I officially have no new news! However, I wanted to have a thread that I could subscribe to. After Ken took away our little "ATT advertising HDTV" thread, I felt that we needed a new little home to gripe and whine about the fact that Comcast still isn't delivering locals.

I will try to get Ken to send out a note to those subscribed to the other thread.

Cheers,
Steve

Good idea...

I just called Comcast. The CSR I spoke with told me that they had recently been given some information regarding HD locals. Specifically, I was told that the delay is not Comcast's "fault", but that of the local networks, which are seeking costly deals that would require Comcast to raise their rates.

I was also told that negotiations are proceeding and that they are "guaranteed" to be over by the end of the year, but that legal issues prevent the disclosure of any other dates or specific networks involved.

I've seen some speculation and mention of negotiations before, but these were the strongest statements I've seen of what appears to be the Comcast company line.

- Mike

Cool....no real news, but somewhere to go to gripe...

:p

Rich

I wonder why Comcast can get this sorted out with many of the local channels in other markets but all of the Seattle stations are playing hardball?

The whole thing is just driving my nuts.

<sarcasm> I can't wait for when we have to convince them that locals have to be sent via unencrypted QAM. </sarcasm>

Arrghhh,
Steve

Originally posted by Tivolicious
<sarcasm> I can't wait for when we have to convince them that locals have to be sent via unencrypted QAM. </sarcasm> Sorry if I missed something, but is this a real concern? Is Comcast is using encrypted QAM for HD locals in other markets?

Originally posted by jimre
Sorry if I missed something, but is this a real concern? Is Comcast is using encrypted QAM for HD locals in other markets?

I was just assuming that we would have a problem. Although it has been a long time since I have looked into this.

-Steve

no new news, but saw this post on hdtvpub...

http://www.hdtvpub.com/local/viewReports.cfm/zipcode_98499/dma_819/cableco_1/

looks like everyone's trying to figure out how to pay for their hdtv transition... :)

Hmmm - if all these stations are acting in concert to squeeze money from Comcast, then it sounds like collusion to me. Perhaps the Justice Dept anti-trust folks would be interested....

I just got off the phone with them, and although they say they are still in negotiation with the channels, they also mentioned they plann on being allowed to broadcast those channels by the end of July.

We'll see.

Originally posted by poppa
I... they also mentioned they plann on being allowed to broadcast those channels by the end of July... Sure, just like they originally told us no later than Q1 2003. I'll believe it when I see it.

Originally posted by drewba
I wonder why Comcast can get this sorted out with many of the local channels in other markets but all of the Seattle stations are playing hardball?

Becuase they got a clue. They spent millions upgrading their facilities for HD. The cable guys NEED local HD content, it's their big club against DBS.

Now that the cable guys NEED HD to compete against DBS some local broadcasters are realizing that what they have has value. If what they have will allow a cable operator to make money and win subscribers back from DBS then why should the local boradcaster provide that content for free?

This is the crux of the issue. A far cry from when cable operators didn't think they needed local channels and had to be forced to carry them under "must-carry" regs. Times change.

"by the end of the year" they say. But not which year.

Personally, I'd pay a premium for my HD locals. Particularly if they were ITC QAM.

-Ian

Originally posted by brente
no new news, but saw this post on hdtvpub...
http://www.hdtvpub.com/local/viewReports.cfm/zipcode_98499/dma_819/cableco_1/


From the liniked post "To get HDTV thru Comcast you will need their HDTV decoder (set-top-box). The one you have won't work. Their compression is probably different (higher) than over-the-air antena."

This is just not true in any of the current markets where HD is carried. They merely forward the ATSC transport stream remodulated as QAM. The last sticking point: carriage of PSIP data has been resolved. When local HD hits cables it should be QAM in the clear with full PSIP goo so any QAM ready box will work and you will get guide data for the DTV feeds.

Originally posted by ianken
Personally, I'd pay a premium for my HD locals. Particularly if they were ITC QAM. I'll second that - but only if they also allow us to get the firewire option on our 5100 boxes (or their successors). Based on a quick sampling, though, it looks like most of their digital chanels are encrypted QAM today. I used the 5100's diagnostics screen to check the "current channel status" for about a dozen non-premium digital channels. Most of them said:

ENC 0x13

which I assume means encrypted (using key number 13 hex?)

Only a few - 101 Weatherscan, and the Music Channels said:

UNE 0x00

which I assume means in the clear.

Originally posted by jimre
I'll second that - but only if they also allow us to get the firewire option on our 5100 boxes (or their successors). Based on a quick sampling, though, it looks like most of their digital chanels are encrypted QAM today. I used the 5100's diagnostics screen to check the "current channel status" for about a dozen non-premium digital channels. Most of them said:

ENC 0x13

which I assume means encrypted (using key number 13 hex?)

Only a few - 101 Weatherscan, and the Music Channels said:

UNE 0x00

which I assume means in the clear.

I think they will be unscrambled QAM merely becuase they've already said that's waht they're going to do. HD set vendors are relying on this, that's why we are starting to see support for QAM cable tuners in HD sets.

A time will come whne "basic cable" will be all digital and ITC.

At least I hope it turns out that way.

I was under the impression that by law they weren't allowed to encrypt OTA channels.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by Tivolicious
I was under the impression that by law they weren't allowed to encrypt OTA channels.
Cheers,
Steve

I'm not sure of the regulatry details but I think that's the end result.

Any further updates on Local availability in the Seattle area???

The only news out of Comcast is that they claim we'll have HD locals by the end of the year.

Not too cheery for those folks who signed up with them when they were AT&T claiming "and comming soon: hd channels you can;t get on satellite."

Their licensing dispute with the local broadcasters still does not explain the lack of DiscoveryHD or PBS-HD.

Originally posted by ianken
The only news out of Comcast is that they claim we'll have HD locals by the end of the year.

Not too cheery for those folks who signed up with them when they were AT&T claiming "and comming soon: hd channels you can;t get on satellite."

Their licensing dispute with the local broadcasters still does not explain the lack of DiscoveryHD or PBS-HD.

You didn't mention ESPN-HD. Do they carry it?

Cheers,
Steve

I happened to call on another matter and asked about hdtv locals. was told that they expect them in the next couple of months (i've seen posted elsewhere maybe by end of june?). sounds like maybe sooner than "end of year".

I also asked about others like espn & discovery and was told the normal line "still working on contracts".

Originally posted by Tivolicious
You didn't mention ESPN-HD. Do they carry it?
Cheers,
Steve

Nope.

AT&T told me December, back in November.

Comcast told me March, back in January. Then they told me April/May, back in February. I'm not sure I believe any of their "two months out" estimates. I suspect those dates are pulled out of thin air to placate the customer.

It's easier for me. Since I'm not a Comcast customer [yet], they don't get any of my money until they provide something I want to buy. I feel bad for those that are already spending the money, and living without what was promised. They'll come through at some point, though, and the frustration will fade. That's what Comcast is counting on, at least.

--Mike

Message on my Comcast box this morning announcing an agreement with Fox Sports Northwest to broadcast a "Package" of Mariner games in HDTV starting in June. Since this is a Fox station, I suppose it will be in their low res HDTV!! It will still be great. Didn't say when in June.

KCPQ-DT actually transmits 1080i. They have shown other programs in 1080i in the past, including Seahawks preseason games, Rose Parades, and maybe more.

All Mariners home games are already sent HDTV to Japan, so it is conceivable that they might do 1080i and not 480p.

Did Comcast give any schedule of HD games yet? I may have to add their HD box to my basic cable package.

Some additional information regarding the Mariners games in HDTV:

1st game: June 11th @ 7:05pm Pacific
Channel 100

Here are all the M's games on comcast channel 100 in HD

June:
11th Montreal 7:05
12th Montreal 7:05
13th Atlanta 7:05
28th San Diego 7:05
29th San Diego 1:05
July:
9th Baltimore 7:05
10th Baltimore 7:05
11th Tampa Bay 7:05
13th Tampa Bay 1:05
24th Oalkland 7:05
27th Texas 1;05
August:
2nd Chicago 7:05
3rd Chicago 1:05
15th Boston 7:05
17th Boston 1:05
31st Baltimore 1:05
September:
14th Anaheim 1:05
26th Oakland 7:05
28th Oakland 1;05

Of course I only have directv and expressvu so I won't be seeing these but this in great new from Comcast and the Mariners games in HD.

Keith

Does anyone have details for how to order these from Comcast? I don't want their HBO-HD or Showtime-HD, but I would be interested in Mariners and possibly local stations.

I think you just call them and ask for a Motorola 5100 box. If you don't already, you MAY need to subscribe to Digital Cable, but not HBO/ShowTime-HD.

Thanks Art, I will give it a try.

As soon as I heard about it I ordered the new box to replace our older box and they'll be out tomorrow. No added fee, so I'll be checking out the M's on the 11th!

I called Comcast to inquire about the Mariners HDTV capability.

Since I have internet and basic cable only (no digital cable or box) they tell me I have to subscribe to one of their digital packages to get the box and the Mariners. The least expensive package is $12/month more than the basic cable I get today. Plus, they want $16 one time to install the box (or I can pick it up at their store, install it myself for no charge).

I have not decided if I want to pay for a box or not to see up to 19 HD Mariners games (if I am even home to see them).

Originally posted by Malcolm_B
As soon as I heard about it I ordered the new box to replace our older box and they'll be out tomorrow. No added fee, so I'll be checking out the M's on the 11th!

So, tell me, where is Otisburg?

I thought this package would be an extra charge, but it is included for "free"! Finally, something other than HBO-HD since last Fall ...

the comcast CSR i'm talking to right now read off the "white Paper" for this release, it will be broadcast in 1080i.

so, i'm probably going to sign up for digital cable so i can get this package.
any chance the motorola DCT5100 that they supply (in seattle) has the DVI output? the CSR is pretty confused about the hardware so I'm hoping someone here might know? also, i thought i read somewhere that the DCT5100 can also function as a cable modem for my highspeed internet service?

also
they have a promotional offer that is $9.99 over basic extended cable for the digital package, price moves to $11.99 additional after september. free installation. (basic cable $36.99 + $9.99 = $46.98)

also, she said that customers CAN NOT pick up the DCT5100 from their outlets (is this true?) and they are booked solid for installations all through next week, soonest I got was friday the 13th at noon. :(

Nope, the 5100 doesn't have the DVI output, and the cable modem option isn't enabled / available in seattle at this time (the installer that came to my house didn't even know it could work as a cable modem).

The new boxes have to be properly provisioned before service, as does the HDTV service (a separate "hit" in my case). I just had my old sidecar setup replaced with the 5100 a month ago or so, and it took a couple of "hits" to get everything working properly.

Rich

a couple of "hits"??
i'm not privy to your lingo
yo
but, thanks for the info
on the 5100

is this something the install person was able to do on the spot ("provisioned") or are you saying it took several appointments ("hits"?) to get the kinks worked out?

sorry for being cryptic.

A "hit" is when they call into the central office (CO) and have them send a signal to the box to reset it (starting new service). this can be done onsite by the tech (they'll call in) and only takes a minute or two. Provisioning is essentially a "hit" to enable new service.

One service call should be all you need for adding the service.

rich

dammit!

I'm getting the mariner's game in HD, but it's all stuttery...every 3 secs or so it breaks up or stutters!

This is why I took the antenna off the roof and got HD from comcast....ack!

Any one else having this problem? My other HD channels are fine, as are all of my other analog and digital channels (101 for instance)....

Rich

My reception over Comcast is just fine, no stutters at all.

It seems to be a regional thing...I'm in the shoreline area (northwest shoreline - near s edmonds)...there's another guy who's having the same problem as me...

Rich

that's me. It's like it pauses for about half a second and runs for a second and a half over and over.

My cable modem went out for a few minutes just now too. Hopefull because they are working on it

Picture perfect! It was wonderful, although I wasn't as pleased with the production.

1. The score bar was lower and the picture framed higher so they kept fading the score bar in and out to keep from cutting off heads. Kind of annoying.
2. Very few replays, had to keep switching to catch replays like Cameron's home run and Guillen's out on the double steal. A lot of the replays were an inning old during breaks.
3. No player stats.

These didn't keep me from switching back immediately to the gorgeous HDTV picture!

Finally- I get to experience what I paid for in my HDTV/Comcast setup. It was a beautiful image. Too bad the Mariners lost.

My main complaint pertains to the way the production people kept jumping back and forth between replays and live action, and at some times you had no idea if what you were seeing was a replay or live.

Looking forward to tonight's game.

Here's a quote from another thread re: the mariners last nite (started by one of the engineers of the broadcast....


A little backround.

We are taking camera feeds from the HDTV mobile unit that is here for the NHK broadcast which is being broadcast to Japan. Though we are cutting our own show and mixing our own audio with the announcers from the analog FSN show, we have no control of the shots from the NHK cameramen. So some of the shots will not match the announcers.

This will improve as we do more show this year.


so, it makes sense that teh commentary and video were sometimes out of synch....still looked great though (despite the stuttering).

Cheers,

Rich

Originally posted by artpease
Picture perfect! It was wonderful, although I wasn't as pleased with the production.

1. The score bar was lower and the picture framed higher so they kept fading the score bar in and out to keep from cutting off heads. Kind of annoying.


Wow, what a great picture! I had no stuttering.

I liked the way they faded the score bar in and out ... most of the time there was a clean, clear picture, and they would put up the score card for a pitch. So you always knew what the situation was, and the clear picture made it feel like you were there!

The wife was impressed also. She wasn't as impressed with HBO-HD.

Anyone notice the half-page Comcast ad on the Mariners HD broadcasts in Thursday's PI sports section?

"Coming soon, PBS and other hi-def broadcasts not available anywhere else"

So does this mean we shouldn't be expecting ABC, NBC or CBS in HD from Comcast anytime soon? What does the "other hi-def broadcasts not available anywhere else" mean? MLB All star game?

I still have the old sidecar box, someone had said before that att would be contacting us.. and they never did.. but i also read some people weren't exactly pleased with their 5100 boxes.. Should i call in and get it or just stick with the sidecar? Am i going to get any wierd effects with the new box? (like the box does the stretching of pictures to fit my 16:9 tv? cuz my Pioneer 64sd5 does great stretching on its own)...

Will i definatley NEED that 5100 instead of what i've got?

Jinx,

I was eventually forced to upgrade to the 5100....my sidecar stopped receiving HD content altogether. In my local area, they made changes to the HD system that made the sidecar setup not work, and require a replacement.

As far as the difference? I now use the 5100 component output for both SD and HD content. I have the 5100 output 480i for the SD, and 1080i for the HD content (so I dont' have to switch inputs to watch HD content). The SD content via component is a little lower quality than via the composite connection (and I hear they're working on it), but I am willing to give up a small bit of quality for the convenience of not having to switch input for HD.

If you'd rather stay with your "old" setup (HD via component, SD via composite/svid) that's possible too with the 5100......

my guess is that eventually, you'll HAVE to get the 5100, but if you're currently happy, then I don't know that there's a real compelling reason to do so.

Cheers,

Rich

well cant really be unhappy cuz we are not even using the sidecare (no hdtv cuz they wont add any channels and hbo and showtime are rip off's) so were not out anything.. but it sounds like i will still able to output it out at 480i which would let my tv do the stretching, then whenever we switch to a 1080i channel it will automatically switch and then be widescreen or whatever the cable company is forcing it out at..

tho my tv doesn do 720p (i guess i didnt research every single thing before buying) so i asume the box would just upconvert it?

If there isn't any cons compared to the sidecare box then i'll just call them and get it switched before the 28th comes cuz we wouldn't wana miss the mariners game! (i didnt know they were actually doing it before so i missed the first 3 games)...

Originally posted by William_Lin
So does this mean we shouldn't be expecting ABC, NBC or CBS in HD from Comcast anytime soon? What does the "other hi-def broadcasts not available anywhere else" mean? MLB All star game?

Seahawks exhibition games have been in HD the past few years, but I see they are on KCPQ (Fox) this year. Is there any chance an HD signal could be made available to Comcast this year? Even if it's a PPV broadcast, it would be a great way to promote Comcast HD and the Seahawks.

Originally posted by Jinx

If there isn't any cons compared to the sidecare box then i'll just call them and get it switched before the 28th comes cuz we wouldn't wana miss the mariners game! (i didnt know they were actually doing it before so i missed the first 3 games)...

I don't know of any problems with the 5100 box. I love it compared to the old digital cable box! Still, I can't wait til they get ones with HD recording functionality.

The only complaint I have with the 5100 is the quality of the SD channels when output over component (I'm using 480i output over component to my plasma). The pq is grainy compared to the composite input of the same channel.

However, the added convenience of not having to change to a different input to view HD material is priceless...so I deal with the slight quality loss.

Also, has anyone else been seeing the comcast HD commercials touting PBS as "Coming Soon"?

Cheers,

Rich

Had Comcast Tech out today...some idiot put a filter on our line blocking channels 2-99. While he was out he replaced the sidecar setup with the 5100 and so far I like the channel switching a bit better than the black screen in between channels.

He said PBS was the next channel to come, and while he was here we saw the commercial for it. That was the first time I had seen it advertised other than on the print ad with the M's game schedule.

Originally posted by Roto
I don't know of any problems with the 5100 box. I love it compared to the old digital cable box! Still, I can't wait til they get ones with HD recording functionality.



It cant be possible that our cable company would give us boxes that recording capabilities not to mention in HD recording capability can it?

There are HD vcr's and stuff but i dont know nuttin about them, but sometimes i feel like recording whatever i can just to watch it later in HD :) that and we are going to the mariners game on the 29th and i wouldn't mind recording it in case we are on TV (cuz now we will be able to ACTUALLY see our faces on the non blurry set!!)

The current 5100 doesn't have recording capability at all...it CAN have a firewire port that can be connected to a D-VHS machine for recording, but I've never heard of a 5100 where the firewire was installed/active.

The 6100 is the upcoming "recording" HD box...it will have internal HD's (like a tivo) and will be capable of recording both SD and HD content.....it's still in a beta phase and is not in use anywhere that I know of.

Rich

The current 5100 doesn't have recording capability at all...it CAN have a firewire port that can be connected to a D-VHS machine for recording, but I've never heard of a 5100 where the firewire was installed/active.

I'm down in the SF Bay Area in CA, but moving soon back to the Seattle area. What hardware do your boxes have concerning HD video output? Here, we have DVI although it has not yet been enabled. They've opted for DVI over firewire at this time. But it's sort of one or the other with the 5100's.

The 5100s being deployed by comcast in Seattle have YPbPr analog output only. No DVI.

And who knows if Comcast will deploy the DVR capable boxes (Mot makes several)?

Talking to folks in the cable industry they're still chasing the VOD and Interactive TV lemmings. Ten plus years of Interactive TV failures and the simple math that says there's not enough bandwidth to feed VOD to a metropolitain area has not yet sunk in. The only new TV technology that's been any kind of success in the USA is DVR and they are not exactly scrambling to deploy it in the STBs.

Does anybody know what kind of cable plant Gig Harbor has? (like 550 or 750, etc)

I'm under the impression that parts of the town have high-speed internet access through cable, but that doesn't tell me decisively the type of cable plant that's there. I'm moving into the area and am looking at Gig Harbor. I really need to have high-speed internet and would prefer to have HDTV access through cable.

Originally posted by brvheart
Does anybody know what kind of cable plant Gig Harbor has? (like 550 or 750, etc)

I'm under the impression that parts of the town have high-speed internet access through cable, but that doesn't tell me decisively the type of cable plant that's there. I'm moving into the area and am looking at Gig Harbor. I really need to have high-speed internet and would prefer to have HDTV access through cable.

I can't tell you about the cable, but be aware of the traffic on the Tacoma Narrows bridge if you look in Gig Harbor and commute to the east side of the Narrows. I have a couple of co-workers who live past Gig Harbor and commute to Federal Way. There have been plenty of days when a 45 minute drive is 2 plus hours due to congestion going over the bridge.

Yeah, I was just informed about the traffic by my friend living in Tacoma. I'm leaving the Bay Area to escape the stress of overpopulation and traffic HERE... Wouldn't be much of an escape I guess.

I just ran into this comment from Don Wilkinson of Fisher Communications, KOMO-TV & KOMO-DT. It's actually an older quote from May, but it is another voice speaking of negotiations that is NOT Comcast's:
(link follows quote)

Title: Comments from KOMO Channel 4

I received the following email from Channel 4 regarding discussions between Comcast and Channel 4:

Good morning Dan -

The negotiations with Comcast are progressing, but it would not be
appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

There are several issues being discussed. Among them are how much of the digital signal will be carried on the cable. KCTS, for example, is now
multicasting four channels, dividing the 19.39 Mb into parts for the various
programs. Nationally, cable systems are reluctant to carry everything that
the broadcasters can put into that bandwidth.

These issues should be resolved before too long.

In the meantime, over-the-air digital broadcasts are available free for the
taking. KOMO offers without a subscription charge local and ABC network programs, available in most Seattle area locations on channel 38 by
connecting your DTV receiver to an outside antenna.

Best regards,

Don Wilkinson
Fisher Communications
KOMO-TV, KOMO-DT

http://www.hdtvpub.com/reception/viewReports.cfm/zipcode_98101/dma_819/

I have had many communications (email) with Don Wilkinson regarding HDTV issues for KOMO-DT and ABC DD 5.1 audio.

Don is always courteous and responsive, and he appreciates feedback on how the KOMO-DT HDTV programming is working for us viewers. He was instrumental in eliminating the need to switch from primary to secondary audio to receive DD 5.1 on ABC broadcasts.

I suspect there are many more folks at other stations just like Don. I just have not had the pleasure of continuing communications with others except for Ron Diotte at KSTW, who has also been extremely cooperative with me.

Spoke with a representative a few days ago when i called to have them come switch out our sidebox for a 5100.. She said channel 9 (KCTS) will be in HDTV starting next week.. (not sure if she means the week after this one or THIS next week like tomorrow) But thats definately sooner then soon.. Of course i'm still totally 100% skeptic untill i SEE It on my tv.. but thats what she said..

Originally posted by Jinx
Spoke with a representative a few days ago when i called to have them come switch out our sidebox for a 5100.. She said channel 9 (KCTS) will be in HDTV starting next week.. (not sure if she means the week after this one or THIS next week like tomorrow) But thats definately sooner then soon.. Of course i'm still totally 100% skeptic untill i SEE It on my tv.. but thats what she said..

I don't get what the delay here is. KOMO was one of the first in the country to have a full HD facility and local broadcasts. And with the all technophiles around and massive amount of early technology adopters in the Snohomish / King County areas (thanks Microsoft, Boeing, et.al.), Comcast should have been piping HD local here ages ago.

I'm with you Jinx, I saw an ad last year promising HD channels and "channels not available on any dish!" Until I see it, it's vaporware.


/frustrated HD viewer sans OTA signal....damn hills!!!!!!

Originally posted by generationxwing
I don't get what the delay here is. KOMO was one of the first in the country to have a full HD facility and local broadcasts. And with the all technophiles around and massive amount of early technology adopters in the Snohomish / King County areas (thanks Microsoft, Boeing, et.al.), Comcast should have been piping HD local here ages ago.

I'm with you Jinx, I saw an ad last year promising HD channels and "channels not available on any dish!" Until I see it, it's vaporware.


/frustrated HD viewer sans OTA signal....damn hills!!!!!!

I share your pain!

I think we need a support group or something..... ;)

I am lucky enough to get all local DTV stations OTA. Otherwise, I would be all over Comcast with the rest of you.

The only possible reason for me to go Comcast HDTV right now would be for the Mariners games, but I will be out of town for many of them, so it does not make sense to spend the money to get their digital package to watch just a few HD Mariners games.

I am curious about just where the hang-ups are in these negotiations. I'm sure that it is all or mostly financial issues. Comcast should be able to get use OTA to receive and "remodulate" the DTV channels. Of course, equipment to accomplish that does not come free.

Originally posted by Budget_HT
I am curious about just where the hang-ups are in these negotiations. I'm sure that it is all or mostly financial issues. I agree with you. Comcast has managed to resolve all these issues and provide HD locals in dozens of other cities to date. What the heck is SO DIFFERENT about the Seattle stations? The guy from KOMO might be a very nice guy, but his statements like "...There are several issues being discussed. Among them are how much of the digital signal will be carried on the cable. KCTS, for example, is now multicasting four channels, dividing the 19.39 Mb into parts for the various programs. Nationally, cable systems are reluctant to carry everything that the broadcasters can put into that bandwidth..." just don't ring true. Technical issues like these have all been resolved in other cities. For our Seattle area TV stations - it's all about money, plain & simple. Prior to Comcast, AT&T Broadband foolishly pre-advertised local HD station availablity, and so those stations now feel they have some leverage to extort Comcast into helping pay off their HD investments. They're playing hardball.

Sounds like the locals are playing the old "Carry all the digital signals or none at all", while cable is not interested in any signal other than the HDTV signal. The other digital signals are usually just clones of the analog signal, and cable would rather use that space to carry Shop at Home or other digital channels.

Of course, our Comcast system has multiple SAH and ACTN shopping channel slots, or Fox Sports Digital channels. I'd rather have digital KIRO or KING than those channels. Eliminate some of the PPV channels and replace them with the digital locals, and that should clear the requirement.

On KCTS starting next week - cable usually likes to launch new services after June 30, usually in conjunction with an increase in rates, so this would have been my guess. It would be nice if we could get it before the 4th of July, so we could get whatever concerts or fireworks displays are scheduled in HD.

Do they do fireworks on KCTS?(never watched it on the 4th).. Not that i'll be home to watch it though..

I would be surprised to see fireworks on KCTS-HD, unless they are coming in from somewhere via PBS. In prior years, KOMO and KING have covered fireworks. Let's see if they will do any in HD this year.

I haven't seen any announcement (not that I've looked) but PBS usually does the 4th celebration from Washington D.C., would be nice if they also did it in HD this year....


not that I can watch.........damn hills! :)

Well regardless of which, I didnt get any messages on my box so far about KCTS being in HD so like I said, why trust em now? The CSR's haven't known $hit up till now, why would now be any different.. So dont get your hopes too high that its coming this week or next or the next and so on.. It COULD and then maybe we all might have a little restored faith in ATT or comcast or who/whatever they call themselfs now a days.. but untill then, skeptic I remain! :)

Someone quoted a KOMO guy as saying:
"...There are several issues being discussed. Among them are how much of the digital signal will be carried on the cable. KCTS, for example, is now multicasting four channels, dividing the 19.39 Mb into parts for the various programs. Nationally, cable systems are reluctant to carry everything that the broadcasters can put into that bandwidth..."

This is just wrong. KCTS has two services in their OTA ATSC multiplex: a 14mbps (approx) HD feed (that doesn't look all that great) and a SD 480i feed. In the evenings they have two hours of programming. Their plan was to switch all 19.2mbps to HD during prime time HD programming.

Alas, KCTS is pretty much broke, crushed under indept managemnt if you belive waht they say in the press.

The fact is the main stickler has been carriage of psip data, the in-band guide information that all broadcasters are required to carry. The cable operators did not want to do this becuase if they provided this data and the locals in the clear then folks could use generic STBs, get guide data and not need the comcast boxes for anthing other than premium offerings.

This has been resolved.

The final hurdle is that the local broadcasters want comcast to pay them for their signals. They spent millions upgrading their facilities to handle HD and want to share that pain with Comcast. They fail to see why they should provide, for free, what many see as the cable industries ace in the hole against DBS in the future: HD locals.

At least that's how I read it based on my conversations with various folks in the engineering side of the business.

Well just got our 5100 box today, pretty snazzy looking.. whats all this stuff for? USB, smart card reader? anyways??

when i asked the tech about kcts he was like "I dont know, you know as much as i do"... That sounds like the good old cable company were used too! clueless as ever!

he was surprised to see the sidecar.. "I haven't seen one of these old sidecars for a while!" whats it been a few months? he acted like its been years..

Jinx -- At least your installer had seen a sidecar and a 5100. I stopped my installer when he insisted on plugging the component video leads into the 5100's audio jacks -- he acknowledged that he had never seen component video before.

As I'm sure you've heard elsewhere, the USB, smart card, DVI and audio-in jacks are all currently non-functional. For more info, I highly recommend the Moto5100 FAQ published by Miatasm (see the HDTV hardware forum) -- he is a Comcast tech who really knows his stuff! -- Stew

Okay sweet thanks i'll check it out.. Reconfirmation that KCTS is supposed to be here this week (talked to service rep different one, said it is supposed to be here by months end) .. .we've never heard that before have we!! :)

I swear my picture looks a little grainer with this 5100..

Jinx,

what connections are you using? If you're watching SD via component, then yes, the picture is definately grainier....

If your using the composite for SD, then it might be your imagination...hard to tell....

cheers,

rich

I am considering HD via Comcast (in Shoreline/Edmonds rebuild) but will need a VGA signal.
1. Has anyone gone this route?
2. Did Comcast provide the transcoder?
3. Can I order basic cable + a la carte HBO HD?

TIA

Still no mention of local channels, or DiscoveryHD? To be honest, I'd rather seen DiscoveryHD than PBS-HD. I love documentaries, but I haven't watched PBS in years.

Originally posted by JasG
I am considering HD via Comcast (in Shoreline/Edmonds rebuild) but will need a VGA signal.
1. Has anyone gone this route?
2. Did Comcast provide the transcoder?
3. Can I order basic cable + a la carte HBO HD?

TIA

1. I'm sure there are, you might check the Home Theater section. But you would need a Component to VGA adapter.

2. You rent it from them.

3. AFAIK from their web site, nope.

I would personally wait until they have more than a handful of Mariner games and two subscription channels before going w/ Comcast for HD. If you're in a good antenna signal area you can get all the locals digitally right now. Unlike some of us...*sigh*

Funny thing is, I recently got an X1 and set it up in the living room; when I had the OTA HD in the family room I had trouble getting strong signal, but once it was hooked up to the X1 in the living room I was getting 100 across the board! The move from one room to the next was fantastic! Can't wait to check out CSI tonight! Although I still use the Mits for the Comcast Mariners games in HD, the OTA is far superior. And KING is showing their 4th of July fireworks telecast in HD, so I am so there!

I am using the blue red green ones, i allways get them confused component composite whatever, way too similar of words...



you can get their silver package which is like all the channels plus HB (HD come swith the hbo package).. its like 59 or 69 a month or some outragous crap like that :)

that's component....yep, there's a known "bug" with the sd channels over the component connection......it's a bit grainy.

supposedly they're working on it.

Rich

ditto my experience with SD graininess via component -- if you have a TiVo, Replay or some other tuner you can still split the signal and use your alternate tuner for channels 1-99...and trade the graininess of the 5100's up-convert for maybe some TiVo MPEG artifacts!

stew

JasG,

If you are considering OTA instead of Comcrap, I can check your line-of-site to the DT towers and see if it is really an option. Many people buy equipment only to find that there is a hill somewhere between them and the towers. Post your nearst intersection.

Larry

Thanks all.

I have great OTA currently - just need HBO and would like it in HD.

CC just told me that HBO 'a la carte' is $16 + $5 'digital' box rental. No signup for the full digital cable needed. $21 bucks for 1 premium channel!!Used to cost me $10 for HBO/Showtime - then ATT bought the system.

Compression on Digital cable sucks - been there, done that.

I then asked about HDTV boxes, they claimed that the 'digital' box is the same box as for HDTV.

I asked about the transcoder (in simple English) or DVI and after being bumped up 2 levels - was told that they don't provide any such thing.....

(my projector will not accept Component HD - only VGA or DVI)

JasG - basic cable customer for now (satellite is not an option)

Originally posted by JasG
Compression on Digital cable sucks - been there, done that. ALL hi-definition television here in the US is digital and compressed. HDTV on cable is no different from HDTV over the air. Assuming someday Comcast actually does give us HD locals, it will be the exact same bits as OTA.

jimre - Yep, I know about HDTV - but the compression on 'digital' NTSC is the sucky part.

I mean to say "Home Theater PC" section.....famn digners let me down again :)

Originally posted by JasG
Thanks all.

I have great OTA currently - just need HBO and would like it in HD.

CC just told me that HBO 'a la carte' is $16 + $5 'digital' box rental. No signup for the full digital cable needed. $21 bucks for 1 premium channel!!Used to cost me $10 for HBO/Showtime - then ATT bought the system.

Compression on Digital cable sucks - been there, done that.

I then asked about HDTV boxes, they claimed that the 'digital' box is the same box as for HDTV.

I asked about the transcoder (in simple English) or DVI and after being bumped up 2 levels - was told that they don't provide any such thing.....

(my projector will not accept Component HD - only VGA or DVI)

JasG - basic cable customer for now (satellite is not an option)


My new 5100 box has no DVI or VGA out on it anywhere (that i can see anyways).. only component and SVIDEO that i notice.. Fortunately for me that makes me happy cuz my TV dont even support DVI :)

Trying to watch the Mariners on Comcast right now but there is tons of tearing. HBO and Showtime are ok, just not 100. The first game they did stuttered every 2 seconds, this one just the picture goes blocky all the time. The 2 other games against Atlanta were perfect.

Update: it's progressively gotten better over the last half hour. Looks like it may have stopped completely

Just watched the game.. was perfect here in kirkland the whole time.. very very very very nice picture, we flipped back and forth and the regular cable picture was UDDERLY terrible! stinky nasty gross!! it looked like 10 year old VHS tape quality.. like some of the crappy crappy replays you see on sports shows from games across the us and the picture quality is fuzzy grainy nasty.. night and day difference...

now if we can just get PBS and a few others.. I guess they have till tuesday before this month is over and their words become a lie again?

BTW did anyone get messages on their boxes a while ago telling them the mariners games would be on channel 100 in hd? we never got ANYTHING.. i'm just curious how we'd know if they did put PBS up..

Originally posted by JasG
Compression on Digital cable sucks - been there, done that.


This is true for the basic digital channels. However, the premium channels such as HBO and SHO are less compressed and look better.

I've noticed recently that analog channels such as Bravo are looking more and more like digital channels. You can see pixellation at times. Maybe I'm just more sensitized to it after getting a large screen and watching some amount of HD programming.

Not that *I* or we are suprised but its a new month and now PBS was NOT delivered to me as far as I can find on my cable box.. If anyone else has it or has found it let us know please.. But it looks like the CSR's OR comcast has lied and once again failed to delivery something they promised to consumers...I wont yell too much, they probably told their csr's end of june as a ruff estimate but this is getting pathetic.. reminds me of that computer game 'duke nukem forever' thats been getting pushed back for 5 years now :)

Originally posted by Jinx
Not that *I* or we are suprised but its a new month and now PBS was NOT delivered to me as far as I can find on my cable box.. If anyone else has it or has found it let us know please.. But it looks like the CSR's OR comcast has lied and once again failed to delivery something they promised to consumers...I wont yell too much, they probably told their csr's end of june as a ruff estimate but this is getting pathetic.. reminds me of that computer game 'duke nukem forever' thats been getting pushed back for 5 years now :)


Say it ain't so! How will I ever get by without that feed of the Market and the odd people in the lower levels?

How the HELL can PBS be a problem to get? Isn't this the PUBLIC Broadcasting System? Don't tell me that they are demanding money.

This whole thing is ridiculous. It should be illegal to charge the cable companies for a signal that is free. This should be the test: If you can't get the signal with rabbit ears, cable should have free re-broadcast rights.

We seem to be in a nowhere land. We have all the downsides of must-carry without any of the upsides. If the stations are going to be able to hold the cable companies hostage, we should get the other part too (if you can't receive a signal, sat can sell you one). Instead they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Now you've done it. I seem to be pissed about the situation. I want all the channels and I want them NOW. I also want them to be modulated with 8vsb not QAM. I want a DirecTivoHD box AND I want the 6xxx series Motorola box. Pissed I tell you. I'm pissed!

Well, I'm not quite as pissed as you, but agree with the POV. Between cable and high-speed internet, it's a lot of money to watch the occasional HD movie.

As a technology marketing guy, it amazes me that Comcast keeps pre-announcing this stuff when they apparently don't have a firm launch date. Violates Rule #6 in the Handbook. We wouldn't be bitching about PBS if they hadn't yanked us around...and it only gives KING/KIRO/KOMO more negotiating power! sigh.

Originally posted by Tivolicious
I also want them to be modulated with 8vsb not QAM. I want a DirecTivoHD box AND I want the 6xxx series Motorola box. Pissed I tell you. I'm pissed!

8VSB is a waste of bandwidth on cable. You might as well demand it be delivered via Morse Code.

The cable standard is QAM. We're gonna have to deal with it.

On the bright side the locals, whenever they get here, should be in the clear QAM. Now we just need a QAM capable PC solution.

My gawd in heaven.....I'm just thankful for DirecTVs new HD package.....

Maybe I will build that 200 ft mast to get OTA locals, I bet I can get it zoned, approved and built before Comcast delivers HD locals ;)

Originally posted by ianken
8VSB is a waste of bandwidth on cable. You might as well demand it be delivered via Morse Code.

The cable standard is QAM. We're gonna have to deal with it.

On the bright side the locals, whenever they get here, should be in the clear QAM. Now we just need a QAM capable PC solution.

Oh I know. I wasn't actually serious about 8VSB. I was just on a roll and currently there isn't a PC HD card that does QAM. I'm just sick of the whole situation.

I want the ability to time-shift a reliable local signal and I am stopped at every turn. That's all.

Secretly (well not really) I want DirecTivoHD to support QAM.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by generationxwing
My gawd in heaven.....I'm just thankful for DirecTVs new HD package.....

Maybe I will build that 200 ft mast to get OTA locals, I bet I can get it zoned, approved and built before Comcast delivers HD locals ;)

Maybe you can recover your tower costs by renting space to cellular phone companies. For that matter, they are experienced in getting permits and constructing towers. Let Western Wireless or someone take on the whole job for you and discount their rent for the help in placing and aiming your TV antenna. Just be sure that the antenna is both VHF and UHF so it still works for you after the stations start using their VHF channels for digital transmission.

Exciting NEWS!!!!

Kiro HD, Komo HD, KING HD, and Fox HD are all available via satellite!!

Not so exciting news -- It's for the Canadian market.

It is ridiculous that comcast can't get this done.

-Steve

You say that the Seattle Locals, in HD even, are available via satellite but to Canada.

What service in Canada is offering this?

That's what this* thread seems to indicate.

* http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164671

Originally posted by mwnorman
You say that the Seattle Locals, in HD even, are available via satellite but to Canada.

What service in Canada is offering this?

There ar eonly two up there, Bell Expressview and Starchoice. I know one of them is offering the Seattle locals.

It is a shame when the folks up north can watch wahtever US HD goo their providers can score for them but those of us who are actually in the city where this stuff is broadcast cannot.

Hills + UHF + 8VSB == No watch HD for me.

AHH...Bell Expressvu is offering it! And their equipment is the DishNetwork equipment. I have Dishnet...wonder if I can tune in?

Anyway,
WOW...Canada gets our Seattle Stations in HD before us. Quite sad.

They seem to be adopted HD broadcast (although over satellite) faster than us. All for a country that hasn't yet officially adopted HDTV standards.

Back on topic here for a minute.. I was watching the M's on regular cable the other day and a family member swore a commercial came on saying the mariners were on HDTV and also said PBS.. They couldn't be sure if it said COMING soon or if it said it was already available or not... I ASUME it said COMING SOON just like those commercials 6 months ago that said "And SOON other local channels!"... anyone else see this commercial to comfirm?

Yes, the commercials say KCTS is coming soon.

Originally posted by Roto
Yes, the commercials say KCTS is coming soon.

But who cares? KCTS has been run into the ground with inept managent and airs at most 2 hours of HD content a day, in the past they had hours and hours. KCTS has gone from one of the premier producers of content for the PBS system to a wanna-be with no cash.

October 2002
"Coming soon"

December 2002
"Coming soon, channels not available on satellite!"

January 2003
"Coming soon, channels not available on satellite and HDTV!"

February 2003
"Coming soon"

March 2003
"Coming soon"

May 2003
"Baseball in HDTV...oh, and other stuff coming soon"

June 2003
"By the end of the month. KCTS HD"

Coming soon, my 200 foot tower to finally give me a clear line of site to the towers....

I'll beat Comcast with Digital / HD Locals.

generationxwing:

Well said and very accurate from my recollection!

Keep us posted on your tower efforts.

Perhaps you could form a community access television system to enable your neighbors to also get those same OTA DTV channels that are beyond their normal OTA reception capabilities.

Oh wait! That's where cable came from. How dumb of me!

generationxwing:

If you build that 200' tower, can you run a 10 mile cable out to my apartment in U-Dist/Ravenna area? Sweet. Thanks. :)

Andy

*lol* Dave....priceless :)

*pirate stance*

There shall be free OTA for all my men! Huzzah!

Andy,

I take it that you think you can't get OTA at your place. If you care to post your nearest intersection I can check your line of site to QA and Capitol Hill. It may not be as bad as you think! Most of that area can get OTA.

Larry

Larry-

It is bad. I'm on the corner of Ravenna and Roosevelt in an east-facing 3rd floor apartment (facing Roosevelt--bit of a busy street). I have both rabbit ears and a 4 bow-tie channel master--I bought all of this stuff when I lived in a house in Greenlake--before the Boeing lay-off :) . I digress--I have mutlipath comin' out my...ears. I have an attenuator--it doesn't help. Roof mount is not an option. I don't have a very good line of sight to QA or Cap Hill from my east-facing balcony.

I suppose I could call a professional installer to come out and see if they can do anything, but seriously, they can run you upwards of $300! Yow!

So--200 foot tower? Rock on.

Andy

Larry,
Can you tell if I have a chance at OTA HDTV reception? I'm in Issaquah, on Sunset Ct NW near the intersection of Sunset Way and Newport Way.

leewalk,

In Issaquah you have high-speed internet and HDTV available through cable right? (has nothing to do with the issue at hand, I'm just considering moving)

Larry:

I'm also in the Greenlake/Roosevelt area and would be interested in your analysis. I mapped it myself (using TopoUSA) and things looked pretty bad.

I'm near 5th ave NE and NE 63rd Ave.

There is a hill directly south of me (in the way of the towers going to Queen Anne).

alex

KOMO 4 ran a spot this morning espousing their *FREE* HD channel. Just put up a UHF antenna and ...uhem... an HD receiver and you can get free HD on Channel 38.

I'm not sure who they are tweaking on the nose with this ad, but I have my guesses. Perhaps this means that the channel won't be free on Comcast, if and when they get it.

Makes me happy that the house I bought 30 years ago happens to be high enough in elevation to receive very HD channel available today in the greater Seattle area.

Originally posted by Al Shing
KOMO 4 ran a spot this morning espousing their *FREE* HD channel. Just put up a UHF antenna and ...uhem... an HD receiver and you can get free HD on Channel 38.

I'm not sure who they are tweaking on the nose with this ad, but I have my guesses. Perhaps this means that the channel won't be free on Comcast, if and when they get it.

I think, by law, Comcast is not allowed to charge for OTA signals. It is the reason that I pay only $12 for my basic-basic cable.

Cheers,
Steve

leewalk, I'm in Issaquah, south of 90, near the zoo. I can't get reception here, and I think you might have more mountain between you and the towers than I do.

brvheart, Cable and DSL yes, HDTV the same as anywhere else in the area (meaning no locals).

--Mike

Originally posted by Tivolicious
I think, by law, Comcast is not allowed to charge for OTA signals. It is the reason that I pay only $12 for my basic-basic cable.

Cheers,
Steve

Wait a minute - so you are paying $12 for those free basic channels that Comcast is forbidden by law to charge for?

Seriously, there probably aren't enough HD subs out there to pay for whatever fee Comcast needs to pay to carry KOMO, even if they did make it a pay tier, so the solution is to not carry the channel at all.

Somebody - KOMO or Comcast, needs to get off the snide and change their stance, or this will be a Mexican standoff for years. And neither side wants that to happen.

Originally posted by Al Shing
Somebody - KOMO or Comcast, needs to get off the snide and change their stance, or this will be a Mexican standoff for years. And neither side wants that to happen.

Talk to KOMO. And the others. They spent big bucks upgrading to support HD and they don't se why they should give their valuable bits to Comcast for nothing. If they could find a way to make you pay for the OTA broadcasts they would. They know that HD is the cable guys big stick against satellite and do not udnerstand why they should hand ove rthis competitive advantage to cable for nothing.

I'm not saying I agree with them, that's just the way it is. In my view they would win by just handing it over. The more people see their advertising the better. The more people who can get HD: the faster the transition will happen.

Originally posted by ianken
They spent big bucks upgrading to support HD and they don't se why they should give their valuable bits to Comcast for nothing. .

For starters let's try "they" were given the damn spectrum for nothing.

The FCC needs to step in and say, "if you can't the signal via rabbit ears, sat is allowed to sell out of market to you." That should get both sides to the table pretty quickly, and if it doesn't, who cares; we could get it via sat.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by leewalk
Larry,
Can you tell if I have a chance at OTA HDTV reception? I'm in Issaquah, on Sunset Ct NW near the intersection of Sunset Way and Newport Way.
You LOS looks bad. The shoulder of Tiger Mountain is blocking your path pretty severely. I would consider cable or SAT.

Larry

Originally posted by Alex Wetmore
Larry:

I'm also in the Greenlake/Roosevelt area and would be interested in your analysis. I mapped it myself (using TopoUSA) and things looked pretty bad.

I'm near 5th ave NE and NE 63rd Ave.

There is a hill directly south of me (in the way of the towers going to Queen Anne).

alex
Your LOS looks pretty good - did you consider the height of the towers when you did your topo analysis? That hill does not interfere except with the BASE of the towers. The actual transmission comes from a point about 800 feet up from the ground.

Larry

Wow, I'm really getting sick of the problems in Shoreline with the Mariners HD broadcasts on Comcast. I don't think they've had a single one yet that didn't have major problems at the beginning of the game. Right now it's breaking up like crazy and is completely unwatchable.

First time now during these M's games that I am getting the picture breaking up in a rythmic manner.

For those of you who experienced this in the past, did this issue get fixed as the game went on, or should I go enjoy the evening doing something else?

I just switched back in the 3rd inning and it looks better. Looks like an occasional breakup, but obviously someone's working on it. Every game so far for me has started with some problem and was fixed by the end. You'd think after they fixed it the first time that would be it.

Guess I've been lucky since we've never had problems with any of the baseball broadcasts. In Redmond.

Last night, we joked and have started calling the HD broadcasts, "The Ichiro Show" ... ;)

re: KOMO's spot on their "free" HD channel. Put something on there worth tuning to and I will! No HD fireworks on the 4th and seemingly endless reruns of George Lopez (although I don't think it's that bad of a show overall). Yes, I know it's ABC, but I still prefer CBS lineup over ABC, if only for CSI. Love those exteriors shots of Vegas!

LOL@poppa...

Yep, it definately feels like the Ichiro show...they train the cameras on him sooo much...

Cheers,

Rich

Originally posted by boykster
LOL@poppa...

Yep, it definately feels like the Ichiro show...they train the cameras on him sooo much...

Cheers,

Rich

Anybody know if they are still piping the all the M's home games to Japan (via NHK) like they were in his first season? That would probably explain the high level of "Ichi-rocity". :)

Originally posted by generationxwing
Anybody know if they are still piping the all the M's home games to Japan (via NHK) like they were in his first season? That would probably explain the high level of "Ichi-rocity". :) Yep - Fox Sports NW explained this on their post-game show the other night. The only reason any M's games are produced in HD at all is for broadcast in the Japanese market. Also notice the background logo on the instant replays is "NHKsports". So it's no wonder this telecast is "all Ichiro, all the time". This also explains why 1) the HD games are a seemingly random subset of those telecast on Fox Sports NW, and 2) why the pictures seldom match what the (english) announcers are talking about. No doubt the HD pictures match the Japanese announcers perfectly.

Sigh...just turned it on and AGAIN it's breaking up like crazy. They didn't get it fixed til about halfway into the game last night. How the heck do they screw it up overnight? Quit turning the knobs over there!

Roto, Are you subscribing to the other 2 HD channels from Comcast?

Yes and they look fine. The Mariners game cleared up around the 3rd or 4th inning again just like last night.

I had the same trouble as Roto for the first game....I rarely start watching the games at the beginning (usually check in ~ 5th inning), so I can't corroborate his troubles.

Since game1, I haven't seen any troubles...

Rich

Originally posted by generationxwing
Anybody know if they are still piping the all the M's home games to Japan (via NHK) like they were in his first season? That would probably explain the high level of "Ichi-rocity". :)

Yep. I suspect Fox/Comcast is just leeching off the NHK feed.

Originally posted by quarque
Your LOS looks pretty good - did you consider the height of the towers when you did your topo analysis? That hill does not interfere except with the BASE of the towers. The actual transmission comes from a point about 800 feet up from the ground.

Larry

I didn't. I didn't know the height of the towers, the webpage that I found just gave their locations.

When we first moved here I tried using an attic antenna (I can't easily get on the roof) to get OTA regular TV and we couldn't get anything. I haven't tried an OTA 8VSB tuner because I didn't want to drop the money on something that I didn't think I would use.

A roof antenna isn't easily possible right now, but I might give the attic one another try.

alex

My OTA analog reception is terrible but my OTA digital is great. It is worth the try.

Originally posted by boykster
I had the same trouble as Roto for the first game....I rarely start watching the games at the beginning (usually check in ~ 5th inning), so I can't corroborate his troubles.

Since game1, I haven't seen any troubles...

Rich

I watched last night's game, from first to last miserable pitch, and had zero problems -- beautiful picture. That makes it 2-for-2 perfect b'casts for me. So the problem must be at the "substation" level, no?

wish the All-Star game was on in HD...

stew

Has anyone tried sending comments/concerns to this address:

HDTV_Feedback@cable.comcast.com

I just got my first Comcast bill after upgrading to the digital package (for the Mariners feed). even though I was quoted free installation there is a $14.99 "Home Theater Access Fee" that they are refusing to credit me. Supposedly it's a fee they charge when installing the Motorola DCT5100. $14.99 is not free.... I don't get it? why quote free installation if it isn't free? they don't seem to have any answers either.. :mad:

hey, I just waited on hold for 10 minutes and they came back to me and credited my account the $14.99. ok then!

fyi, those doing this upgrade in the future, you will be charged this fee, it wasn't a mistake... the mistake was that they told me the installation would be free.

Thanks for the warning!

Good info Doug. Thanks.

Alex- I lived on the north end of Greenlake for a year (rental house) a couple of months ago. I had an attic install--it worked very well. I received all of the OTA stuff flawlessly. I had an initial problem with PBS and multipath--Dave was helping me out with that--but it ended up resolving itself. Give the attic install a try--it may work out very well for you.

Anyway, I'm right on Roosevelt and in multipath-hell right now. I need Comcast to offer locals soon, or I might go insane watching analog cable. Aaargh!

Andy

We are much closer to Roosevelt (5 blocks) than the north end of Greenlake. North end of Greenlake should be great since you can see QA from there.

We're likely going to be moving in the next few months, so I'll wait and see how OTA looks after moving.

alex

I can't wait for the day when this isn't the "Official Mariners on HD via Comcast thread." It's not that I don't like the Ms; I just like Jennifer Garner in a bikini sooooo much more. ;) "

Cheers,
Steve

Saw the hdtv commercial again.. its pretty pathetic when we yern for PBS in hdtv becuase the cable company wont give us anything else (besides the mariners games, which i am still feeling SUPER lucky for, which makes things even more pathetic)..

No New Info here.. just getting tired of comcasts crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over again..

Oh geez..

You COULD still have AT&T and be watching NOTHING in HDTV.

brvheart-

:) Good point. Craptacular HDTV support is better than no HDTV support, I s'pose.

Andy

here's some info I saw on another forum... maybe some progress? at least another date... :D

http://www.hdtvpub.com/local/viewReports.cfm/zipcode_98499/dma_819/cableco_1/

Unnamed Comcast Source:
In response to your question...the negotiations have been constant and
ongoing with our local broadcasters...
KCTS has signed a deal and will launch in August; the Mariner's/Fox and
Comcast have launched. We hope to announce one more local affiliate next week with 4 others "very close". I think the difference in Seattle is that None of the local broadcasters is an "O&O" network; they are all private
companies...Fisher, Belo and Tribune and Cox.
Once the first "major"...ABC/NBC/CBS launches, they will all scramble to get on the air.

D[irec]TV simply does not have the "capacity" to carry local HD (in fact they are having a hard time making their legal commitment to carry All local signals (like cable). I hope this helps; we are spending a lot of time negotiating
because we know you want HD...we do too, but we need agreements to carry the signal.

OOHhhh.....

Look at me holding my breath!!!

/sarcasm_off

At some point they could be subject to bait and switch laws, or at the least misleading advertising laws. I've seen the same ad for the last 2 months now. "New technology such as HDTV...Mariners, Showtime, HBO, and (say it with me people) "coming soon" your local PBS!".

I think a few people here were also told when they queried about the HDTV upgrade that a certain PBS station would be available at then end of the month.......of JUNE! They now have taken 2 months of that HD box rental out of all those people's pockets.

I'm starting to believe politicians more than Seattle Comcast, and that scares the livin' jeebus out of me.

I'll be interested to see what luck I have with the Mariners broadcast tonight. Seems like there must be something going on in Shoreline from about 4pm - 8pm that screws up the picture and makes it glitch and tear like crazy. All the night games seem to start clearing up after an hour or so and the last time they had a day game it was perfect the first couple of hours before it started going downhill.

If it does it tonight I think I'll finally call and complain. I just think when I do call I'm gonna be sitting on hold while I'm transferred all over the place from the 1st guy to answer the phone, to the HD guy, to the Shoreline guy and back. :rolleyes:

I think I'm gonna give them until the new tv season starts before I buy an STB and a Silver Sensor to see if I can just get the locals myself.

I just wanted to make sure that people here saw this:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=283677

just for the heck of it, i called comcast. as expected, the csrs had no clue about espn-hd. also, no date on pbs yet either...

I'll be surprised if we get ESPN in Seattle when everyone else does.

X-wing:

...that scares the livin' jeebus out of me.

But I don't even believe in jeebus!
...save me jeebus!

I called Comcast again. The CSR had no idea when KCTS or ESPN-HD would be coming available.

The CSR mentioned that it takes time because of the contract negotiations. I pointed out that Comcast has already signed agreements with KCTS and with ESPN and that ESPN-HD is already available in most metropolitan areas where Comcast provides HD service. Of course providing that info to her wasn't helpful - she still didn't have a date for rollout.

I hope somebody else does better with their inquiries.

I figure that they have one month to figure this all out. It's the summer and all that's on is RealityTV. However, once the fall season starts and Sunday night football is happening.......

Cheers,
Steve

Within the span of 10 minutes of watching KOMO (via DirecTV because I can't get any OTA signal) I saw KOMO's ad proclaiming "you can get our High Definition broadcast today, for free!". Topped off w/ "We're broadcasting HD right now! You can watch these (insert list) shows today!"

And literally the first commercial at the next break was Comcast's ad for their HDTV package with the laughable "coming soon, KCTS" tag line.

Made me shed a tear a'la the Native American in the old trash ads.

It's a pissing match obviously. Makes me really believe more that it's Comcast doing the gouging as why else would KOMO willingly advertise the free nature of their HD/DTV signal......

they'll take more viewers any way they can get them...

espnhd is on channel 100 NOW! (although, they're not showing HD programming now - next game is on sunday at 5 pm PST)

not sure what they're doing with the existing mariners broadcasts in HD on 100, and can't seem to find any other HD programming, but at least something new... :D

WooHoo bring on Sunday night football!

And Monday Night Football... Oh wait...damn them.

Cheers,
Steve

So right now ESPN-HD on Ch 100 is showing the Houston-Atlanta game, but it's not a 16:9 format HD production. It seems to be an upconverted version of the regular 4:3 ESPN broadcast. Is this being transmitted as 1080i? My TV seems to think so (Sony 36XBR400). Unfortunately as a result, it INSISTS on turning on the 16:9 "anamorphic squeeze" mode. No way to override it. So the 4:3 program is being squished into a 16:9 box.

The inability to override the 16:9 squeeze is probably a limitation of my TV - but is what Comcast is doing "legitimate" per HDTV specs? Shouldn't they really be transmitting this 4:3 show with black bars on the side?

Just to stop what could be coming --- yes, they stretch. For more, read in HDTV programming there is a HUGE thread on it.

Cheers,
Steve

It's not a HiDef broadcast. ESPN-HD schedule (http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html)

So the short answer is, ESPN-HD stretches 4:3 content to 16:9.

ESPN shows everything 720p, including 4:3 SD material (like this game). Problem is, they stretch all 4:3 content to the 1280x720 format before sending it out. Your tv is probably upconverting it to 1080i like my Sony does (as it doesn't have a native 720p capabilities).

So in this case, it's not Comcasts fault....I almost choked actually saying that.....*shrugs*

EDIT: What Tivolicous said....except with at slight german accent.

also, the comcast moto 5100 stb doesn't support auto native hd, so the config setting you use will matter - i.e., most of us probably leave it in the 1080i ouput res mode (since espnhd is the first 720p station we have for cable).

i'm curious to see on sunday whether 720p native output looks better than upscaling to 1080i on my system. i've thought the 1080i ouput i see on my dtv stb makes espnhd a bit soft, but it might end up being a 720p vs 1080i source issue (i.e., fsnhd looks quite sharp in 1080i & the espnhd in hd i've seen to date looks soft compared to it) - we'll see...

so, does this mean that we lose the mariners on channel 100? Hopefully, they'll still show the mariners in HD as scheduled (like saturday) instead of stretched espn....

glad that comcast has gotten this online here so fast though...that's great!

Cheers,

Rich

i don't think so. they show the schedule through end of september. also, this is a diferentiator vs satellite or ota.

hopefully we'll get a formal announcement 'soon'... ;)

Are any of you guys having any luck getting Comcast for HDTV with only the basic analog (13.00 or so) package? They are giving me the run around on this saying I must "upgrade" to a digital package. I know I've read here on the forum otherwise for some folks. And.. does anyone have the link to Comcasts web page that quotes "no extra programming required to recieve local HDTV"..or something like that... I've visited that page but lost the Link. I want to read to them from their own page when they tell me no again. Thanks Alot. Rick

rick - try...

http://www.cmcsk.com/pressroom/cable_hdtv.cfm

at the bottom...

For non-Digital Cable customers who wish to receive only broadcast HDTV signals, Comcast will provide a digital set-top box with an HDTV decoder at the published monthly equipment charge.

i have basic digital for now as i didn't know what channels would be included (e.g., espnhd probably wouldn't be as its not a local broadcast signal)

Originally posted by generationxwing
It's not a HiDef broadcast. ESPN-HD schedule (http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html)

So the short answer is, ESPN-HD stretches 4:3 content to 16:9.

ESPN shows everything 720p, including 4:3 SD material (like this game). Problem is, they stretch all 4:3 content to the 1280x720 format before sending it out. Your tv is probably upconverting it to 1080i like my Sony does (as it doesn't have a native 720p capabilities).

So in this case, it's not Comcasts fault....I almost choked actually saying that.....*shrugs* Well, actually - now that I think about it - it MUST be 1080i into my TV simply because my 5100 box is set to output 1080i over component. But that's not really my issue - either 720p or 1080i are just fine.

What I don't like is that they are stretching 4:3 programming to 16:9. My 4:3 TV (Sony 36XBR400) simply has no way to "unstretch" this picture to look normal. Real ESPN HD programming in 16:9 will look just fine, I imagine. But SD programming will be un-watchable. Too bad, since the upconverted SD picture quality on ch 100 looks MUCH better than the regular ESPN picture on ch. 31.

I saw a thread over in the HD Programming forum with a poll about this, but it's missing the real answer: ESPN should show 4:3 programming in 4:3, period. Nearly every 16:9 HD TV set can stretch a 4:3 picture for itself, if desired. But many 4:3 HD TV sets (like mine) often CANNOT un-stretch a 16:9 picture.

Originally posted by RickE
Are any of you guys having any luck getting Comcast for HDTV with only the basic analog (13.00 or so) package? They are giving me the run around on this saying I must "upgrade" to a digital package. I know I've read here on the forum otherwise for some folks. And.. does anyone have the link to Comcasts web page that quotes "no extra programming required to recieve local HDTV"..or something like that... I've visited that page but lost the Link. I want to read to them from their own page when they tell me no again. Thanks Alot. Rick

I also have the $13 package ( + DirecTV).

What is the cheapest that Comcast offers ESPN-HD? (i.e. What is the cheapest package that one needs to buy to get it?)

Thanks,
Steve

Originally posted by boykster
so, does this mean that we lose the mariners on channel 100? Hopefully, they'll still show the mariners in HD as scheduled (like saturday) instead of stretched espn....

glad that comcast has gotten this online here so fast though...that's great!

Cheers,

Rich

I don't think channel 100 is the final home for ESPN HD. It's still labeled FSNHD after all. It just happens to be an HD slot that's available that few people are watching.

I expect the Mariners will be in HD on Channel 100 on Saturday, and ESPN HD will be given its own channel by then. If not, then ESPN will be preempted by the M's.

I haven't been able to get squat for 2 days now, even regular cable channels. I tried calling yesterday and there was a recording saying they are having problems throughout the Puget Sound Area. Sure doesn't sound like anyone here is having problems.

Comcast Adds ESPN HD to Its HDTV Service in Washington

More Than 1 Million Homes to Have Access to High-Definition
Television Programming

SEATTLE, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Comcast Cable, the country's leading
cable and broadband communications provider, today announced that ESPN HD will
be available beginning Monday, August 4, as part of its high-definition
television (HDTV) service, giving more than 1 million homes throughout
Washington access to even more robust HDTV programming.
In addition to ESPN HD, Comcast offers HD programming from HBO, SHOWTIME,
selected Mariner home games and beginning Aug. 7, KCTS.
"We are pleased to be able to bring our customers outstanding content from
ESPN with all the sights, sounds and unbelievable detail of sports programming
that only an HDTV signal can provide," said Rick Lang, Regional Vice President
of Marketing. "The addition of ESPN HD demonstrates our continuing commitment
to provide our customers with the most robust high-definition content
possible."
HDTV technology provides video and audio that is clearer, sharper and more
vibrant than previous video transmission systems. The service is available
for customers with an HDTV-ready television set and uses a digital cable box
provided by Comcast. In addition, Comcast is working with leading cable and
broadcast programmers to offer the most robust HDTV content lineup possible.
In addition to HDTV, customers who subscribe to Comcast Digital Cable can
receive more than 250 channels, including dozens of commercial-free premium
movie channels, 45 channels of commercial-free music, an interactive on-screen
guide and pay per view sports packages.
For more information about Comcast's products and services, please call
1-800-COMCAST or visit the company's Web site at http://www.comcast.com.

About Comcast Cable
Headquartered in Philadelphia, Comcast Cable is a division of
Comcast Corporation, a developer, manager and operator of broadband cable
networks and provider of programming content. Operating in 17 of the
United States' 20 largest metropolitan areas, Comcast is one of the leading
communications, media and entertainment companies in the world. Providing
basic cable, Digital Cable, high-speed Internet and telephone services,
Comcast Cable is the company to look to first for the communications products
and services that connect people to what's important in their lives. The
company's 55,000 employees, in six divisions, serve more than 21 million
customers.

CONTACT: press, Steve Kipp of Comcast Cable, +1-425-398-6150, or
steve_kipp@cable.comcast.com.

Doh. I got all excited when I saw the press release. I thought that it might be local stations. :(

Cheers,
Steve

KCTS is a local station.

alex

Amen....the progress is slow, but this is great news!

Originally posted by Alex Wetmore
KCTS is a local station.

alex

True, but not exactly what I meant...... If it takes this long to get NON-profit TV.........

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

http://www.thespeichers.com/musings/archives/000223.html

Cheers,
Steve

Yay more HD for Washington!!! yahoo!!!!!

Originally posted by Al Shing
Comcast Adds ESPN HD to Its HDTV Service in Washington

More Than 1 Million Homes to Have Access to High-Definition
Television Programming

SEATTLE, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Comcast Cable, the country's leading
cable and broadband communications provider, today announced that ESPN HD will
be available beginning Monday, August 4, as part of its high-definition
television (HDTV) service, giving more than 1 million homes throughout
Washington access to even more robust HDTV programming.

.... /snip

How hard is it to lead when you're the ONLY GAME IN TOWN?!?!?.

I mean honestly, it's not like I can call Charter cable up and have them hook me up. Or call Time Warner cable and have them set up me up even though I don't live in a carriage state. How hard is it to lead when you're a monopoly and the only reason you're the "leader" anywhere is you bought the company which was the monopoly previously..... I mean sheesh..

I love PR spin.


Ok, I'm done ruminating now.... :)

Steve, I find your musing interesting, but I think I may have some alternate viewpoints on to the whole battle between Comcast and the locals. I honeslty think now that it's Comcast who's dragging their feet. Your musing brings up the argument that the locals have spent a fair amount of money to broadcast in HD, and the contention that they would not want to give it away for free.

KOMO is spending even more money to advertise the very fact that it is free today. They do this knowing full well that if people aren't going to be able to receive an OTA signal, they will hammer their cable co to pick up the HD channel. Why would they spend advertising revenue, place ads in lucrative spots (during the news and prime time shows - higher per ad costs) to say their digital / hd signal is free today if the wanted money for it?

Would they do this if they were wanting to charge money for cable carriage in the first place? I can find some tactful, clandestine reasons why there may be a yes to this question, but all in all, the overall picture really slants to a no at that point.

Sorry, I'll turn my "Tom Clancy interpretation of local television politics" mode off now ;)

Originally posted by generationxwing


Steve, I find your musing interesting, but I think I may have some alternate viewpoints on to the whole battle between Comcast and the locals. I honeslty think now that it's Comcast who's dragging their feet. Your musing brings up the argument that the locals have spent a fair amount of money to broadcast in HD, and the contention that they would not want to give it away for free.


Yes -- they have spent money. However, they were given the spectrum.

What really irks me is this "have your cake and eat it too" mentality. On one hand, the locals are saying, "Sat companies shouldn't be able to sell out-of-market signals because customers can still receive SD signals. After all, it's the same product." On the other hand, they are saying "MSOs: we want more money. After all, it's not the same product."

Well which is it? Is it the same or is it different? Let's make a choice and go with it. Personally, I don't really care which they choose. If they say that HD is a different product, they should have to deliver it with the same voracity that they deliver analog. In areas where they fail (i.e. OTA signal isn't available) customers should be afforded the opportunity to search elsewhere (as is the case with SD)

If it is the same thing, they should have to negotiate as a bundle. Either way, the consumer is treated fairly.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by Al Shing
Comcast Adds ESPN HD to Its HDTV Service in Washington

More Than 1 Million Homes to Have Access to High-Definition
Television Programming

Blah Blah blah


Oh boy, I think KCTS is spooling myabe two hours a night of HD?

And ESPN-HD, IMHO, who cares. I'm sure some folks do but I'm not one of them.

Here's an idea, go 100% digital and deliver high bitrate SD and all the HD locals as well as neat stuff like Discovery.

Wasn't the whole argument around the out of market singals on satellite based on projected losses in ad revenue? Yes, I'm sure they hit the panic button heavy and used Enron-ian accounting to pull a number out of thin air... :)

But, the only method they really have to pay the bills and turn a profit is by selling local ad time. If they lose x number of viewers to DBS subscribers w/ out of market signals they have to set their ad pricing index lower based on projected market share.

I don't think in this case they are really seeing an influx of money from a satellite subscriber base (certainly not at 4.95 amonth split between all the other channels), but if they can claim 10 thousand more households on their advertising rate charts, they sure can get more money from Albert Lee Appliance or Jet Chevrolet on a per ad basis.

I came in to this Comcast vs. Locals on HD thing kinda late..I had beautiful OTA signal until I moved, and have been cable free for 6 years. So, I admit I haven't seen all the press releases and sound bites by all the sides involved, but I have to say, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to advertise a free signal and in turn risk losing all of the potential revenue you could have if the cable company had caved in to your demands to be paid for carriage.

Originally posted by generationxwing


KOMO is spending even more money to advertise the very fact that it is free today. They do this knowing full well that if people aren't going to be able to receive an OTA signal, they will hammer their cable co to pick up the HD channel. Why would they spend advertising revenue, place ads in lucrative spots (during the news and prime time shows - higher per ad costs) to say their digital / hd signal is free today if the wanted money for it?



Maybe its EXACTLY why you say.. they realize WE (actually regular NON informed customers) will see that commercial, call up their cable company and says "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS BS? IT SAYS I CAN GET IT FREE AND YOU GUYS STILL DONT HAVE IT? WHATS GOING ON HERE? I THINK ILL CANCEL MY CABLE BECUASE YOUR SO USLESS!"

in turn by doing so, the cable company gets MORE pressure to just break down and pay the channels the money they want to keep their customers.. I think your previous analysis would be lower level tom clancy, this would be a high up analogy because the stations would be trying to manipulate the cable company with its own customers.. if it worked my hat would be off to them! (not just becuase we'd FINALLY have locals but becuase its a longshot that comcast even gives a damn about its customers)..

Originally posted by generationxwing
Wasn't the whole argument around the out of market singals on satellite based on projected losses in ad revenue? Yes, I'm sure they hit the panic button heavy and used Enron-ian accounting to pull a number out of thin air... :)

But, the only method they really have to pay the bills and turn a profit is by selling local ad time. If they lose x number of viewers to DBS subscribers w/ out of market signals they have to set their ad pricing index lower based on projected market share.

I don't think in this case they are really seeing an influx of money from a satellite subscriber base (certainly not at 4.95 amonth split between all the other channels), but if they can claim 10 thousand more households on their advertising rate charts, they sure can get more money from Albert Lee Appliance or Jet Chevrolet on a per ad basis.

I came in to this Comcast vs. Locals on HD thing kinda late..I had beautiful OTA signal until I moved, and have been cable free for 6 years. So, I admit I haven't seen all the press releases and sound bites by all the sides involved, but I have to say, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to advertise a free signal and in turn risk losing all of the potential revenue you could have if the cable company had caved in to your demands to be paid for carriage.

I don't exactly know what you are getting at here.

Are you saying that they are being disingenuous with their out of market rationale? On one hand they are saying, "We would lose soooo much revenue!" This, while the other hand is demanding money from Comcast because they know they are the only game in town?

Let's not forget that they were given that whole spectrum to "serve the public good." A DMA should only be as large as the coverage will permit. If their towers do not serve our needs, they should not be able to claim ownership of us.

Originally posted by ianken
Oh boy, I think KCTS is spooling myabe two hours a night of HD?

And ESPN-HD, IMHO, who cares. I'm sure some folks do but I'm not one of them.

Here's an idea, go 100% digital and deliver high bitrate SD and all the HD locals as well as neat stuff like Discovery.

Well, ESPN HD is gone, so it looks like you got your wish. :(

The thing ESPN HD has that folks are interested in is NFL Football in HD.

I don't know about KCTS, but I'm not going to complain about getting more HD. It looks like Discovery HD is not in the picture, unless they decide to cut a deal like ESPN did. I imagine the guys on TWC would trade Discovery HD for ESPN HD in a New York minute, though.

Originally posted by generationxwing


Would they do this if they were wanting to charge money for cable carriage in the first place? I can find some tactful, clandestine reasons why there may be a yes to this question, but all in all, the overall picture really slants to a no at that point.

Sorry, I'll turn my "Tom Clancy interpretation of local television politics" mode off now ;)

They absolutely would. In fact, one of the local networks actually cut a cable company off when they couldn't come to terms. And in that case we were talking regular old analog. Talk about a pissed off group of cable customers....

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/10/28/daily29.html?jst=s_rs_hl

-Steve

For the sake of getting lost in too many debates on the business practices and ethics of the locals and Comcast, I'll just keep my mouth shut after this.... Well, maybe some more glib comments here and there, but no more hypotheticals and Clancy-eque-ing. :)

See, this is what I get for ignoring local TV stations & cable until I was sans OTA. Thanks for the link on the KIRO story. Fully unaware that happened.

But, that article leaves opens some holes in my view. And they are likely to be holes that aren't going to be closed because that's the nature of business.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (and not doing a terribly wonderful job of) is that you really can't lay blame fully at the feet of one side or the other in this debacle.

If I was to stand here and say it's somebody's "fault", I'd have to go with a 60/40 break. The 60 would be Comcast. I firmly believe the 40 for the locals really wouldn't have much to do with some outrageous carriage fee being shoved down Comcasts throat. I've seen no evidene that locals are withholding their signals, in fact two of the emails in that HDTVPUB thread basically said, "they can have it anytime they wish", and another station is risking the loss of this revenue from a large segment of customers by playing the "you can have it free today" commercials and getting the word out that they are open for your HDTV business today, all you need is the HDTV hardware and an antenna.

Could KOMO be playing hardball by turning Comcast customers who can't get their locals OTA against them? Sure, but another likely scenario is, they want to start adding households viewing HDTV to their advertising rate books so they can claim a more affluent market and get Albert Lee Appliances to buy another set of ads on their HDTV stream.

Do the locals want money? Sure, show me a business that wouldn't in the same situation. Do I believe that's purely for the purpose of offsetting their upgrade costs? Nope. They can cover that in a few months with the new revenue stream advertising on their HD channels will open up. And I'd also suspsect that most of the big 4 have it already paid for. KOMO is the only station with full HD local production capabilities, and they've had those for some time. The rest aren't doing much of anything other than retransmission of their national feed. Had they all built full in-house production facilities and armed almost every one of their trucks with HD cameras, I could see this, but so far KOMO is the only player that has those features.

You could argue that they want the money so they can upgrade their studios and trucks, but here again I'll point you to the crowned jewel, the local ad money.

Add the fact that KCTS still isn't on the air when the deal has been done for some time and this opens a whole different can of worms...

KCTS is not-for-profit, but they are in a world of hurt financially. They are the only announced local HD deal Comcast has done. The fact that it's still not being piped into homes and there is no ETA in sight is a nice little twist here. Especially when you see that ESPN-HD, where the ink is hardly dry on the deal, has been tested on channel 100 and a press release sent confirming an August 4th launch.

Are there technical difficulties with KCTS' multi-casting feed? Why did Comcast sign and announce the deal not knowing when they could have it in homes? Or knowing they wouldn't have it in homes for some time? Why are they advertising it constantly knowing any number of the aforementioned is true? Maybe Comcast is looking to offset their facility upgrades by encouraging customers to sign up for an elevated pckage and then stringing along before delivering any promised content to them. That's just as likely as any of the locals holding Comcast over a barrell demanding outrageous fees.

Why did KCTS sign and not any of the others? Could this mean that KCTS was so financially strapped they had to take a low ball offer from Comcast? Did they do this hoping they could get into more affluent households with HDTVs and hopefully start generating more contributions? And usually when one station signs, one of the others in a similar situation will "break ranks" and follow, and then another one. Eventually one of the big 4 will want to open up that new revenue stream and get the jump on their competition so they'll blink. But that hasn't happened yet.

Will Lassie be able to get Timmy out of the well? That's about the only question I think we'll ever really know the answer... :)

Like I said, there are too many omissions and contradictions in this battle to make me stand here waving my finger and shouting "j'accuse" to the local channels alone.

Now I'll go sit silently with a candle lit in my window hoping my Local HDs can find their way home again.

Originally posted by Tivolicious
They absolutely would. In fact, one of the local networks actually cut a cable company off when they couldn't come to terms. And in that case we were talking regular old analog. Talk about a pissed off group of cable customers....

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2002/10/28/daily29.html?jst=s_rs_hl

-Steve

Wait a minute - that article says, "There was no interruption of KIRO broadcasts to Millennium cable customers."

Originally posted by generationxwing
Add the fact that KCTS still isn't on the air when the deal has been done for some time and this opens a whole different can of worms...

KCTS is not-for-profit, but they are in a world of hurt financially. They are the only announced local HD deal Comcast has done. The fact that it's still not being piped into homes and there is no ETA in sight is a nice little twist here. Especially when you see that ESPN-HD, where the ink is hardly dry on the deal, has been tested on channel 100 and a press release sent confirming an August 4th launch.

Are there technical difficulties with KCTS' multi-casting feed? Why did Comcast sign and announce the deal not knowing when they could have it in homes? Or knowing they wouldn't have it in homes for some time? Why are they advertising it constantly knowing any number of the aforementioned is true? Maybe Comcast is looking to offset their facility upgrades by encouraging customers to sign up for an elevated pckage and then stringing along before delivering any promised content to them. That's just as likely as any of the locals holding Comcast over a barrell demanding outrageous fees.


Read the press release again - it says in there that KCTS will be on as of August 7.

I'm not a cable insider, but as a computer guy, the KCTS and ESPN HD thing looks just like a capacity issue. The maintenance thing they did on July 30 probably added some capacity. Next, they need to ensure that the fix didn't cause any problems, and that they actually could get ESPN HD on and working. Because lots of people are clamoring for ESPN HD, they put priority on that over KCTS.

They've been telling people all last month that KCTS would be added in August.

Missed that in the press release, my A.D.D. strikes again.

Originally posted by generationxwing
For the sake of getting lost in too many debates on the business practices and ethics of the locals and Comcast, I'll just keep my mouth shut after this.... Well, maybe some more glib comments here and there, but no more hypotheticals and Clancy-eque-ing. :)

See, this is what I get for ignoring local TV stations & cable until I was sans OTA. Thanks for the link on the KIRO story. Fully unaware that happened.

But, that article leaves opens some holes in my view. And they are likely to be holes that aren't going to be closed because that's the nature of business.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (and not doing a terribly wonderful job of) is that you really can't lay blame fully at the feet of one side or the other in this debacle.

If I was to stand here and say it's somebody's "fault", I'd have to go with a 60/40 break. The 60 would be Comcast. I firmly believe the 40 for the locals really wouldn't have much to do with some outrageous carriage fee being shoved down Comcasts throat. I've seen no evidene that locals are withholding their signals, in fact two of the emails in that HDTVPUB thread basically said, "they can have it anytime they wish", and another station is risking the loss of this revenue from a large segment of customers by playing the "you can have it free today" commercials and getting the word out that they are open for your HDTV business today, all you need is the HDTV hardware and an antenna.

Could KOMO be playing hardball by turning Comcast customers who can't get their locals OTA against them? Sure, but another likely scenario is, they want to start adding households viewing HDTV to their advertising rate books so they can claim a more affluent market and get Albert Lee Appliances to buy another set of ads on their HDTV stream.

Do the locals want money? Sure, show me a business that wouldn't in the same situation. Do I believe that's purely for the purpose of offsetting their upgrade costs? Nope. They can cover that in a few months with the new revenue stream advertising on their HD channels will open up. And I'd also suspsect that most of the big 4 have it already paid for. KOMO is the only station with full HD local production capabilities, and they've had those for some time. The rest aren't doing much of anything other than retransmission of their national feed. Had they all built full in-house production facilities and armed almost every one of their trucks with HD cameras, I could see this, but so far KOMO is the only player that has those features.

You could argue that they want the money so they can upgrade their studios and trucks, but here again I'll point you to the crowned jewel, the local ad money.

Add the fact that KCTS still isn't on the air when the deal has been done for some time and this opens a whole different can of worms...

KCTS is not-for-profit, but they are in a world of hurt financially. They are the only announced local HD deal Comcast has done. The fact that it's still not being piped into homes and there is no ETA in sight is a nice little twist here. Especially when you see that ESPN-HD, where the ink is hardly dry on the deal, has been tested on channel 100 and a press release sent confirming an August 4th launch.

Are there technical difficulties with KCTS' multi-casting feed? Why did Comcast sign and announce the deal not knowing when they could have it in homes? Or knowing they wouldn't have it in homes for some time? Why are they advertising it constantly knowing any number of the aforementioned is true? Maybe Comcast is looking to offset their facility upgrades by encouraging customers to sign up for an elevated pckage and then stringing along before delivering any promised content to them. That's just as likely as any of the locals holding Comcast over a barrell demanding outrageous fees.

Why did KCTS sign and not any of the others? Could this mean that KCTS was so financially strapped they had to take a low ball offer from Comcast? Did they do this hoping they could get into more affluent households with HDTVs and hopefully start generating more contributions? And usually when one station signs, one of the others in a similar situation will "break ranks" and follow, and then another one. Eventually one of the big 4 will want to open up that new revenue stream and get the jump on their competition so they'll blink. But that hasn't happened yet.

Will Lassie be able to get Timmy out of the well? That's about the only question I think we'll ever really know the answer... :)

Like I said, there are too many omissions and contradictions in this battle to make me stand here waving my finger and shouting "j'accuse" to the local channels alone.

Now I'll go sit silently with a candle lit in my window hoping my Local HDs can find their way home again.

But you act like the revenue generated from ads on HDTV will be as much as regular tv.. this cannot be so.. there cant be 10% of the homes with HDTV in them yet even.. sooo may more people have simple regular TV.. so it doesn't make much sense for advertises to advertise on an ONLY HDTV channel they'd be limiting their own market.. I think these locals want some money up front to help cover the costs.. I dont think their trying to get payed every month.. the reason the OTA is free is becuase they have the equipment and they'll NEVER get paid for OTA, who's gonna pay em? You? They either give it away frree or not give it away and waste all that money on the HDTV.. the cable company's is the only place where they feel they have a bit of power to try and squeeze some money out.. I personally feel that comcast makes way more than enough money to jump start these channels for us and just close the deal... but alas greed strikes again.

I think that people are missing the point here. The locals are treating their FCC granted monopoly like a hammer.

I am all for giving them the right to do this IF (really big if) they deliver. However, they shouldn't be able to claim rights over customers that they don't service. If their signal doesn't reach me, I shouldn't be banned from looking elsewhere.

That is what is happening. It makes it all the worst that they are using this fact against Comcast. They know that people can't get it OTA and their only way is via Comcast. That makes it even more valuable and they know it. That is just wrong!

Does nobody see this? Are people just blind?

-Steve

is anyone getting the game on channel 100? (sat nite, 8pm)

I'm getting a "channel should be available shortly" message...grrrr....

Rich

Originally posted by Tivolicious
I think that people are missing the point here. The locals are treating their FCC granted monopoly like a hammer.

I am all for giving them the right to do this IF (really big if) they deliver. However, they shouldn't be able to claim rights over customers that they don't service. If their signal doesn't reach me, I shouldn't be banned from looking elsewhere.

That is what is happening. It makes it all the worst that they are using this fact against Comcast. They know that people can't get it OTA and their only way is via Comcast. That makes it even more valuable and they know it. That is just wrong!

Does nobody see this? Are people just blind?

-Steve

Well, then the FCC needs to step in and put a stop to it. They could say that as long as a station still has an analog broadcast signal in addition to a digital one, then they must provide the HD signal to cable systems on request at no charge. When the analog signal is returned to the FCC, then negotiated broadcast fees would transfer to the HD signal.

They could say this because they want to encourage the migration of analog to digital and expedite the return of the analog bandwidth to be auctioned off by the government. The existing standoff serves no one except for greedy broadcasters.

not to change the subject or anything, but... :p

has anyone else noticed that the black level for tonights mariner's game seems low? compared to my HD output from directv, I've had to crank the brightness up on my projector when watching the mariners feed. actually, it seems as though the ntsc/sd channels seem dark too... (I'm using the component outputs)

anyone else noticed this?

from the moto 5100 manual, I couldn't see that I could increase the brightness of the unit itself.

Originally posted by Al Shing
Wait a minute - that article says, "There was no interruption of KIRO broadcasts to Millennium cable customers."

I suppose that cut-off was not to be taken literally (as it would be nearly impossible to so). However, it got NASTY. Kiro ran "commercials" that basically accused Millennium of theft of their signal.

The point was simply that locals do demand money for MSO rebroadcast.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by Al Shing
Wait a minute - that article says, "There was no interruption of KIRO broadcasts to Millennium cable customers."

I suppose that cut-off was not to be taken literally (as it would be nearly impossible to so). However, it got NASTY. Kiro ran "commercials" that basically accused Millennium of theft of their signal.

The point was simply that locals do demand money for MSO rebroadcast.

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by Al Shing
Well, then the FCC needs to step in and put a stop to it. They could say that as long as a station still has an analog broadcast signal in addition to a digital one, then they must provide the HD signal to cable systems on request at no charge. When the analog signal is returned to the FCC, then negotiated broadcast fees would transfer to the HD signal.

They could say this because they want to encourage the migration of analog to digital and expedite the return of the analog bandwidth to be auctioned off by the government. The existing standoff serves no one except for greedy broadcasters.

This is essentially one of the options that I laid out. While I think that this misses part of the point (if their signal doesn't reach me....), it would be far better than the current situation.

My big problem is that the locals have an infrastructure that doesn't meet the needs of the public. Instead of putting up a series of towers, repeaters, etc., they are forcing the cable companies to pay for both the infrastructure and for the right to rebroadcast.

Cheers,
Steve

Looks like ESPN-HD is up & running in its permanent slot on Ch. 173 as of this morning. Of course, they're still showing 4:3 programming stretched & mangled to 16:9, making it unwatchable. I can only imagine this decision was made by ESPN's lawyers; no doubt terrified of "plasma screen burn-in" lawsuits.

I wonder if the stretch mode is really for sports bars who would rather not have their brand new plasma screens burned in by black sidebars. I noticed at Seahawks Stadium on Saturday that all the screens in the club area are widescreen plasmas, showing the Seahawks scrimmage action in stretch mode.

I understand their desire to not burn-in. However, I would rather they keep the OAR and use a screen-saver type thing. It's not that hard to write a program that averages levels over a period of time. You could even keep scores and statistics/news in that area.

Cheers,
Steve

So should we take a bet?

Who thinks that we will be watching (non ESPN-HD) football in Hi-Def via Comcast at the start of the season? Or will we simply be watching the "Free Hi-Def" commercials touting the signal that we can't receive?

(This doesn't include some preseason Seahawks games that they might throw at us)

Well?

Steve

I asked a Comcast guy at Seahawks Stadium if the Seahawks will be in HD this season. He said yes. I then asked if the preseason games would be in HD. He said no. This was a lone guy sitting in the Comcast booth after it was all cleared out at the end of the event, so I'd give him a credibility rating of 10 percent.

Originally posted by jimre
Of course, they're still showing 4:3 programming stretched & mangled to 16:9, making it unwatchable.

I guess I'm missing the problem here.

If you don't like ESPN's pre-done stretching of the picture, then watch the 4:3 stuff (standard definiton that's been upcoverted) on the standard definition channel and you can watch in whatever mode (normal, stretch, zoom, etc.) that you prefer/that your TV will permit. Upconverted standard definition broadcast on an HD feed really won't look much better than simply watching at native standard resolution anyways. When a true HD game/event comes on then switch back to the ESPN HD channel. This way you can get the best of both.

These same principles apply with the current Showtime, HBO and Mariners HD/standard definition channels as well. Obviously, when everything goes HD then this won't be needed, but until then it seems to be a suitable compromise.

Am I overlooking something else?

Originally posted by danstone


Am I overlooking something else?

Yup, the fact that SD is compressed up the wazoo. The HD feed isn't.

Cheers,
Steve

Of course, if you can't afford one of the hi-def plasma displays and instead own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV, you get the hi-def signal without it being stretched and mangled. I actually made the decision to buy 4:3 because I knew most of the programs I would watch are still 4:3.

Still waiting for more HD content before going plasma or 16:9. Or better yet, HD DVD.

BTW: S video output on ESPN is mangled. Yuck!

Originally posted by danstone
I guess I'm missing the problem here.

If you don't like ESPN's pre-done stretching of the picture, then watch the 4:3 stuff (standard definiton that's been upcoverted) on the standard definition channel and you can watch in whatever mode (normal, stretch, zoom, etc.) that you prefer/that your TV will permit. Upconverted standard definition broadcast on an HD feed really won't look much better than simply watching at native standard resolution anyways. When a true HD game/event comes on then switch back to the ESPN HD channel. This way you can get the best of both.

Am I overlooking something else?

In practice, this won't happen in sports bars. Your average bartender/waitress probably won't know the difference between the SD and HD channels, and you could be stuck watching a broadcast that's supposed to be in HD on the SD channel. Just try to get a busy waitress or bartender to try to switch it over while a game is going on and people are watching the game.

Better to just leave it on the HD channel all the time, even if its in stretch mode. Bar patrons aren't going to know the difference.

In my case with a 4:3 digital projector, I wish all my HD channels would stretch their upconverts. Then I could put the projector in 4:3 mode and have a larger picture because it would stretch it vertically as well.

Originally posted by jameskollar
Of course, if you can't afford one of the hi-def plasma displays and instead own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV, you get the hi-def signal without it being stretched and mangled. I actually made the decision to buy 4:3 because I knew most of the programs I would watch are still 4:3.

Still waiting for more HD content before going plasma or 16:9. Or better yet, HD DVD.

BTW: S video output on ESPN is mangled. Yuck! Nope - that's exactly my problem. I *do* own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV. On those occasions when it really is 16:9 hi-def content, it will look just fine - that's not the issue. But when they're showing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9 (which is most of the time), my TV set (Sony 36XBR400) has no ability to "un-stretch" it. Every 16:9 plasma set I've ever seen allows the user to stretch a 4:3 picture themselves, if they want to avoid burn-in. Few 4:3 tube HDTVs can un-stretch.

And yes, of course I could just watch the regular ESPN-SD signal on ch. 31, but the up-converted signal on ch. 173 looks sooooo much better (except for the wrong aspect ratio, of course).

But when they're showing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9 (which is most of the time), my TV set (Sony 36XBR400) has no ability to "un-stretch" it.

I own a Toshiba 35" Cinema Series 4:3 aspect (model number escapes me). On ESPN as of 2:40 PDT the picture is unstretched (at least to my eyes). There are no borders on either top or bottom. I also have the S video out on the DCT5100 hooked up to a ReplayTV which then is fed into the same set via component. That output is stretched (16:9?) with balck above and below the picture. Sooo.... unless I'm missing something, I'm one of the lucky ones that owns a tube that "unstretches". 'Course, I'm propably missing something. Still, it's a nice picture.

Originally posted by jameskollar
Sooo.... unless I'm missing something, I'm one of the lucky ones that owns a tube that "unstretches". Sounds like maybe your Toshiba set gives you the option of squishing its 4:3 picture to 16:9 or not. On Sony models like mine, if the set detects a progressive signal with resolution > 480p, it automatically forces the picture into "16:9 vertically-compressed" mode, whether you want it or not. Even the option to manually choose this mode gets greyed-out. It's as if the set assumes that any progressive signal > 480p MUST be a genuine 16:9 HDTV program.

So on one hand, you can view this problem as a limitation of a popular Sony TV set model. But as a general principle, I think broadcasters should always present content in its original aspect ratio. Let the users do the tweaking if they want.

Steve, I suggest you parouse through the FCC archives to find out why it's legal for KIRO, KOMO, et al. to charge a cable company to carry their signals (should they chose to: must carry status can negate this charge). And pay close attention to the fact that the Business Journal article you linked mentioned retransmission consent specifically in relation to the Millennium Cable deal.

FCC Cable Carriage Fact Sheet (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html)

This permission is commonly referred to as "retransmission consent" and may involve some compensation from the cable company to the broadcaster for the use of the signal.

Q: Why is the retransmission consent requirement included in the law?

A: Since 1934, broadcast stations that use the programming of other broadcast stations have been required to obtain the prior consent of the originating station. This requirement has now been applied to cable systems because the absence of this requirement was distorting the video marketplace and threatening the future of over-the-air television broadcasting. This law treats broadcasters the same as other programming services carried by cable systems.

Q: What can the FCC do if a broadcaster and a cable operator fail to reach a retransmission consent agreement?

A: Generally, the FCC is not authorized to participate in discussions between television stations and cable systems regarding retransmission consent agreements. Furthermore, the FCC cannot tell a cable operator which stations or program services to delete in order to comply with the must-carry requirement. If you have comments regarding changes in the programming offered by your cable system, you should contact your cable operator. Information on how to contact your cable operator is included on your cable bill.

Q: Will my cable bill increase as a result of retransmission consent agreements?

A: In return for allowing a cable system to carry its signal, a television station may require the payment of a fee or other consideration (for instance, carriage of another programming service or advertising time). Any new or additional costs incurred as a result of retransmission consent agreements may be passed through to cable subscribers.

Now unless they all demand "must carry" status on their Digital signal, they can go after Comcast for money all they want.

As well as read up on the standards set in place for carriage of Digital TV signals.

FCC Press Release DTV Carriage (http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2001/nrcb0103.html)

I suppose that I don't get your point. I never said that it wasn't within their rights. It is. I simply was posting that in reference to your "they would never do such a thing" assertion.

If you spend even more time with the FCC docs, you will learn that there are provisions in the analog realm for "unserviced areas" within a given DMA. I believe that it boils down to the ability to receive a class C signal from the broadcaster.

If these provision are not met (i.e the local is not *actually* providing a signal to that location), the consumer has the right to go out of market for service.

I suggest that there need to be such a thing for the HD market as well.

I have been very clear. I don't think that anyone is doing anything "illegal." I believe that the FCC has created a gamespace in which a standoff is likely to occur. This does not service the public good.

Here is the problem:

Komo has an incentive to "minimize" the efficacy of its towers. They know that nearly 85% of their viewers get their signal via cable. They also know that the remaining 15% are demographically undesirable. This will maximize Comcast's need to have them. (HD is Comcast's biggest weapon against DirecTV)

Because the current viewership of HD is so low, the ad dollars that they lose are negligible. Furthermore, they won't lose their analog band until enough people have switched over (which won't happen if they do a poor implementation of their delivery system). This give Komo the ability to sit forever.

This is hardly what the FCC was going for when they gave them both the analog and the digital to ease the transition.

[It comes down to this. Komo can sit on that signal as long as it wants. They know that people can still see their analog service. They know that they can't get ABC HD service elsewhere. They aren't losing any revenue. They aren't going to lose the spectrum because metrics aren't being hit (because they are slowing the process). There is nothing to lose. What's keeping them in check?]

Do you really not see that?

edit: added []

-Steve

I know this is off topic. I apologize in advance:

On Sony models like mine, if the set detects a progressive signal with resolution > 480p, it automatically forces the picture into "16:9 vertically-compressed" mode, whether you want it or not.

Wow, that sounds really bad! I also recieve OTA signals from KIRO, KOMO, KING, KCTS. If I'm not mistaken, during primetime they broadcast some shows in 720P. My set displays these shows perfectly i.e. no 16:9. Admittly, 720P puts two relatively skinny vertical black bars on the screen, but the PQ is still very good. No picture squishing. i.e. I'm a big fan of Survivor and even though they elected to transmit in 720P, it was still far better than my old analog signal.

I also like CSI and seeing that in 1080i is awesome. Looking forward to all the HiDef locals on cable.

How are you guysing doing this OTA antenna setup.. just getting a UHF antenna and plugging it into your digital cables boxes cable in's?

So do you have to switch between youre cable feed and your OTA feeds though a switchbox or manually? I'm in 98031 (kent) and looking to hook this up..

Thnx

Originally posted by NizZ8
How are you guysing doing this OTA antenna setup.. just getting a UHF antenna and plugging it into your digital cables boxes cable in's?

So do you have to switch between youre cable feed and your OTA feeds though a switchbox or manually? I'm in 98031 (kent) and looking to hook this up..

Thnx

The cable boxes cannot do OTA. To get OTA requires a separate box.

Only when Comcast manages to acquire the reboradcast rights to local HD will you get local HD on the cable box.

Yay, ESPN news in fat stretch-o-vision on ch 173.

Interesting that comcast will spam me for cable modem service (which I already get from them but they are too stoopid ot figure out how not to spam existing customers) but fails to notify users that a new HD channel is online.

Originally posted by ianken
Yay, ESPN news in fat stretch-o-vision on ch 173.

Interesting that comcast will spam me for cable modem service (which I already get from them but they are too stoopid ot figure out how not to spam existing customers) but fails to notify users that a new HD channel is online.

There was a press release that said August 4 was the date it would come on. I'm not aware that any local paper picked up the press release, however. I found it by doing a search on news.google.com for Comcast.

I think digital cable users can detect a new channel within hours of addition, especially when supported by Internet forums such as this one. Nobody really needs a message on the box, but one will probably appear a month after the fact. That's the way it was when they added the foreign language channels.

So those using OTA, what 'boxes' are you using to hook up to your system?

Is this an area that a HD Tuner card in your pc could be useful?

Thanks -n8

Well, I am pretty stoked about ESPN HD...looks like there will be a lot of NFL and NCAA football content this fall:

http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html

Originally posted by NizZ8
So those using OTA, what 'boxes' are you using to hook up to your system?

Is this an area that a HD Tuner card in your pc could be useful?

Thanks -n8

I'm using a Zenith HDV420, although other OTA receivers would do as well. A card in your PC could be very useful, because that would also allow you to timeshift the OTA HD programming.

I have an Audio Authority 1154 on the way which will allow me to hook up both the cable and OTA receivers simultaneously for easy switching.

so i watched a little bit of ESPN HD last night (Monday Night Baseball) and the picture quality wasn't really all that great. Was that an HD broadcast? I'm comparing it to the Mariner's HD feed (the only other HD i've seen). The finer detail was blurry during motion (letters on the jerseys, etc) and there was very noticeable flicker.... it was better than the regular ESPN, but nothing like the Mariner's HD..

The highlight shows won't be HD. You should be able to tell when everyone is short and fat. The link elb posted should be everything that is actually HD. http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html Next HD broadcast is on 8/7

Steve, I understand your point(s) just fine.

I really fail to see any pragmatic business benefit to the locals essentially blackmailing Comcast in the manner you suggest.

What's the benefit to them in your scenario? Where do they make money? When do they make money?

And if you're talking about KOMO specifically, considering it's parent company is struggling to avoid having to sell (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134639601_fisher230.html), so what your offering is tantamount to financial seppuku.

Originally posted by generationxwing
Steve, I understand your point(s) just fine.

I really fail to see any pragmatic business benefit to the locals essentially blackmailing Comcast in the manner you suggest.

What's the benefit to them in your scenario? Where do they make money? When do they make money?



I don't think that you are seeing the point then. The locals don't lose ANYTHING by doing this. They aren't losing viewership. They aren't losing their spectrum. They're losing NOTHING.

Eventually Comcast will have to cave to their demands and they will benefit from their tactics. I'm not saying that it isn't a smart business move. I am saying that you are naive to place the blame with Comcast. In this case, Comcast is a victim of a) the FCC not closing a loophole and b) the locals doing the natural thing given the current set of rules.

I'm gonna flip the tables here. Why don't you tell me what the locals are losing by blackmailing Comcast.

-Steve

thanks for the link.
to clarify though, was the Baseball game (Whitesocks/KC) last night in HD?

Originally posted by Roto
The highlight shows won't be HD. You should be able to tell when everyone is short and fat. The link elb posted should be everything that is actually HD. http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html Next HD broadcast is on 8/7

Originally posted by DougM
thanks for the link.
to clarify though, was the Baseball game (Whitesocks/KC) last night in HD?

No, it was in stretch-o-vision.

NizZ8, I'm using the MyHD PCI card in my home-theater computer. The card has two inputs, so I use one for OTA HDTV, and the other for analog cable (I get the super-basic cable channels from comcast).

One of the neat features of MyHD is it lets you specify a "favorites" list of channels, and this list can contain channels from either input. So what I've done is mixed all the HD and analog channels I care about in my favorite list and now when I channel surf, I don't have to switch inputs everytime I want to see an analog station (e.g. discovery). The switching happens automatically for me.

This is one of the main reasons I got this card. I didn't want to treat my TV viewing as coming from two different inputs - that really destroys the girlfriend usability factor. :)

-Joe

Does anyone think the basic digital channels 121-183 are more watchable now, after the ESPN HD addition?

I'm gonna flip the tables here. Why don't you tell me what the locals are losing by blackmailing Comcast.

Money. Anyway you look at it, in your model they are losing it. This is due to unrealised revenue streams. But more so today, by the associated costs of broadcasting H/DTV.

I know your statement is promoting the belief they're all running under the "we aren't losing any viewers by not having it, so we have no reason let Comcast have it unless they meet our demands". That's a rather backward business philosophy. What they don't have is an increase in viewers. You don't make money by sitting on your laurels and not trying to increase your business. Especially when you have the means to do so. Stations don't make money without adding viewers and revenue streams.

Viewers are nice, viewers equal money in the long run. But how do you know they aren't losing viewers today? If viewer A can't watch the ABC Sunday Night movie in HD on Comcast, because they don't have it, or he can't get the signal OTA, he may go to ESPN-HD or HBO-HD or another channel rather than watch the SD broadcast of that movie. This may be in part to him owning the DVD or because he's only interested in HD content, or any number of other factors. But he's gone. If they steal even a small portion of viewers who would otherwise be watching another HD or cable SD offering, that's nothing but an increase in viewers and potential for additional revenue from advertisers.

Can you tell me they aren't also losing potential viewers who would start watching a show at first because it's in HD and may end up becoming fans of the show? There are plenty of those people around the HDTV programming forum, and if there are a few on-line, there are probably more off line.

But above all this viewer speculation are the operating costs. You have hardware upkeep. Somebody has to be paying for the operating and upkeep costs, and if it's not the H/DTV business, it's coming from somewhere else. That's money lost, plain and simple. There's personnel, facility and utilities costs. So the station is now robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, why is it beneficial for any of the locals to leverage money from other aspects of their business to play this game of chicken? If anything, they had better strike now as they could soon lose the bargaining power should the FCC have to step in to this fray.

Add to operation costs, the primary acquisition costs. The acquisition of the spectrum may have been "free", but setting up and then putting out even a low power signal isn't. If any one of the stations has taken a loan to purchase the hardware or upgrade their broadcasting facilities, they are now losing money by leveraging funds from other aspects of their business to pay those loans. Every day they leverage funds from the analog, radio or newsprint side to pay the majority portion of that bill, the profitability of that company as a whole is lessened. Here again, why is it beneficial for the locals to delay any additional revenue stream to help offset this negative flow? So now you're stealing more money from your other businesses to cover the losses from this H/DTV venture.

Lastly, there is a market. Companies do not spend money to enter a market, no matter how negligible that market may appear today, only to ignore any potential for immediate revenue being generated by that market. No matter how little it may appear. The first rule of business is to turn a profit as fast as possible. To do this, you start bringing in money as soon as the opportunity arises and find ways to increase that stream. Not just hope that you can get a slightly bigger cut in a few months because your target may or may not get nervous.

All this money is revenue lost, no matter how you look at it. Every penny they miss out on today is a penny lost. Every penny they steal from their analog station to cover the H/DTV broadcasting costs is a penny lost. Every viewer lost by not having this service is money lost as well.

We know for a fact that stations are currently operating H/DTV at a loss because the cost of doing business on that stream is still present and the coverage of that stream is minimal to non-existent. We know also for a fact that the overall profits of the company are lessened because they are carrying the H/DTV broadcast with out it realising any increase in revenue streams from available sources such as; a cable deal or the potential "miniscule" increase in advertising revenue a resulting cable deal would facilitate. Look that the FY 2002 report from Fisher Communications (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/fsci/reports/Fisher_2002_10K_ALL.pdf) as a prime example of this.

Were I a share holder in Tribune, Cox, Belo or Fisher, I would be screaming vociferously to stop the unnecessary bleeding, especially since there is a means to start offsetting these operational costs available today.

Comcast is not the sole party to blame I never stated that, they are the primary party, but not the sole party. As of April 2003, out of 809 H/DTV OTA capable markets, only 120 have any local cable carriage of their H/DTV signal. You can't tell me that the locals in all of those markets not being serviced by cable companies are running the same business principle as they are here.

I understand what you are trying to say. However, you are being quite naive. That's just not how the world works. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice for the future. That's what the local stations are doing.

You seem to believe that this case is like other forecasting cases. It isn't. The local stations are in an odd position. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn't have put towers up. They wouldn't even be broadcasting. They are doing so because they got such a deal and this is a condition of the deal. This is essentially sunk cost to them and they realize that.

If any of your assertions were true, you would see other things. For instance, they would all be broadcasting at actual power levels. They would be trying to maximize their OTA viewership. They aren't. They are doing what they are required to do; that's all.


Money. Anyway you look at it, in your model they are losing it. This is due to unrealized revenue streams. But more so today, by the associated costs of broadcasting H/DTV.


a) That is exactly what they are attempting to do, realize another revenue stream (in addition to the same content in the analog realm) b) Perhaps you didn't know that HD users aren't counting in viewership numbers. That's right -- for every person that watches the HD signal, they LOSE viewers when it comes to ad sales.


I know your statement is promoting the belief they're all running under the "we aren't losing any viewers by not having it, so we have no reason let Comcast have it unless they meet our demands". That's a rather backward business philosophy. What they don't have is an increase in viewers. You don't make money by sitting on your laurels and not trying to increase your business. Especially when you have the means to do so. Stations don't make money without adding viewers and revenue streams.


Then why was Kiro willing to cut of an entire MSO? While it didn't come to actually turning off the signal (nearly impossible), they did take ad space to run ads explaining that Millennium was stealing their signal. They are certainly not against using viewers as pawns.


Viewers are nice, viewers equal money in the long run. But how do you know they aren't losing viewers today? If viewer A can't watch the ABC Sunday Night movie in HD on Comcast, because they don't have it, or he can't get the signal OTA, he may go to ESPN-HD or HBO-HD or another channel rather than watch the SD broadcast of that movie. This may be in part to him owning the DVD or because he's only interested in HD content, or any number of other factors. But he's gone. If they steal even a small portion of viewers who would otherwise be watching another HD or cable SD offering, that's nothing but an increase in viewers and potential for additional revenue from advertisers.


First, that is a VERY FORUM view. Like it or not, this is a macro game. The handful of users that might switch are nothing. We are quite myopic here. While we love the technology and the picture, we really don't count when it comes to a broadcasting world. The interesting thing about that is that we do (to a much larger extent) when it comes to cable. In the cable world we tend to spend more. Cable companies are able to extract this revenue. The locals aren't. This is yet another reason why cable companies wouldn't want to slow down the process.


Can you tell me they aren't also losing potential viewers who would start watching a show at first because it's in HD and may end up becoming fans of the show? There are plenty of those people around the HDTV programming forum, and if there are a few on-line, there are probably more off line.


That's easy. If you haven't noticed they are all doing it together. I'm not going to switch from ABC to CBS because I can't see either. Plus, there aren't many people who would do this. Again, that's very forum thinking. I am about as big an HD advocate as you can find, and often I just watch shows via the TiVo for the hassle-free factor.

Time and time again it has been show that content is what counts. It really comes down to that. Yes, there is an initial reaction to HD. However, that wears off.


But above all this viewer speculation are the operating costs. You have hardware upkeep. Somebody has to be paying for the operating and upkeep costs, and if it's not the H/DTV business, it's coming from somewhere else. That's money lost, plain and simple. There's personnel, facility and utilities costs. So the station is now robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, why is it beneficial for any of the locals to leverage money from other aspects of their business to play this game of chicken?


It's a sunk cost. Think of it as what they are paying for the spectrum. That's what they do.

After all, would you ever GIVE a browser away? People seem to be willing to pay for it. Just ask Netscape.


If anything, they had better strike now as they could soon lose the bargaining power should the FCC have to step in to this fray.


And that's exactly what I am suggesting. I suggest that the FCC put some pressure on the parties. At that point, the locals would realize that they are bargaining in bad faith.


Add to operation costs, the primary acquisition costs. The acquisition of the spectrum may have been "free", but setting up and then putting out even a low power signal isn't. If any one of the stations has taken a loan to purchase the hardware or upgrade their broadcasting facilities, they are now losing money by leveraging funds from other aspects of their business to pay those loans. Every day they leverage funds from the analog, radio or newsprint side to pay the majority portion of that bill, the profitability of that company as a whole is lessened. Here again, why is it beneficial for the locals to delay any additional revenue stream to help offset this negative flow? So now you're stealing more money from your other businesses to cover the losses from this H/DTV venture.



This is not new. They knew this going into it. It's not like this was a surprise.



Lastly, there is a market. Companies do not spend money to enter a market, no matter how negligible that market may appear today, only to ignore any potential for immediate revenue being generated by that market. No matter how little it may appear. The first rule of business is to turn a profit as fast as possible. To do this, you start bringing in money as soon as the opportunity arises and find ways to increase that stream. Not just hope that you can get a slightly bigger cut in a few months because your target may or may not get nervous.


WOW! That is certainly not the first rule of business. It just isn't. Just out of curiosity -- what browser are you using? The point being is that sometimes one division supports the slow growth of another. Many of the best companies wouldn't exist if they followed your "first rule of business."



All this money is revenue lost, no matter how you look at it. Every penny they miss out on today is a penny lost. Every penny they steal from their analog station to cover the H/DTV broadcasting costs is a penny lost. Every viewer lost by not having this service is money lost as well.



Unless you understand the concept of future earnings, I really can't say anything here.



Comcast is not the sole party to blame I never stated that, they are the primary party, but not the sole party. As of April 2003, out of 809 H/DTV OTA capable markets, only 120 have any local cable carriage of their H/DTV signal. You can't tell me that the locals in all of those markets not being serviced by cable companies are running the same business principle as they are here.

I would be willing to bet that of those 120 most are O&Os. ;) Coincidence? I doubt it.

I have given you many many reasons why the locals have incentives to hardball. Yet you have maintained that Comcast is to blame. You have done so without giving a single explanation as to why.

Why was Comcast able to reach agreements in other markets? Why would Comcast be willing to risk their most spendy customers? Why would Comcast be willing to give up their one true advantage over sat providers? Comcast has a lot more to lose (both in the short term and the long term). All this and you still maintain that Comcast is to blame. I am curious to know why.

Cheers,
Steve

Just found out Comcast is actually adding four channels of programming from KCTS starting tomorrow, August 7th rather than just the one previously announced HD feed:

Ch. 108 - KCTS in High Definition (Airtime from 5:00 PM - 12:00 AM) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/
Ch. 109 - KCTS Digital Simulcast (24/7) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/
Ch. 110 - KCTS Learns (Airtime from 12:00 AM to 5:00 PM) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/learns/index.asp
Ch. 112 - KCTS Kids (Airtime from 12:00 AM to 5:00 PM) For programming information go to: http://pbskids.org/

Only 108 will be HD, but 110 and 112 look to be nice additions for those of us with children.

ESPN-HD and KCTS. Hmmm. I'm getting closer to pulling the treigger on Comcast HD, but I'm afraid this won't be enough to justify the cost of upgrade. I'm determined to wait until we see a press release regarding at least one of our locals (besides, KCTS, of course).

Doug had mentioned that ESPN-HD pic quality was not too great--anyone else have any firsthand experience? I've been waiting for the day I can see college football in HD. I might have to sign up before the season starts...

There hasn't been an actual HD broadcast yet, but the std broadcast is excellent. A better picture than Directv (std ESPN) by far. I'm very happy with it and cannot wait for football.

That is if you don't mind it being stretched. If I couldn't make it a normal 4:3 aspect ratio for their upconverts I'd be watching ch. 31 instead.

I think tomorrow's football game is the first actual HD broadcast we will see.

The main complaint has been the stretched picture that viewers can't do anything about. It looks like they're using "Full" stretch mode instead of "Panorama", which would look better.

Ah--I see. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the stretchiness (if it's not done well). I like my Tosh 42HDX82's TheaterWide stretch modes, but I'm not a fan of, for example, the way KCTS stretches their multicast DTV station. I really hope the HD produtions are done well. I really do. :)

Report back, folks! I'm all a-twitter!

Also, how does the cost breakdown look? I'm currently paying $12/month for analog vanilla-basic service. So, I'd probably step it up to digital cable. (BTW, How much is that per month?). Are ESPN-HD, KCTS-HD (if it ever happens) and the Mariners game-channel an added fee on top of digital cable service? (I don't care about HBO or Showtime, or whatever movie channel they've got.)

Andy

Digital cable is an extra 12$ month on top of basic cable costs..

rigth now comcast is running a deal where you get a dpremium channel package for 3months (reg $26.00/mo) for $9.99 which is actually cheaper than regular digital cable which will run you $11.00 a month..

Make sure you request an HD reciver when you get the package, it comes with no additional cost, you just have to request it specifically :)

n8

Andy,

If all you wanted to receive were the new KCTS feeds, then you could simply add the DCT5100 box to your Comcast account. The only additional charge you would pay (other than what you are currently paying) would be for the box rental. All the box would do in that case is allow you to receive the KCTS feeds (no digital program guide, no PPV access, etc.). If you wanted to receive ESPN HD, then what NizZ8 is saying would apply.

Hello...I'm new to this post.

Not sure if this is old news...I received an Email from Comcast this morning -

Hi Michael,
You've got great timing. We are scheduled to offer KCTS in high definition
beginning tomorrow on channel 108. In addition, earlier this week we began
offering ESPN in high definition as well.
Enjoy!

Steve Kipp
Executive Director of Communications
Comcast

Originally posted by mpritc

Not sure if this is old news...I received an Email from Comcast this morning -

Hi Michael,
You've got great timing. We are scheduled to offer KCTS in high definition
beginning tomorrow on channel 108. In addition, earlier this week we began
offering ESPN in high definition as well.
Enjoy!

Steve Kipp
Executive Director of Communications
Comcast


Wow, how do you get a personal email direct from Steve Kipp himself?

and, why didn't you ask him where all of our other local channels are... :D