subscribers FIOS will look like just another Cable company with allot more to offer. SAT on the other hand is a completely different technology and does have pretty strong roots in the rural communities.

Cable is going to need more than just new technology. They are going to need something that they haven't shown up to this point; "a will to survive". It is definitely cheaper to retain customers than to steal them away from a competitor. But TWC for example thinks it is ok to lose customers to SAT or FIOS, thinking they will have a better system down the road that will get them back. Instead it would be more effective to provide it's customers with enough appetizers until the meal gets here. Even if they have to sign a not so great deal with NFL or ESPN2-HD and the VOIP or RR revenue has to subsidize the Digital Cable side for a year or two, in the long run you have happy customers that won't jump ship as soon as a competitor comes to town.

The reason Dish's numbers are so high is because Guido Soprano runs the subscriber retention department. Didn't you notice that all subcriber account numbers have "666" included in there somewhere. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm not sure about your question regarding MDU units. I'm sure that there are a larger percentage of MDU residents than single family units that can't access a sat provider, but sat providers make up for that by being able to access a larger percentage of rural subscribers.

As far as revenue goes, cable's triple play makes their bottom line a no brainer. Any cable operator would gladly trade a few video subscribers for highly lucrative voice and data subscibers. They get about the same revenue off those services without programming or high subscriber equipment costs. All it takes is a $10 modem to get $39.95 + $39.95/month. It's a better business to be in.

It always goes back to the analogy about why the American automotive industry has taken it in the shorts. Their business planning has always been dictated by maximizing short term investor returns, while their competitors were more concerned with long term planning and investments. This continues to play out in the satellite vs. cable arena. The turtle always wins in the end. :D

toadfannc

07-20-06, 02:47 PM

FACT: While NFL may pull in advertising dollars, it barely, and sometimes doesn't (MNF) cover the costs.

Then why can the NFL charge BILLIONS for their TV packages. The networks gladly pay this because they and advertisers want the affluent 30-54 yr old demographic ... which, just so happens to be the typical HDTV purchaser.

I get annoyed when people who have their own passions try to make them mine as well.

No one is pushing their passions on you. It's just ridiculous that TWC refuses to get carriage agreements to at least keep up with the sports offerings of other cable and satellite providers.

DonB2

07-20-06, 03:16 PM

toadfannc

07-20-06, 03:29 PM

The answer is money - just put more money into this and it is solved. No one is stopping anyone from having both TWC and Dish or Direct.

Heck what is another $100/month when you got that 50 inch plasma just sitting there wanting to show you all the NFL that is available?

-DonB2

Some of us aren't able (physically or financially) to have satellite. Why is it too much to ask for my cable company to provide what thousands of customers have asked for? The answer, as you stated-- is money. They do not want to dip into their very fat warchest to strike carriage agreements because they need the record profits of TWC to fund Time Warner corporates many other failing ventures (AOL, Warner Bros movies, Atlanta Braves, etc.).

posg

07-20-06, 03:50 PM

Some of us aren't able (physically or financially) to have satellite. Why is it too much to ask for my cable company to provide what thousands of customers have asked for? The answer, as you stated-- is money. They do not want to dip into their very fat warchest to strike carriage agreements because they need the record profits of TWC to fund Time Warner corporates many other failing ventures (AOL, Warner Bros movies, Atlanta Braves, etc.).

Maybe if the NFL wasn't subsidizing the lifestyles of the egomaniac prima donna superstar players, they wouldn't have to blackmail the cable company. You gotta admit, the whole thing is totally out of control. At some point somebody just needs to say "NO"!!! Thanks TWC for having the balls to do it.

DonB2

07-20-06, 04:41 PM

I would not be surprised if all the TWC execs sit at home in their comfortable Home Theatres and have access to both TWC and DISH and Direct TV - so basically they don't give a hoot.

Don't laugh, a few years ago I watched an interview with the designer of a remodeled airport.

The designer was bragging about the chairs he installed at the airport and how they have fixed arms on the chairs.

The interviewer asked"But what if a passenger is waylaid between flights and has to sleep in the airport and can't because of the fixed arms?"

The designer came back with "What do I care. I would never sleep in this airport".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an exact quote but basically was my take on the interview.

-DonB2

posg

07-20-06, 04:57 PM

toadfannc

07-20-06, 05:24 PM

Maybe if the NFL wasn't subsidizing the lifestyles of the egomaniac prima donna superstar players, they wouldn't have to blackmail the cable company. You gotta admit, the whole thing is totally out of control. At some point somebody just needs to say "NO"!!! Thanks TWC for having the balls to do it.

You mean, like Warner Bros. studios (owned by TWC) subsidizing the $20 million/movie egomaniacal movie personalities (fill in the blank with your favorite actor/actress) that, in part, is paid for by your HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc. subscriptions?

Why does everyone crush sports people for what they earn, but give a pass to movie stars, producers, etc.?

Hey, I'm all for capitalism and the free market. I could care less what Peyton Manning or Tom Cruise makes. I just want my frickin cable company to get off their ass and give me (and thousands of other subscribers) what I want in terms of decent programming.

dslate69

07-20-06, 05:40 PM

You mean, like Warner Bros. studios (owned by TWC) subsidizing the $20 million/movie egomaniacal movie personalities (fill in the blank with your favorite actor/actress) that, in part, is paid for by your HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc. subscriptions?
...
I'm sure with how Posg feels about athletes making so much money, he feels the same about actors. He limits his HDTV to documentaries on PBS. Here's to you Posg, I don't see how you do it.

You gotta admit, the whole Hollywood thing is totally out of control. At some point somebody just needs to say "NO"!!! Thanks Posg for having the balls to do it.

posg

07-20-06, 09:02 PM

I'm sure with how Posg feels about athletes making so much money, he feels the same about actors. He limits his HDTV to documentaries on PBS. Here's to you Posg, I don't see how you do it.

You gotta admit, the whole Hollywood thing is totally out of control. At some point somebody just needs to say "NO"!!! Thanks Posg for having the balls to do it.

I gotta admit, the whole Hollywood thing is out of control. Or does a $200,000,000 budget to make a single movie ("Superman Returns" for example) make any sense??? That could buy one hell of a linebacker, for a couple of seasons of course. I'm mean let's keep perspective on what's really important in the world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

posg

07-20-06, 09:07 PM

You mean, like Warner Bros. studios (owned by TWC) subsidizing the $20 million/movie egomaniacal movie personalities (fill in the blank with your favorite actor/actress) that, in part, is paid for by your HBO, Starz, Cinemax, etc. subscriptions?

Why does everyone crush sports people for what they earn, but give a pass to movie stars, producers, etc.?

Hey, I'm all for capitalism and the free market. I could care less what Peyton Manning or Tom Cruise makes. I just want my frickin cable company to get off their ass and give me (and thousands of other subscribers) what I want in terms of decent programming.

You should care what Peyton Manning, et. al. make. It has everything to do with why TWC and NFL Network can't come to terms.

toadfannc

07-20-06, 09:38 PM

You should care what Peyton Manning, et. al. make. It has everything to do with why TWC and NFL Network can't come to terms.

Actually, it has nothing to do with it. Like I said before, if TWC joined every other cable company and satellite provider, they could have gotten it for half of what the NFL will charge now. Eventually, they will get an agreement with the NFL and pay a hefty premium for it.

Of course, if and when that happens, they'll just pass it on to you and me. I'll gladly pay $2.95 for it, but I'm sure you'd rather have "HDNET Movies the Ocho". Or ... they'll just continue to ignore their customers and watch them leave for satellite. They can then report a net addition at the end of the year, since they'll absorb the Adelphia subs. Won't they (Adelphia subs) be happy to have much less quality programming and pay more for it?

posg

07-20-06, 10:10 PM

Actually, it has nothing to do with it. Like I said before, if TWC joined every other cable company and satellite provider, they could have gotten it for half of what the NFL will charge now. Eventually, they will get an agreement with the NFL and pay a hefty premium for it.

Of course, if and when that happens, they'll just pass it on to you and me. I'll gladly pay $2.95 for it, but I'm sure you'd rather have "HDNET Movies the Ocho". Or ... they'll just continue to ignore their customers and watch them leave for satellite. They can then report a net addition at the end of the year, since they'll absorb the Adelphia subs. Won't they (Adelphia subs) be happy to have much less quality programming and pay more for it?

You choose to ignore one simple fact. The TWC subscriber count is growing at record rates and the sat guys are flat.

And you're right. I'd take HDNet Movies over NFL or HBO for that matter. The movies that HDNet is showing from the 60s-90s are much better than the absolute garbage that's being produced today. Sorry.

toadfannc

07-21-06, 08:58 AM

You choose to ignore one simple fact. The TWC subscriber count is growing at record rates and the sat guys are flat.

And you're right. I'd take HDNet Movies over NFL or HBO for that matter. The movies that HDNet is showing from the 60s-90s are much better than the absolute garbage that's being produced today. Sorry.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm sure TWC sub count is going up. Mostly, though, because they either absorb subs (ex. Adelphia) or people are too ignorant or lazy to compare their offerings vs. satellite. In short, I believe most new subs are by proxy-- they are captive to the local monopoly that TWC enjoys and/or they are not able or prefer not to have a satellite dish. In either case, it's definitely not because they choose TWC.

posg

07-21-06, 08:58 AM

I'm sure with how Posg feels about athletes making so much money, he feels the same about actors. He limits his HDTV to documentaries on PBS. Here's to you Posg, I don't see how you do it.

You gotta admit, the whole Hollywood thing is totally out of control. At some point somebody just needs to say "NO"!!! Thanks Posg for having the balls to do it.

One major difference:

Hollywood makes it money off of ticket sales, PPV sales, DVD sales, and Premium Channels sales. After they squeezed all the juice they can out of a movie, then, and only then, is the product sold to basic cable and at a discounted rate. In other words, I have a choice as to whether or not I want to purchase the product.

When the NFL or ESPN insists on getting top dollar out of everyone's wallet, and builds a business based on that assumption, well, I've got a problem with that.

dslate69

07-21-06, 09:08 AM

...

It always goes back to the analogy about why the American automotive industry has taken it in the shorts. Their business planning has always been dictated by maximizing short term investor returns, while their competitors were more concerned with long term planning and investments. This continues to play out in the satellite vs. cable arena. The turtle always wins in the end. :D
Wrong.
The reason the automotive industry has and continues to take it in the shorts is because of UNIONS. Which actually could be blamed on liberals in Washington too; and not to leave out the ones in Raliegh that vote for them. :)

dslate69

07-21-06, 09:13 AM

You choose to ignore one simple fact. The TWC subscriber count is growing at record rates and the sat guys are flat.
...

If anything TWC is piggybacking Digital Cable on to broadband right now. That is where the growth is. As I stated earlier, Cable will lose a MUCH HIGHER % of subs when a competing Telco comes to town.
Enjoy your record passengers on a sinking ship.

posg

07-21-06, 09:19 AM

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm sure TWC sub count is going up. Mostly, though, because they either absorb subs (ex. Adelphia) or people are too ignorant or lazy to compare their offerings vs. satellite. In short, I believe most new subs are by proxy-- they are captive to the local monopoly that TWC enjoys and/or they are not able or prefer not to have a satellite dish. In either case, it's definitely not because they choose TWC.

Most people just want simple. Cable is simple. Half of the subscriber base takes plain Jane analog service. No box, no contract, just simple.

We who visit this thread are passionate enthusiasts. A business as broad based as cable is fiscally irresponsible if it panders to the needs and wants of enthusiasts.

Believe me, it will be years before the HDTV business is profitable for cable/sat. Whatever invertment they make at this point has more to do with remaining reasonably competative with the other guys than making money. Even services like PPV and DVR are loss leaders at this point in time.

While companies may make statement products, the company is made or broken by how well it meets the needs of the average consumer

posg

07-21-06, 09:26 AM

Wrong.
The reason the automotive industry has and continues to take it in the shorts is because of UNIONS. Which actually could be blamed on liberals in Washington too; and not to leave out the ones in Raliegh that vote for them. :)

Smoke screen. Market share is the reason why they're in trouble. And the reason why they've lost market share is that they just don't build exciting products. How many people under the age of 70 can get excited about Buicks. The only product they make money on are big gas guzzling pick-ups and SUV's. That market is collapsing as we speak.

But we're getting into politics here, and as much as I'd love to jump into that arena, you know what would happen. ;) ;) ;)

dslate69

07-21-06, 09:35 AM

One major difference:

Hollywood makes it money off of ticket sales, PPV sales, DVD sales, and Premium Channels sales. After they squeezed all the juice they can out of a movie, then, and only then, is the product sold to basic cable and at a discounted rate. In other words, I have a choice as to whether or not I want to purchase the product.

When the NFL or ESPN insists on getting top dollar out of everyone's wallet, and builds a business based on that assumption, well, I've got a problem with that.
You know it sounds like a la carte is the answer.
You don't want certain channels effecting your bill but wouldn't mind your fellow subs the choice of getting the channels they want. I for one don't like the fact that any of my payment goes to "Lifetime, Oxygen or We" (too many battered wife movies).
I don't like supporting Soapnet, CNN, Mtv, VH1, BET, and a whole host more. Why is it ok for me to pay for these but you don't want your money going to the NFL ?

Recently you posted about TWC record profits, sounds like they could add a few more channels without raising your bill. DISH has been adding channels right and left without raising my bill. There is room for channel growth in TWC's pricing structure, but there is also room for greedy profits. When you have a captive audience like TWC does, you don't have to do anything special; just go through the motions.

posg

07-21-06, 09:43 AM

You know it sounds like a la carte is the answer.
You don't want certain channels effecting your bill but wouldn't mind your fellow subs the choice of getting the channels they want. I for one don't like the fact that any of my payment goes to "Lifetime, Oxygen or We" (too many battered wife movies).
I don't like supporting Soapnet, CNN, Mtv, VH1, BET, and a whole host more. Why is it ok for me to pay for these but you don't want your money going to the NFL ?

Recently you posted about TWC record profits, sounds like they could add a few more channels without raising your bill. DISH has been adding channels right and left without raising my bill. There is room for channel growth in TWC's pricing structure, but there is also room for greedy profits. When you have a captive audience like TWC does, you don't have to do anything special; just go through the motions.

I would fully support ala carte IF the following model were adopted. Any channel wishing less that .20/month/sub would be on a universal basic service, and any channel wanting more than that could be sold ala carte at the cable operators discretion without the programmer imposing a penalty rate to the operator.

toadfannc

07-21-06, 09:43 AM

posg

07-21-06, 09:58 AM

dslate69

07-21-06, 10:55 AM

One political comment if I may.

The conservative position should be that cable and satellite are luxury products. Free TV is available to everyone off-air. As such, minimal government intervention should be imposed on how their business model is crafted, and regulations on how they conduct their business should be avoided.

The liberal position should be that cable or satellite, by virtue of the fact that most people use them, is a necessity and the business should be regulated to protect the interests of the less fortunate.

So, are you a conservative, or a liberal ?????
Smoked Herring. :)
The conservative position is that when I go to Kroger to buy some Cheerios I should be able to do so without being forced to buy every other General Mills product. That being said I don't want Yoplait taken off the shelves just because I'll never buy it.
All this would be a mute point if Kroger sold groups of groceries but Food Lion was right next door selling items individually. Kroger would soon go under.
By the our governments signing exclusive "no compete" contracts with TWC for RDU we will never have a competing cable company come in forcing TWC into a different pricing structure. Just because cable has been operating this way for a while doesn't mean it is fair or the only profitable model.
If I live in a MDU my only option is TWC, if I want ESPN-HD my only option is pay for every other channel TWC offers first.
It is all about cable holding us hostage, not about wanting more government regulation.

posg

07-21-06, 11:16 AM

Smoked Herring. :)
The conservative position is that when I go to Kroger to buy some Cheerios I should be able to do so without being forced to buy every other General Mills product. That being said I don't want Yoplait taken off the shelves just because I'll never buy it.
All this would be a mute point if Kroger sold groups of groceries but Food Lion was right next door selling items individually. Kroger would soon go under.
By the our governments signing exclusive "no compete" contracts with TWC for RDU we will never have a competing cable company come in forcing TWC into a different pricing structure. Just because cable has been operating this way for a while doesn't mean it is fair or the only profitable model.
If I live in a MDU my only option is TWC, if I want ESPN-HD my only option is pay for every other channel TWC offers first.
It is all about cable holding us hostage, not about wanting more government regulation.

Cable operators do not sign "no compete" contracts with franchising agencies. That's illegal. A franchising agency can, at it's discretion, award competing franchises if it so desires, however.....

The big players in the cable industry have wisely decided not to engage in range wars, where Comcast for instance, would apply for a franchise to compete with TWC in a market. That would be suicide.

There is no efficiency in two cable companies overbuilding each other in two markets and ending up with the same net number of subscribers with twice the infrastructure to support.

So exclusivety is a "de facto" result of market conditions, and not a result of regulatory protection or exclusive contracts.

Regulatory agencies look at "the big picture" when awarding franchises, and do not get involved with the incidentals of marketing details.

There is legislation at state and federal levels to totally rewrite franchising rules, spearheaded by the evil telcos who want to overbuild anywhere they feel fit.