San Francisco, CA - Comcast [Text View] - Page 24

keenan

03-23-05, 03:44 PM

From The Marin Independent Journal

County scolds Comcast over dropping FM service

By Keri Brenner, IJ reporter

Cable giant Comcast should change its mind about dropping FM radio service in Marin, the Marin County Board of Supervisors agreed yesterday.

Without FM service, according to a resolution brought forward by Supervisor Susan Adams and approved unanimously by the board, "many Marin residents will suffer an irreparable loss of connection with their community.

"In most instances, they cannot build antennas or otherwise compensate for the loss of the service through any other means."

The action came after a packed March 9 hearing on the issue at San Rafael City Hall. More than 200 people attended the Marin Telecommunications Authority board hearing, most opposing the Comcast decision.

"The numbers of people in the room reflected how far off base Comcast was in their determination that cable FM was not important to the people of Marin," Adams said.

Because FM signals are blocked by hillsides such as Mount Tamalpais, many Marin residents cannot receive a normal FM radio transmission without a cable connection.

Comcast officials, however, said the removal of FM service in Marin in mid-February after almost 20 years was a "business decision" based on what customers have said they wanted. By taking out FM service, the cable company will have room among the cable channels to add two new services: video-on-demand and high-definition TV.

"It was a local business decision we made, based on what our local customers - including those in Marin - have said they wanted," Comcast spokes-man Andrew Johnson said. "It's a clear trend: go to any Circuit City and see if people are asking for an HDTV set or for FM radio."

But about a half-dozen members of Media Action Marin, a citizens group, urged supervisors yesterday to adopt even stronger language in the resolution. Members said they wanted it stated that the MTA board should stop franchise renewal talks with Comcast until FM service is put back.

If that doesn't work, the group wants the MTA board to sue Comcast, open up the franchise bidding process to other vendors and to "begin the process to municipalize cable delivery," said Regina Carey, a Media Action Marin member.

"We want MTA to cease negotiations with Comcast until FM service is restored," Carey said.

Adams, an alternate member of the MTA board, said she wasn't ready to add that language to yesterday's resolution, but would take the suggestions to the rest of the MTA board.

Marty Nichols, MTA executive officer, said yesterday that it would be hard to change Comcast's decision from a business standpoint, but he thinks there is reason to voice opposition to California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and to U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Pet-aluma. Nichols said residents should also send copies of the letters to Comcast.

"Maybe if Comcast was convinced it would be a bad political decision, they would reconsider - in order to support their bigger political objectives," Nichols said.

He said Congress could get involved because the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 is up for renewal. Comcast may be trying to position itself to lobby for less regulation in the new act, and so would need to show it was a well-run business and was serving community needs, Nichols said.

Nichols said the FM service was not part of the existing Comcast agreement, which expired in 2000 but is still technically the only document in place. However, he said the MTA board is making the service part of the bargaining chips in the talks.

"The MTA is going to fight the battles it can, but individuals will have more power than us, if enough people make it an issue with their senator."

He said he has received calls and e-mails from more than 500 residents upset about Comcast's decision. Comcast has said it has no exact figures on how many Marin residents used the FM service using a "splitter" from their television cable line.

But Johnson said the FM service decision was a "local business decision" and not tied in with any broader political objectives. He said the company did two years of market research on customer preferences, including a survey inserted in cable bills last year.

He said Marin customers could access FM signals through Internet streaming, satellite radio or with antennas.

"We understand this change did impact a group of customers, and we hope they understand the reason why," Johnson said. "While we certainly respect their opinions, the business decision will allow us to take care of the vast number of customers who want video-on-demand and HDTV."

davisdog

03-23-05, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by keenan
From The Marin Independent Journal

County scolds Comcast over dropping FM service

Comcast officials, however, said the removal of FM service in Marin in mid-February after almost 20 years was a "business decision" based on what customers have said they wanted. By taking out FM service, the cable company will have room among the cable channels to add two new services: video-on-demand and high-definition TV.

So, am I correct in assuming it takes about 20 Mhz of bandwidth if you are just carring the existing spectrum?

That's a pretty hefty chunk (at least when you are on a 550Mhz system)...equivalent to ~12 HD channels

Mikef5

03-23-05, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by keenan
From The Marin Independent Journal

"We understand this change did impact a group of customers, and we hope they understand the reason why," Johnson said. "While we certainly respect their opinions, the business decision will allow us to take care of the vast number of customers who want video-on-demand and HDTV."

Or Comcast could do the right thing and UPGRADE ALL SYSTEMS so this kind of thing doesn't happen again or in other areas that are not as well informed as the people of Marin seem to be. Most of the people in my area don't have a clue what Comcast is doing or not doing for their cable system so Comcast gets away with not upgrading us to a even level as the rest of the Bay Area.

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

03-23-05, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
So, am I correct in assuming it takes about 20 Mhz of bandwidth if you are just carring the existing spectrum?

That's a pretty hefty chunk (at least when you are on a 550Mhz system)...equivalent to ~12 HD channels

The only part of that article that matters is this part,

Nichols said the FM service was not part of the existing Comcast agreement, which expired in 2000 but is still technically the only document in place.

The problem I see is that franchise agreements are far too long in length, 10-15yrs, to be able to cover emerging technology. So the cablco is essentially in complete control and can decide when and where they bring new services online. And those services are always ones that generate revenue, FM doesn't get them nickel. IMO, they removed FM from the Marin system because they could and wanted to, not because of what any customer sampling told them, and what are they replacing it with? Revenue generators.

The only reason we still have FM up here is that it is actually in the franchise agreement.

Rant off,

As far as your question, I think that is what Comcast would like us to believe. IIRC, FM was discussed earlier in this thread and I seem to remember that to carry these FM signals was somewhat of a pain in the butt for the cableco. I have a hard time accepting that by removing the FM that they could add VOD and HD. Seems like quite a stretch to me...sounds more like an excuse to explain their actions.

dailowai

03-23-05, 05:51 PM

Anyone else not getting 5.1?

spoonman27

03-24-05, 12:33 PM

So I called this morning to downgrade and was told I would be unable to keep the dvr if I do not have standard cable. Their website says you need digital which I will have(digital classic plus basic). Has anyone been able to get/keep the dvr without standard cable? I am not paying them 24 bucks a month for channels I can watch with a better picture on d*.

walk

03-24-05, 03:43 PM

I can't actually believe that people really care about FM. Mostly people just like to stir up sh*t. Especially in Marin where rich white liberals feel entitled to everything. It's like local-access. Does anyone even use it? Not really.. does anyone actually watch it? Hell no. But god forbid you talk about removing it.. people are still living under the misguided hippie ideal that somehow local "access" programming will save us from the giant coroporate media outlets.

Screw those idiots. More HD channels please.

edmc

03-24-05, 05:41 PM

walk basically says that adding HD channels is worth losing some/all of the "public access" channels

Unfortunately for walk, those public access channels were part of the deal Comcast agreed to in order to get their local monopoly. Those HD channels, however, were not (yet anyway) required. So even if Comcast wanted to increase their appeal, they have contractual obligations - that they probably would just as well not have to follow - which prevent the swap proposed by walk.

But this does raise an interesting question as we move to all digital. While those "must carry" obligations state these channels must be carried, they no doubt say nothing about the bandwidth used to carry them. Certainly, it would be within Comcast's abilities and contractual obligations to highly compress such "must carry" content to make more room. One 6MHz block can certainly carry all those "must carry" channels if compressed sufficiently.

Me, I'm hoping the all-digital transition allows for such equitable solutions...

davisdog

03-24-05, 05:50 PM

walk...I think you forgot to take your med's this morning

MikeSM

03-24-05, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by keenan
The only part of that article that matters is this part,

The problem I see is that franchise agreements are far too long in length, 10-15yrs, to be able to cover emerging technology. So the cablco is essentially in complete control and can decide when and where they bring new services online. And those services are always ones that generate revenue, FM doesn't get them nickel. IMO, they removed FM from the Marin system because they could and wanted to, not because of what any customer sampling told them, and what are they replacing it with? Revenue generators.

The only reason we still have FM up here is that it is actually in the franchise agreement.

Rant off,

As far as your question, I think that is what Comcast would like us to believe. IIRC, FM was discussed earlier in this thread and I seem to remember that to carry these FM signals was somewhat of a pain in the butt for the cableco. I have a hard time accepting that by removing the FM that they could add VOD and HD. Seems like quite a stretch to me...sounds more like an excuse to explain their actions.

This is pretty incredible. You guys want more HD content, but people don't want to give up their poor quality FM transport to do it. Yes, it's about 20 Mhz that would get freed up on the cable plant if you took FM off the system. That means you could add 4-6 HD channels in that spectrum if it was recycled, depending on guard bands and other details on how they carry it. If it's a 24 Mhz chunk of spectrujm (rounded up to the nearest 6 Mhz boundary), you would be able to add 6 HD channels.

Why isn't this a case of a win-win for you 550 Mhz folks? Comcast gets to add additional HD content on your system, and they earn more $$$ from that compared to FM transport. You get more HD programming for the same fees you pay right now. Just because Comcast makes more money by this change doesn't mean it's a bad thing for you.

Did noone from the public speak up and support this? You should tell your elected officials you want Comcast to do this, but only if they use it for additional HD channels. Comcast would say yes to that I think.

This is a great opportunity to get more HD content in place - who cares about FM compared to HD?

Thanks,
Mike

MikeSM

03-24-05, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
walk...I think you forgot to take your med's this morning

Well, he's maybe too passionate about this, but if I were in his area, I would have the same reaction. The FM service delivered over that cable system isn't very good - internet radio is a much better solution, and takes far less bandwidth on the system. Why shouldn't he want more HD channels that he would actually watch instead of this nonsense that's a poor use of the spectrum.

Even if Comcast is forced to deliver FM, they aren't being forced to deliver to more HD. Is this really the priority that you customers of Comcast have in that market? Why not change this? You could have more HD channels in a month after they shut off the FM. Even if they agree to a rebuild, it'll take some time to rebuild the system, and why not have better HD content during that time period?

You may or may not be able to get Comcast to do a rebuild to 750, but in any case, recycling the FM spectrum for more HD seems like a no-brainer to me. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Mike

keenan

03-24-05, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by edmc
But this does raise an interesting question as we move to all digital. While those "must carry" obligations state these channels must be carried, they no doubt say nothing about the bandwidth used to carry them. Certainly, it would be within Comcast's abilities and contractual obligations to highly compress such "must carry" content to make more room. One 6MHz block can certainly carry all those "must carry" channels if compressed sufficiently.

If they get compressed and STB is going to be required to un-compress then at the TV. These channels are required to be in the clear, IOW, plug the cable from the wall to the TV and you get a picture. And typically the people that these channels matter the most to are the ones that do not have digital cable, less than half of all Comcast's subs have digital cable.

The one biggest thing in my mind that will solve 95% of the BW problems is if cable can get the okay from the FCC/Congress to require a STB for every hook-up. Then they can compress everything. I'm sure this is one of the things cable has been trying to do in order to go all digital. They will have to in order to compete with satcos who do not have this type of restriction. Cable has a finite amount of BW and the bulk of that BW is clogged with analog signals. Satcos are already 100% digital, and with DirecTV and it's 3 new birds, cablecos are going to be lagging far behind in the BW department.

keenan

03-24-05, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by MikeSM

This is a great opportunity to get more HD content in place - who cares about FM compared to HD?

Thanks,
Mike

You're right, for some reason I had it in my head that FM took up far less space.

Personally, I could care less about FM. The problem is, as I noted and alluded to in the previous post, is that the folks that are clamoring for their FM/local access are most likely the same folks who have only a non-digital subscription. Which is over 50% of cables customers. Plus, the fact that HD is really not mainstream, at all, people are just not latching onto it like they did with DVD, results in a situation where FM, the ability to plug the cable from the wall to the TV, and local access are still more important than HD, VOD, HSI and VoIP.

Some day they will be important to the majority, but I think we're years away from that.

keenan

03-24-05, 08:03 PM

Another article about the Marin FM cutoff, there's some choice statements in it,

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/mar24_05/comcast.html
San Geronimo Valley rallies for cable FM service

Point Reyes Light - March 24, 2005

San Geronimo Valley rallies for cable FM service

By Peter Jamison

Responding to citizen outcry, county supervisors passed a resolution Tuesday urging Comcast to restore its FM radio service. The resolution was the latest of the countyï¿½s to-date unsuccessful efforts to coerce the media giant to reverse its decision. But despite the wave of protest, Comcast has steadfastly maintained that the elimination of FM radio from its broadband cable packages was a business decision necessary to bring in new services.

"Weï¿½re taking a service on the downswing and replacing it with services definitely on the upswing," Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson told The Light. "What consistently our survey results and focus groups have found was that our FM service was least in demand throughout the Bay Area, and so weï¿½ve made a business decision to replace it with high definition TV and video-on-demand."

Comcast sticks to its guns

Public opinion in the countyï¿½and especially in West Marinï¿½appears to belie Johnsonï¿½s claim that FM radioï¿½s popularity is waning. At a public meeting of the Marin Telecommunications Agency on March 9, hundreds of citizens turned out to voice their frustration at the loss of FM radio, filling the MTAï¿½s meeting chambers and spilling out into the hall. Supervisor Susan Adams, who sits on the board of MTA, said she had never seen such a large audience at an MTA meeting.

"Having that many people attend an evening public meeting was quite compelling," she said. "Anytime you have 200-plus people showing up on a weeknight to voice their opposition to something, you assume there are 10 others who didnï¿½t."

Some 200 customers may seem a drop in the bucket when compared to the 1.6 million Comcast serves in the greater Bay Area. But Supervisor Adams said that similar protests underway in cities as distant as San Jose, Modesto, and Half Moon Bay show that opposition to Comcastï¿½s decision is not confined to Marin County. Public outcry has been no less muted in neighboring Sonoma County, where the Petaluma Argus-Courier reported that two Petaluma city council members have complained to Comcast about the cable companyï¿½s decision.

Adding to the frustration of local governments, Supervisor Adams said, was Comcastï¿½s refusal to publish the survey results. While the surveys have been touted as justification for the cable companyï¿½s decision, they have so far been kept under wraps.

"Comcast has failed to produce the survey or the data that they say they based this decision on," she said.

But Johnson said that revealing the survey results would give an edge to Comcastï¿½s competition.

Comcast customer David Knepler, who works in marketing, was among those who lost FM radio service. He said the companyï¿½s reasoning to keep its survey secret doesnï¿½t wash.

"They say they wonï¿½t publish the results of the study [on FM radio service] because of competition ï¿½ but theyï¿½re discontinuing the radio service," Knepler said. "It just doesnï¿½t make sense. They had a product they werenï¿½t marketing, and then they wonder why no one was using it."

For years residents of West Marin have tuned in to FM radio through broadband cable, and many only subscribe to cable service in order to access their favorite radio shows.

"Comcast gives us a lot of channels that are worthless to everybody," Comcast customer Fred Mundy of Forest Knolls said. "I donï¿½t know of anybody who uses those stupid shopping channels. Itï¿½s pretty obvious that a lot of people in this county want the FM and donï¿½t want some of the junk they give us."

Wonï¿½t share surveys used to justify decision

Residents were further angered by what they see as Comcastï¿½s failure to properly notify them that FM service would be cut. While Johnson stated that Comcast published notices of the move in local "newspapers of record" 30 days prior to the cutoff, residents agreed that the disappearance of their FM radio service took them by surprise. Knepler said he found out his radio service had been eliminated by reading an Oakland Tribune article describing the action. When he looked back through his bills from preceding months, he said, he saw no signs of the impending cutoff.

"This was done arbitrarily, without public notice," Supervisor Adams told The Light. "Before we had an opportunity to meet with them they just flipped the switch." She added that the majority of her constituents had learned of Comcastï¿½s move simply by tuning into FM radio one day and hearing static.

West Marinï¿½s previous two cable providersï¿½Viacom and AT&Tï¿½both provided FM radio, and Comcast took over with the agreement that it would continue to provide the service, she said. In a Feb. 18 letter to Comcast, general counsel Greg Stepanicich of the MTA, wrote that, "... although cable franchise agreements do not explicitly require Comcast to provide FM radio services during the term of the franchise, it is clear that the parties intended that these services would be provided to subscribers in Marin."

The problem, Supervisor Adams explained, is that as FM radio service isnï¿½t explicitly included in the franchise agreement with the MTA, the company has been able to scrap the service at will.

Comcast executive Johnnie Giles pointed out this legality in his written response to Stepanicich: "The cable franchise agreements do not require the cable operator to provide FM services and, as you are aware, this is no longer a service cable operators are required to provide under FCC regulations."

Spokesman Johnson reiterated this point, characterizing the FM radio service as merely a complimentary service.

"Providing FM radio has never been one of our core competencies," he said. Since FM radio was complimentary, he reasoned, there is no need to reduce monthly fees now that the service has been cut.

Johnson suggested customers look into alternative means of FM radio, such as online audio streaming, satellite radio, or simply purchasing a longer antenna. He also noted that Comcast continues to offer a commercial-free "radio" service, Digital Music Choice.

So far, many residents have been unimpressed with Comcastï¿½s suggestions.

"I want KPFA, I want my communist station, I donï¿½t want their bullshit," Mundy said, referring to Comcastï¿½s Digital Music Choice. As for satellite radio, Mundy said that he didnï¿½t want a satellite dish on his house, nor did he want to investigate other costly options for getting FM reception.

It was unfair to suggest expensive alternatives for accessing what many consider a basic service, Knepler said.

Supervisor Adams wryly noted that any antenna long enough to receive an FM signal in West Marin would probably violate zoning regulations.

Comcast hasnï¿½t given an inch in the face of complaints and Johnson said the companyï¿½s decision to remove FM cable, while doubtless frustrating to some customers, was purely market-driven. These days, he said, there are simply more people interested in extra television options than there are interested in radio.

"Weï¿½re weighing an overwhelming demand from customers on one hand against a service on the other hand enjoyed by a relatively small number of customers," he said. Since the broadband that conveys cable signals can only convey so much information, Johnson added, Comcast had no choice but to choose pursuing HDTV and on-demand video over FM radio.

"Weï¿½re no different from every other retail product out there," he said. "We have a limited amount of shelf space."

Valley folks dismayed by companyï¿½s intransigence

Knepler described the underlying message from Comcastï¿½s representative at the public MTA meeting on March 9 as "No matter what you say, weï¿½re not turning it back on."

Supervisor Adams agreed, stating that the companyï¿½s intransigence on this issue may tarnish its image.

"Comcast made this decision at a time when theyï¿½re advertising over the airwaves how responsive they are to the community," she said. "Itï¿½s a big [public relations] mistake."

County supervisors and the MTA are contemplating legal action to compel Comcast to turn the radio back on, she said. But since Marin County, like other counties statewide, is in the midst of belt-tightening to cope with the stateï¿½s budget crisis, the chances of local government surviving a legal battle with the media giant seem slim.

"Comcast has tons of money to spend in court cases," Supervisor Adams noted. "Cities and counties donï¿½t have as much. When youï¿½re dealing with a 600-pound gorilla, you have to have some pretty good self-defense maneuvers."

MTA is on the verge of renegotiating Comcastï¿½s franchise agreement. Supervisor Adams said that while the cutoff of FM radio service will certainly be "on the table," the absence of competitive cable-providers in the area will put MTA at a disadvantage, since Comcast knows the county has nowhere else to turn.

Legacy of ï¿½90s deregulation

"Weï¿½re not powerless in this situation, but we certainly have our work cut out for us," she said, adding that the dilemma MTA finds itself in is partly a result of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that went far to deregulate the nationï¿½s cable industry.

"All of the deregulation that happened for the sake of more competition and services provided to consumers at cheaper prices never really came to fruition," she said, adding that instead, a steady consolidation of media sources has allowed a small group of large companies able to dictate services and fees as they please. Comcastï¿½s acquisition of AT&T, West Marinï¿½s previous cable provider, was a part of this trend, she added.

Comcastï¿½s market-driven decisionï¿½s immediate effects are already becoming clear to Knepler. Before his radio was cut off, he said, his family would listen to jazz during dinner. It was a way of educating his children about music. Now, he said, with no jazz coming through the wire, his kids have increasingly been asking to watch the television while they eat.

John Mace

03-25-05, 12:44 AM

Trying to watch The Office in HD... no audio, so I switch over to SD. Jumping back and forth, I finally get audio on HD, but the video shrinks to about 60% of normal. Then the video comes back to full screen, and the audio disapears again. I guess this must have been what it was like in the 40s, during the earliest days of TV...

greeno

03-25-05, 12:48 AM

Hi John,
I've got HD and audio. But it's presented "matted". I'm a bit surprised as I thought all sit-coms were HD.

Best,
jeff

wco81

03-25-05, 12:49 AM

What's odd is that you could hear the background sounds, like rustling of papers and door shutting. So you wonder if it's intentional.

But a similar thing happend on Desperate Housewives once. So it sounds like there are two audio channels at least, one for the vocals and one for the background sound?

keenan

03-25-05, 02:21 AM

Yeah, I think KNTV is still having problems with their new broadcast center...their Dolby E decoding must have been screwed up...lately it has almost become a necessity to have DirecTV as a back-up, it was perfect on Ch83.

Bill Ball

03-25-05, 04:33 AM

Yes, a lot of intermittent sound drop out on KNTV lately. Used to be fine.

Bill

Bill Ball

03-25-05, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by spoonman27
So I called this morning to downgrade and was told I would be unable to keep the dvr if I do not have standard cable. Their website says you need digital which I will have(digital classic plus basic). Has anyone been able to get/keep the dvr without standard cable? I am not paying them 24 bucks a month for channels I can watch with a better picture on d*.

If by Standard you mean analog or Basic Cable, Digital Classic includes that, so yes, you need it.

With the non-PVR HD box, all I had Basic Cable, and the HDTV channels were provided as well as a subset of the other digital channels. That was a bargain.

Bill

John Mace

03-25-05, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by wco81
What's odd is that you could hear the background sounds, like rustling of papers and door shutting. So you wonder if it's intentional.

But a similar thing happend on Desperate Housewives once. So it sounds like there are two audio channels at least, one for the vocals and one for the background sound?

Since voice audio is center channel on 5.1, I've always assumed that this was caused by some audio channels broadcasting OK, but others not.

And I've seen it all the HD networks. When it happens on CSI, we're always left wondering if this is supposed to be another "Grissom and his hearing problems" episode. :)

slb

03-25-05, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by wco81
What's odd is that you could hear the background sounds, like rustling of papers and door shutting. So you wonder if it's intentional.

But a similar thing happend on Desperate Housewives once. So it sounds like there are two audio channels at least, one for the vocals and one for the background sound?

Same thing happened here on Wednesday night with the beginning of Lost. You could here the background music, but not the voices. I switched to the SD channel and everything was okay. Since Lost was a rerun, I switched to something else, so I don't know if it stayed that way for the entire program.

-Steve

todd22

03-25-05, 02:50 PM

Quickie: I have the Silver Digital package w/standard. Should I be receiving Fox Movie Channel 506? It says I'm not authorized whereas when I turn to a movie channel like Showtime that I know I'm not setup for it gives me a different message.

I get all those channels surrounding FMC like Encore, IFC, Lifetime etc.

I thought with Silver everything was included except for the big 5 movie channels?

thanks,
Todd

Oh and I agree about abolishing the FM stations. I have not once tuned to them. I would rather be watching more HD channels. If you guys need another voice in this I would be happy to send an email or sign a petition :)

bobby94928

03-25-05, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by todd22
Quickie: I have the Silver Digital package w/standard. Should I be receiving Fox Movie Channel 506? It says I'm not authorized whereas when I turn to a movie channel like Showtime that I know I'm not setup for it gives me a different message.

I get all those channels surrounding FMC like Encore, IFC, Lifetime etc.

I thought with Silver everything was included except for the big 5 movie channels?

thanks,
Todd

Oh and I agree about abolishing the FM stations. I have not once tuned to them. I would rather be watching more HD channels. If you guys need another voice in this I would be happy to send an email or sign a petition :)

With Digital Silver you get: Digital Classic, Digital Plus, Encore and Multiplexes, Choice of One Premium Service, , Pay-Per-View, and Digital Music Channels.

You need Digital Premier to get channel 506, it's an extra $4.99 a month.

walk

03-25-05, 07:59 PM

I lived in Marin for many years, and I never used the FM on cable. First, I listen to FM mostly either in the car, or in the bedroom clock-radio in the morning. Hardly ever on the stereo - too many damn commericals!

That said, when I moved to Petaluma I hooked it up. Horrible reception. Seriously, some stations were plain un-listenable with all the static and noise. Why anyone would "miss" that is beyond me.

Like I said, people just LOVE to rally around their little pet issues, espeically in marin (I dunno maybe Berkeley too :)

As for public-access - I'd guess about 95% of the time those stations are filled with "community bulletin board" type of text-only screens, showing the same 4 announcements, many of them even being weeks or MONTHS old (ie what they were announcing had already happened weeks ago). Yeah that's a great use of bandwidth. The other 5% of the time was this crazy right-wing religious conspiracy-theory show that would make claims like how country music was really just a front for underage sex slave operations.. and other total wingnut type of stuff.

NOBODY WATCHES THIS STUFF, EVER. These same people who show up at meetings, I bet they could not name 1 show on any of those channels or say when they are on. These are the same people who only have basic cable and watch only sit-coms and local news on channels 2-9. Who in the #@$% cares what they have to say about Digital cable / HDTV, etc...

Here in Petaluma not only are there like 4 "public access" stations (mostly text-screens - if even that), but I have to pay an extra $2/ mo for the "Petaluma local access fee". Yes I'm a little ticked off about that - but I don't think I need medicine to handle it, not just yet ;) We're on a 750mhz system here, and they just upgraded our HSI to 4mb/384k so I'm not about to start complaining.. some things do set me off tho, sorry bout that heh..

keenan

03-25-05, 09:47 PM

Walk, I agree with what you've said here, but this part here is why we have some of trhe problem,

These are the same people who only have basic cable and watch only sit-coms and local news on channels 2-9. Who in the #@$% cares what they have to say about Digital cable / HDTV, etc...

These people constitute over 50% of Comcast's business so Comcast has to care what they say, digital and HD of course, are no-brainers for folks like you and me, but for the majority of customers out there, they don't know, and could care less about it.

I will say that to have 200 people show up at a meeting like that does seem to indicate that there is a lot of folks down there who are upset. Up here in Santa Rosa, I think we only had 2-3 people show up for our City Council meeting with Comcast, among them JasonQG and myself. That tells me people around here just don't care enough...sad but true...

Nice rant though, some grade A stuff in there...:p country music/sex slaves :eek:

MikeSM

03-26-05, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by keenan
Walk, I agree with what you've said here, but this part here is why we have some of trhe problem,

These people constitute over 50% of Comcast's business so Comcast has to care what they say, digital and HD of course, are no-brainers for folks like you and me, but for the majority of customers out there, they don't know, and could care less about it.

I will say that to have 200 people show up at a meeting like that does seem to indicate that there is a lot of folks down there who are upset. Up here in Santa Rosa, I think we only had 2-3 people show up for our City Council meeting with Comcast, among them JasonQG and myself. That tells me people around here just don't care enough...sad but true...

Nice rant though, some grade A stuff in there...:p country music/sex slaves :eek:

I'm not sure this group is comcast's base - and in any case, Comcast would be your ally in wantting to turn on more HD services and other advanced services where they also happen to make more money on. FM has a very low $/Mhz number, whereas HSI is probably the highest $/Mhz return. HD and VOD are in the middle, which explains why Comcast prefers to deploy these services, and why you guys should support them.

I have seen a lot of these kind of discussions happen in council meetings, but don't think it's a numbers game. Most of the simple folks don't come off as being very credible, particularly if a few knowledgable people are on the other side.

If you had a few people who mentioned some of the things discussed in this thread came across as credible, and shredded the other's positions, then I think you could easily carry the day. In the end, the city has better things to do that fight with comcast - if they think Comcast is being reasonable, then they will go along.

Just my 2 cents, but I douldn't drop this if this was my system. You have way more influence than you think...

Thanks,
Mike

plumeria

03-26-05, 12:51 AM

Archon

> I read there has been a problem in SF Bay Area when comcast turns on the
> PBS HD channel at 8pm, causing the LG 4200A lose all 117-X channels (Black
> Screen) has this problem been sent to LG yet? Any news?
>
I called LG customer support over 2 weeks ago and reported the problem to Nicole their customer service rep. She said a similar problem has been reported in a different area.

She promised to call me back the next day, but no call. I have called them 3 times in the last 2 weeks to get an update but nothing from teh 3 different peopel I talked to - other than "an email was sent to their engineers". I wil keep trying and suggest that everyone else with this problem does the same.

Do you also get this problem - there are 5 or 6 of us online and growing.

Peter
p.s. bought a big ladder and 75ft of RG6 - might go up on the roof to try OTA since not being able to tune back to KQED HD after 8pm is proving to be a pain in the ass.. However, the roof slopes quite a bit and I wouldn't like to fall ;-(

keenan

03-26-05, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by MikeSM
I'm not sure this group is comcast's base -

As of 3Q04, of 21,485,500 subs, only 8,405,000 of them are digital customers. The rest are basic-standard customers, the demo I was referring to. It's actually closer to 60% of their customers, not the 50% I stated earlier. This is from the Jan 08-2005 The Bridge, an e-report put out by a subscription trade resource group.

I'm with you Mike, I would definitely like to see Comcast increase their programming. But they have already stated that it's better for them business-wise to take the approach they have done above, as opposed to increasing BW in 550MHz systems which would solve 99% of these problems. When rising defections to DirecTV start later this year then maybe they will have a new game plan for 550MHz systems, I'm not holding my breath though. It's a matter of choice, Comcast has made theirs and I'll make mine, I'd like to stay with Comcast but they have to give a reason to. Whether we here want to accept it or not, the fact is, people who want HD are but a minute minority with an equally small amount of clout. Some day, maybe. I'm not been harsh or unreasonable, just logical.

edmc

03-26-05, 12:22 PM

I have a QAM-capable tuner in my TV, so I checked out what it finds. Sure enough, it locates all those FM stations just fine. It was, however, really surprising to see 18 or 19 SubChannels!

What this means is that in a single 6MHz "Channel", they can fit 18 or so FM Stations. In other words, they don't really get back that much bandwidth by dropping the 30+ FM Stations (maybe only 3 Channels out here in Pleasanton).

I take Keenan's point about the Must Carry Local Access channels currently having to be in the clear lest a Cable Box be required. My suspicion is that some day soon CableCard will be "expected" and the move to all-digital will be allowed to proceed. I don't however think Comcast is all that eager to have to deploy cable boxes to everyone for free unless they have some prospect of up-selling new services to those people who currently only have basic (analog) cable service. Time will tell...

keenan

03-26-05, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by edmc

I take Keenan's point about the Must Carry Local Access channels currently having to be in the clear lest a Cable Box be required. My suspicion is that some day soon CableCard will be "expected" and the move to all-digital will be allowed to proceed. I don't however think Comcast is all that eager to have to deploy cable boxes to everyone for free unless they have some prospect of up-selling new services to those people who currently only have basic (analog) cable service. Time will tell...

Exactly, the thought of the expense of supplying 13 million converter boxes(at $50 a box, it's about $650 million) can't be too thrilling a thought for Comcast, especially with no guarantee of added revenue. Not to mention they will need to get the FCC to make a major rule change to allow the requirement of a box in the first place. I suspect that the core analog channels will be with us until just before the analog shutdown, which at this point in time doesn't look to happen until around 2009.

So how is Comcast going to add more channels and services to 550MHz systems while maintaining the no-box rule and the current analog channels? Who knows..we'll see...I guess..

Barovelli

03-26-05, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Exactly, the thought of the expense of supplying 13 million converter boxes(at $50 a box, it's about $650 million) can't be too thrilling a thought for Comcast,

Got to consider that all digital costs less than another system upgrade or rebuild.

dailowai

03-26-05, 06:15 PM

Is anyone in the east bay not getting 5.1 on any channels? I tried INHD1 and INHD2 and haven't gotten 5.1 out of these channels in the last two weeks. I'm trying to determine whether its my box or comcast. Seems like it may be my box since no one else is having any problems.

MikeSM

03-26-05, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by keenan
As of 3Q04, of 21,485,500 subs, only 8,405,000 of them are digital customers. The rest are basic-standard customers, the demo I was referring to. It's actually closer to 60% of their customers, not the 50% I stated earlier. This is from the Jan 08-2005 The Bridge, an e-report put out by a subscription trade resource group.

I'm with you Mike, I would definitely like to see Comcast increase their programming. But they have already stated that it's better for them business-wise to take the approach they have done above, as opposed to increasing BW in 550MHz systems which would solve 99% of these problems. When rising defections to DirecTV start later this year then maybe they will have a new game plan for 550MHz systems, I'm not holding my breath though. It's a matter of choice, Comcast has made theirs and I'll make mine, I'd like to stay with Comcast but they have to give a reason to. Whether we here want to accept it or not, the fact is, people who want HD are but a minute minority with an equally small amount of clout. Some day, maybe. I'm not been harsh or unreasonable, just logical.

I don't doubt the sub numbers keenan, but I am talking about revenue. They make decisions not just on sub demand, but on what makes the most money for them. Premium services tend to be higher margin than basic cable. that's why the eat the cost of the DVR and HD STB's. Converting folks from analog only to digital is a very high priority for them, as it is for all other MSO's. they will do this by a carrot and stick approach. :-)

Thanks,
mike

MikeSM

03-26-05, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by edmc
I have a QAM-capable tuner in my TV, so I checked out what it finds. Sure enough, it locates all those FM stations just fine. It was, however, really surprising to see 18 or 19 SubChannels!

What this means is that in a single 6MHz "Channel", they can fit 18 or so FM Stations. In other words, they don't really get back that much bandwidth by dropping the 30+ FM Stations (maybe only 3 Channels out here in Pleasanton).

I take Keenan's point about the Must Carry Local Access channels currently having to be in the clear lest a Cable Box be required. My suspicion is that some day soon CableCard will be "expected" and the move to all-digital will be allowed to proceed. I don't however think Comcast is all that eager to have to deploy cable boxes to everyone for free unless they have some prospect of up-selling new services to those people who currently only have basic (analog) cable service. Time will tell...

EDMC, I don't know what your set locked on to, but the FM channels that are currently being idscused in this thread is the rebroadcast of 88-108 Mhz in the same frequency on the HFC plant. It's not digital - you know it's not from all the complaints about quality of the signal. Can your set tell you what frequency it's picking those stations up on? Maybe comcast is encoding these so to continue to provide the service using digital STB's, but I am unaware of them doing this anywhere else.

Thanks,
Mike

smallghost

03-26-05, 07:49 PM

Hi guys, I just bought a panny EDTV today and I am wondering which HD provider gives the most sport channels for the $$? I checked comcast and it looked like I can only get Discovery, ESPN, and HBO only. I lived in San Leandro, CA. (it's a bad area, i guess) Will Dish or Directv give me more sport channels for the $$? One more question, is Voom any good? It looks like it has lots of HD channels. Thanks in advance.

Brian Conrad

03-27-05, 12:56 PM

Why did you buy an EDTV? Those are not HD sets. They only display 480 lines.

hiker

03-27-05, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Brian Conrad
Why did you buy an EDTV? Those are not HD sets. They only display 480 lines. Because with Panny ED plasma most people can't tell the difference unless you sit closer than 3 feet to the screen or use it for a computer monitor.

smallghost,
I have both DirecTV and Comcast basic HD. Comcast should give you local HD and maybe FOXBA for some Warriors and Gaints games. DirecTV has the extra cost package for Sunday Ticket NFL which gives all HD games on Sunday.

edmc

03-27-05, 02:35 PM

Re FM Re-Broadcasts on Comcast, I completely blew it :-)... I was tuning in all those DMX-style music stations, *not* FM stations. Oops! I have no way to tune in or even tell if Comcast in Pleasanton is re-broadcasting FM stations on their Cable. Sorry for the misinformation.

Re keenan's $ figures on replacing/supplying cable boxes to "everyone" to allow an all-digital transition - it's sounding like that may be only required for the 550MHz areas. Perhaps that would make the $ figure cheaper, but I didn't grok where the 13 million boxes figure came from (perhaps that's the # of customers in the 550MHz areas?).

But the point about even allowing an all-digital over cable switchover is very unclear to me. It sounds more like a local-access negotiated issue than, say, an FCC one. In other words, Comcast and the Local Negotiating Entity ("LNE") could, I guess, agree to "accept" an all-digital/box-required solution in lieu of waiting for a 550->750 or ->850 MHz upgrade...

keenan

03-27-05, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by edmc
Re keenan's $ figures on replacing/supplying cable boxes to "everyone" to allow an all-digital transition - it's sounding like that may be only required for the 550MHz areas. Perhaps that would make the $ figure cheaper, but I didn't grok where the 13 million boxes figure came from (perhaps that's the # of customers in the 550MHz areas?).

But the point about even allowing an all-digital over cable switchover is very unclear to me. It sounds more like a local-access negotiated issue than, say, an FCC one. In other words, Comcast and the Local Negotiating Entity ("LNE") could, I guess, agree to "accept" an all-digital/box-required solution in lieu of waiting for a 550->750 or ->850 MHz upgrade...

The 13 million is the amount of customers that Comcast has who are not digital. To go to a full digital those customers(60% of a 21 million total) will need to have some sort of downconverting STB.

It is a FCC reg on the boxes, but you might be right, the "LNE" may have the very last say. And the bottom line is that people abhor those boxes. People are not going to go out and buy a new TV just so they can still get cableTV. While many folks are unhappy with the prices of cable TV, most are content with the service, plug the cable into the TV and it works. To go to a full digital service means that at least 100-200 million navigation devices nationwide become obsolete.

The cablcos will have to provide these boxes free or they will have a lot of upset customers, that's if they can even get the okay to deploy them. Or, they will have to come up with another solution. The Government simply will not allow cablcos to turn off the feed to all the non-digital customers, which at this point in time and the near future is the large majority.

Folks in 750-860 systems are okay as there is enough room to implement digital simulcast which can make room for more channels, but 550 systems simply don't have the room. Hopefully Comcast can talk the LNEs into converting some of the analog channels to digital to make some room but I think that is going to be a tough road for Comcast to drive.

It could be just coincidence, but ever since Comcast rolled out full HSI in this area I have been getting black screens, green screens, "this channel will be available shortly" messages and occasional pixelation. I hope that has nothing to do with HSI, but since this 550 system is already at bursting point I have to wonder..

lloydus

03-27-05, 08:03 PM

Is anyone having problems with the output from the Motorola 8412 box using component cable. I had mine hooked up to a Vizio P42HDe (hi def) tv and got these bands 2-3 inches thick and 2-3 inches apart going vertically across teh whole screen. Went out and bought a dvi cable ($100 rip off Monster cable from Sears) and the picture quality is great - i.e. none of the bands.

Anyone else had these problems?

Also anyone know where you can get a cheap dvi cable locally? Mtn View area?

hiker

03-28-05, 10:44 AM

lloydus,
Assume you mean Motorola 6412? I had one for a while and component was ok. Sounds like a bad box or cable.
DVI...
Tried Fry's?
Online, pacificcable.com (http://pacificcable.com/DVI.htm) or eBay.

hiker

03-28-05, 10:52 AM

I have 6200, Limited Basic with Digital Classic tier and want to add another 6200 to the household. Digital Classic tier is supposed to include SD digital box but I already have HD box.

Since CSRs are clueless about extra charges I thought I'd ask here. Is it $6.95 or $11.95 ($6.95 + $5.00) or? Thanks

greeno

03-28-05, 11:13 AM

In Livermore the charge per 6200 is $5.00

Best,
jeff

davisdog

03-28-05, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by greeno
In Livermore the charge per 6200 is $5.00

Best,
jeff

It's a surcharge though (for HDTV equipment) that is above the normal price for a Cable Box.

Isnt the $6.95 Charge a fee for the 2nd outlet (and $5 surchage for HD tuner on top of that).

..I agree, it's tough to get a straight answer on this

walk

03-28-05, 05:24 PM

Am I wrong or would the FCC mandate for analog "in the clear" retransmission only apply to the local channels? I.e. only a handful, 10-15 at most.

If that's true then Comcast could easily squeeze all those into the first 10-15 channels and make all the rest digital.

keenan

03-28-05, 06:12 PM

I thinks it's whatever is in the basic tier which is around 30 channels. Not sure how expanded basic figures into it, but I'm assuming that is being included as well. You add those 60-70 channels up and it's around 400MHz of bandwidth.

Digitizing a lot of those channels is something the cablecos want to do but they will need the regulatory authority to allow it.

BTW, I believe there is over 20 local stations in the bay area.

Mikef5

03-28-05, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by walk
Am I wrong or would the FCC mandate for analog "in the clear" retransmission only apply to the local channels? I.e. only a handful, 10-15 at most.

If that's true then Comcast could easily squeeze all those into the first 10-15 channels and make all the rest digital.

Walk,
This is a really unique idea and may hold out some hope to the 550 MHz and below systems. If they only have to have local channels in the clear for analog ( I know they do for the digital local channels ) then it could free up alot of bandwidth. Does anyone have a link to the FCC document that talks about the requirements for going all digital ?? I suppose I could try and search the FCC web site but if someone already has the document or link to it I would appreciate it. I intend to bring this up to Mr. Johnson and see what his take is on this. This could be a way for Comcast to add more HD to the non-upgraded systems and still abide by the no set top box provision.

Laters,
Mikef5

davisdog

03-28-05, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Walk,
This is a really unique idea and may hold out some hope to the 550 MHz and below systems. If they only have to have local channels in the clear for analog ( I know they do for the digital local channels ) then it could free up alot of bandwidth. Does anyone have a link to the FCC document that talks about the requirements for going all digital ?? I suppose I could try and search the FCC web site but if someone already has the document or link to it I would appreciate it. I intend to bring this up to Mr. Johnson and see what his take is on this. This could be a way for Comcast to add more HD to the non-upgraded systems and still abide by the no set top box provision.

Laters,
Mikef5

I'm sure they've already thought long and hard about doing just this....It will be interesting to see what A.J's response is.

I'm sure it comes down to revenue (and potentially contracts)...Extended basic channels (ESPN etc...) probably bring in a fair amount of revenue..so they still face the backlash from customers if those disappear.

All of the subscribers would need to get STBs and would need to start paying for 2nd/3rd outlets to get them now. I'm sure they would face defections to Satellite as the lack of a box is still a large advantage for analog only customers.

Mikef5

03-28-05, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
I'm sure they've already thought long and hard about doing just this....It will be interesting to see what A.J's response is.

I'm sure it comes down to revenue (and potentially contracts)...Extended basic channels (ESPN etc...) probably bring in a fair amount of revenue..so they still face the backlash from customers if those disappear.

All of the subscribers would need to get STBs and would need to start paying for 2nd/3rd outlets to get them now. I'm sure they would face defections to Satellite as the lack of a box is still a large advantage for analog only customers.

Well, it is my impression that the reason for the no cable box requirement was so people of low income would have access to local news and emergency messages not so they can be entertained with ESPN or Food channel or the rest of the fluff channels. Now don't get me wrong, I think everyone needs to be entertained and have access to entertainment but not at the cost to other people in their areas or the hold up of technology being advanced other wise we would still be listening to radio or black and white tv's, we've gone through this stuff before ( who needs color my black and white tv is just fine, I can't afford a color tv etc. etc..... ). If they need to setup a new tier for local analog only then do it, if they need to subsidize the boxes for low income people ( one box per household) then do it, this dragging of the feet is getting old and so am I :p .

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

03-28-05, 07:33 PM

This is why I don't hold out much hope for anything changing with 550MHz systems for quite some time. No room for simulcast and there is no end in sight to analog broadcasting, at least for the next 4 maybe 5 years. That and the fact that franchise agreements, at least here, extend to 2010 and beyond the picture doesn't look to rosy.

Mikef5

03-28-05, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by keenan
This is why I don't hold out much hope for anything changing with 550MHz systems for quite some time. No room for simulcast and there is no end in sight to analog broadcasting, at least for the next 4 maybe 5 years. That and the fact that franchise agreements, at least here, extend to 2010 and beyond the picture doesn't look to rosy.

So Keenan, any word on the HMC from Directv ?? That's what I'm waiting for, once they come out with that I'm history from Comcast. Just got my cable bill today and it's up to $113/ month so it's not cost effective for me to stay with Comcast now especially with the limited programming that they provide to our areas.

Laters,
Mikef5

davisdog

03-28-05, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Well, it is my impression that the reason for the no cable box requirement was so people of low income would have access to local news and emergency messages not so they can be entertained with ESPN or Food channel or the rest of the fluff channels. Now don't get me wrong, I think everyone needs to be entertained and have access to entertainment but not at the cost to other people in their areas or the hold up of technology being advanced other wise we would still be listening to radio or black and white tv's, we've gone through this stuff before ( who needs color my black and white tv is just fine, I can't afford a color tv etc. etc..... ). If they need to setup a new tier for local analog only then do it, if they need to subsidize the boxes for low income people ( one box per household) then do it, this dragging of the feet is getting old and so am I :p .

Laters,
Mikef5

I agree that's probably why the rule exists (although I've never bothered to look at it)....but I was adding that Comcast is probably looking at the current revenue they get from extended basic sub's vs other users of that bandwidth (and taking into account what subscibers would do if they got rid of the Analog version of E-Basic).

As we've seen over and over again...HD doesnt pull as much wait as we'd want (vs legacy services)

Mikef5

03-28-05, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
I agree that's probably why the rule exists (although I've never bothered to look at it)....but I was adding that Comcast is probably looking at the current revenue they get from extended basic sub's vs other users of that bandwidth (and taking into account what subscibers would do if they got rid of the Analog version of E-Basic).

As we've seen over and over again...HD doesnt pull as much wait as we'd want (vs legacy services)

Yep, I see what you are saying but I don't just want more HD ( I do but.. ) We don't even get VOD or InHD, they can't even give us more digital channels, except those foreign language stations that they just added but they are subscription services so I guess they have room for that... :rolleyes:
I understand trying to make a profit but what about giving ALL your customers the ability to get the same services at the same prices. Well, if they don't do something pretty soon, I'll be with D* because for what I'm paying Comcast, I can get much more through D* for the same or less cost.

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

03-28-05, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
So Keenan, any word on the HMC from Directv ?? That's what I'm waiting for, once they come out with that I'm history from Comcast. Just got my cable bill today and it's up to $113/ month so it's not cost effective for me to stay with Comcast now especially with the limited programming that they provide to our areas.

Laters,
Mikef5

No not yet, probably not until later in the year. I am curious how they are going to handle the HD-LiL come June-July if they are going to use MPEG4. They will need to institute a box replacement program.

Theoretically I could dump Comcast now since I get all the nets in HD from DirecTV already. The only thing Comcast has going for it in my case is the cheap DVR. I don't see any point in going with the DirecTV TiVo box only to have to swap it out later, although, if things go the way it looks like they are, DVR replacement cost would be minimal or some sort of pro-rated credit. I'm waiting to hear the particulars on how that is going to work before I get the TiVo box.

keenan

03-28-05, 09:31 PM

keenan

03-28-05, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Does anyone have a link to the FCC document that talks about the requirements for going all digital ?? I suppose I could try and search the FCC web site but if someone already has the document or link to it I would appreciate it.

Laters,
Mikef5

It might be in here. This is dated 1998 but addresses the rules and rule changes for the DTV transition. It's long and boring but there is some interesting stuff in it.

I have found the exact reference before about the STBs, but it will take me some time to locate it again. Reading these FCC documents gives me eye strain though...:p

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98153.txt

walk

03-29-05, 02:36 PM

Ok I count 19 local stations:

2 KTVU-2 (FOX)
3 KNTV-11 (NBC-3)
4 KRON-4 (IND)
5 KPIX-5 (CBS)
6 KICU-36 (IND)
7 KGO-7 (ABC)
8 KTSF-26 (IND)
9 KQED-9 (PBS)
10 KFTY-50 (IND)
12 KBHK-44 (UPN)
13 KBWB-20 (WB)
14 KDTV-14 (UNI)
16 KKPX-65(PAX)
17 KCSM-60(PBS)
18 KSTS-48 (TLMD)
19 KTNC-42(Azteca)
20 KFSF-66 (TF)
21 KCNS-38 (IND)
22 KRCB-22(PBS)

Honestly I'm not even sure all of these are mandated. 3 PBS stations? All the IND/foreign language/out of market (i.e. Sacto area) stations?

However even with all 19, if they left these analog and went all-digital for the rest for 550mhz areas, that's a pretty big savings isn't it? 19 vs 80-odd analog channels?

keenan

03-29-05, 05:08 PM

Found the basic tier restrictions,

Â§ 76.630 Compatibility with consumer electronics equipment.

(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier. Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons. As part of this showing, cable operators are required to notify subscribers by mail of waiver requests. The notice to subscribers must be mailed no later than thirty calendar days from the date the request waiver was filed with the Commission, and cable operators must inform the Commission in writing, as soon as possible, of that notification date. The notification to subscribers must state:

On (date of waiver request was filed with the Commission), (cable operator's name) filed with the Federal Communications Commission a request for waiver of the rule prohibiting scrambling of channels on the basic tier of service. 47 CFR 76.630(a). The request for waiver states (a brief summary of the waiver request). A copy of the request for waiver is on file for public inspection at (the address of the cable operator's local place of business).

Individuals who wish to comment on this request for waiver should mail comments to the Federal Communications Commission by no later than 30 days from (the date the notification was mailed to subscribers). Those comments should be addressed to the: Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Washington, DC 20554, and should include the name of the cable operator to whom the comments are applicable. Individuals should also send a copy of their comments to (the cable operator at its local place of business). Cable operators may file comments in reply no later than 7 days from the date subscriber comments must be filed.

(b) Cable system operators that provide their subscribers with cable system terminal devices and other customer premises equipment that incorporates remote control capability shall permit the remote operation of such devices with commercially available remote control units or otherwise take no action that would prevent the devices from being operated by a commercially available remote control unit. Cable system operators are advised that this requirement obliges them to actively enable the remote control functions of customer premises equipment where those functions do not operate without a special activation procedure. Cable system operators may, however, disable the remote control functions of a subscriber's customer premises equipment where requested by the subscriber.

Note 1 to Â§76.630: The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are applicable July 31, 1994, and June 30, 1994, respectively.

Note 2 to Â§76.630: Â§76.1621 contains certain requirements pertaining to a cable operator's offer to supply subscribers with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals.

Note 3 to Â§76.630: Â§76.1622 contains certain requirements pertaining to the provision of a consumer education program on compatibility matters to subscribers.

Note 4 to Â§76.630: Cable operators must comply with the notification requirements pertaining to the waiver of the prohibition against scrambling and encryption, and comply with the public file requirement in connection with such waiver.

[59 FR 25342, May 16, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 18510, Apr. 26, 1996; 65 FR 53616, Sept. 5, 2000; 67 FR 1650, Jan. 14, 2002; 67 FR 13235, Mar. 21, 2002]

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0360e918ce561d7ba2568bea5de67d31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.14&idno=47
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

The FCC is currently weighing a ruling that will allow cablecos to encrypt all the signals for the purpose of combating theft. If allowed to encrypt the side effect could be that it will allow the cablecos to go all digital which would open up all sorts of bandwidth. With the change in personnel at the FCC though this ruling may be sitting on the back-burner for awhile.

These links here are also related,

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0360e918ce561d7ba2568bea5de67d31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.14.3.1&idno=47
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

Excerpt from above link,

(a) Basic service. The basic service tier shall, at a minimum, include all signals of domestic television broadcast stations provided to any subscriber (except a signal secondarily transmitted by satellite carrier beyond the local service area of such station, regardless of how such signal is ultimately received by the cable system) any public, educational, and governmental programming required by the franchise to be carried on the basic tier, and any additional video programming signals a service added to the basic tier by the cable operator.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0360e918ce561d7ba2568bea5de67d31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:4.0.1.1.4.11.3.15&idno=47
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

mechou

03-30-05, 01:33 AM

Walk,

What's your point here? In case you haven't figured it out, cable operators are mandated to carry local stations. The Bay Area just happens to be a BIG market, hence so many channels. Furthermore, in Feburary 2005 FCC ruled that cable operators are not mandated to carry both analog AND digital local stations. In there words, they are only mandated to carry one (form) or the other.

Given the fact not everyone is on the "fast track" to transition to DTV, most people still have SDTV sets and so forth, and with above facts, what is it you propose? Do away with the rest of the analog channels?

Your viewpoint just comes across as extremely selfish and unreasonable. You should be bitching at Comcast for not upgrading 550Mhz areas, not at the rest of the folks who have not yet "moved on" to DTV as you have. And so what if Comcast carries 3 PBS stations?? I happen to enjoy living in a place that carries 3 PBS stations.

Originally posted by walk
Ok I count 19 local stations:

2 KTVU-2 (FOX)
3 KNTV-11 (NBC-3)
4 KRON-4 (IND)
5 KPIX-5 (CBS)
6 KICU-36 (IND)
7 KGO-7 (ABC)
8 KTSF-26 (IND)
9 KQED-9 (PBS)
10 KFTY-50 (IND)
12 KBHK-44 (UPN)
13 KBWB-20 (WB)
14 KDTV-14 (UNI)
16 KKPX-65(PAX)
17 KCSM-60(PBS)
18 KSTS-48 (TLMD)
19 KTNC-42(Azteca)
20 KFSF-66 (TF)
21 KCNS-38 (IND)
22 KRCB-22(PBS)

Honestly I'm not even sure all of these are mandated. 3 PBS stations? All the IND/foreign language/out of market (i.e. Sacto area) stations?

However even with all 19, if they left these analog and went all-digital for the rest for 550mhz areas, that's a pretty big savings isn't it? 19 vs 80-odd analog channels?

Mikef5

03-30-05, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by mechou
Walk,

What's your point here? In case you haven't figured it out, cable operators are mandated to carry local stations. The Bay Area just happens to be a BIG market, hence so many channels. Furthermore, in Feburary 2005 FCC ruled that cable operators are not mandated to carry both analog AND digital local stations. In there words, they are only mandated to carry one (form) or the other.

Given the fact not everyone is on the "fast track" to transition to DTV, most people still have SDTV sets and so forth, and with above facts, what is it you propose? Do away with the rest of the analog channels?

Your viewpoint just comes across as extremely selfish and unreasonable. You should be bitching at Comcast for not upgrading 550Mhz areas, not at the rest of the folks who have not yet "moved on" to DTV as you have. And so what if Comcast carries 3 PBS stations?? I happen to enjoy living in a place that carries 3 PBS stations.

Mechou,

Let me ask in what area do you live in ??? A 550 MHz or below system ?? or in a fully upgraded system ??

In case you think that the people of these non upgraded systems have not complained to Comcast about them not upgrading ALL AREAS to the same level, you need to read this entire thread again. I for one have been a major pain in the butt for Comcast to the extent that the V.P. of Communications for Comcast called me at my home to ask me what could be done or any ideas that I had for him. I can tell you for a fact Comcast will never upgrade the 550 MHz and below systems, that is straight from the horses mouth. So what do you suggest these people do ?? I don't think it is selfish to get what you pay for. I pay the same price for my cable as the rest of the upgraded areas and getting less than half of the stations that the rest of the areas do. Is that fair or am I being selfish too ?? Walk a mile in my shoes before you accuse.

I have spent the better part of 2 days reading the FCC regulations as it applies to must carry and the future of the analog spectrum. It is so convoluted that interpreting it would take forever for a congressman to understand let alone a layman like myself. With such clarity it will be years before we will see the end of the analog spectrum. So in the mean time we of the 550 MHz and below will still not receive the same service that the rest of the Bay Area has but we will still have to pay the same rates. Fair ??? or Selfish ?? You be the judge.

Enough rant, I have a major headache from all the reading.

Thanks Keenan for the links they were very helpful and cleared alot of things for me. Basically we're screwed, D* will be getting my business when they get the conversion to mpeg 4 started and they get the HMC's.

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

03-30-05, 03:04 AM

While all three of you guys have made good points, I think we have a case of a cascading misunderstanding happening that has put some of you at odds with each other when really, we all are saying pretty much the same thing.

Walk was putting forth an idea that might free up bandwidth,

I mentioned some reasons why and some links on why that will be tough to do,

Mechou, it seems, has mistook Walk's post as a slight against people who use/want analog channels and have not moved to digital,

Mikef5, Mechou is giving some valid reasons why the move to digital will be slow and I think he is in agreement with us about the 550Mhz systems.

Or, maybe I'm misreading everybody and I don't know what I'm talking about..
:p :p

Mikef5, your welcome for the links, that stuff is incredibly dry and confusing, I feel as if it might be easier to print it all out and draw connecting lines to each of the parts so when it's read it makes sense..:D

Mikef5

03-30-05, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by keenan
While all three of you guys have made good points, I think we have a case of a cascading misunderstanding happening that has put some of you at odds with each other when really, we all are saying pretty much the same thing.

Walk was putting forth an idea that might free up bandwidth,

I mentioned some reasons why and some links on why that will be tough to do,

Mechou, it seems, has mistook Walk's post as a slight against people who use/want analog channels and have not moved to digital,

Mikef5, Mechou is giving some valid reasons why the move to digital will be slow and I think he is in agreement with us about the 550Mhz systems.

Or, maybe I'm misreading everybody and I don't know what I'm talking about..
:p :p

Mikef5, your welcome for the links, that stuff is incredibly dry and confusing, I feel as if it might be easier to print it all out and draw connecting lines to each of the parts so when it's read it makes sense..:D

You could draw lines through my crossed eyes from all the reading I've been doing.... :D

I do understand that some people just can't afford to go the digital route but that will always be the case. We had the same problems when we went from radio to black and white tv and then to color tv ( OK, I don't remember the radio to black and white tv but I do remember color :) ). You try and make it as painless as you can but not at the expense of everyone else. It's not being selfish it's just a fact of life, not pretty but a fact. Anyway, I've done enough reading for a life time, especially something this convoluted and dry, good thing baseball season is starting real soon... :p

Laters,
Mikef5

Mikef5

03-30-05, 12:15 PM

Speaking of baseball here's the link to the Giants and A's schedule ( HD ) that we of the 550 MHz and below will not be able to watch in HD.
http://www.fsnbayarea.com/giants/skeds/giantshdsked.php
To bad the HD games are exclusive to FSN-HD and Comcast, you would think they could simulcast it to the local Fox network ( 702 ) so that everyone could watch the games in HD but then again.... :(

Laters,
Mikef5

todd22

03-30-05, 12:49 PM

I wonder if the games that are on KTVU will be brodcasted in HD on 702, or if it will be in 4:3 format? Hmm I wonder how that works?

Giants games usually a couple of times a week are on channel 2.

mechou

03-30-05, 01:59 PM

I live in an area where they (Comcast) been promising to upgrade for years. So far I believe it's *still* a 550Mhz system.

To me, it's unreasonable to expect everyone (or even a majority) to make the transition to HDTV right now. FCC is equally to blame. Had the FCC adopted "must carry" for both analog AND digital, you would bet that Comcast would have been on a fast track to upgrade. If the digital "source" is more readily available it's likely more people would upgrade instead of dragging their feet.

If Comcast is not willing to upgrade their plant, then as far as HDTV reception is concerned you have another alternative. Move on over to satellite. If sufficient numbers of people abandon Comcast, you can be sure they will see the error of their ways. Of course, if your or your neighbors are not willing to put your money where your mouth is (i.e. your assertion there is plenty of demand for HDTV & bandwidth in your neighborhood) then there will be no motivation for Comcast to upgrade whatsoever. Let your wallet do the talking. Otherwise wait till 2009 (or later) when the transition to digital will be complete.

"I pay the same price for my cable as the rest of the upgraded areas and getting less than half of the stations that the rest of the areas do." To me the answer here is simple. Don't pay until they upgrade. I'm not being facetious about this.

Bitching at people for not making the DTV transition sooner is definitely not constructive. Why don't you go challenge FCC, city hall (local franchise authority) or Comcast, since they are the ones really not doing their jobs?

Bottom line this bandwidth constraint is artificial and can be corrected. It's a supply side problem, not a demand side problem. After all, this is how the "free market" is supposed to work. You look for other alternatives if one vendor is not meeting your needs. What am I missing?

Originally posted by Mikef5
Mechou,

Let me ask in what area do you live in ??? A 550 MHz or below system ?? or in a fully upgraded system ??

In case you think that the people of these non upgraded systems have not complained to Comcast about them not upgrading ALL AREAS to the same level, you need to read this entire thread again. I for one have been a major pain in the butt for Comcast to the extent that the V.P. of Communications for Comcast called me at my home to ask me what could be done or any ideas that I had for him. I can tell you for a fact Comcast will never upgrade the 550 MHz and below systems, that is straight from the horses mouth. So what do you suggest these people do ?? I don't think it is selfish to get what you pay for. I pay the same price for my cable as the rest of the upgraded areas and getting less than half of the stations that the rest of the areas do. Is that fair or am I being selfish too ?? Walk a mile in my shoes before you accuse.

I have spent the better part of 2 days reading the FCC regulations as it applies to must carry and the future of the analog spectrum. It is so convoluted that interpreting it would take forever for a congressman to understand let alone a layman like myself. With such clarity it will be years before we will see the end of the analog spectrum. So in the mean time we of the 550 MHz and below will still not receive the same service that the rest of the Bay Area has but we will still have to pay the same rates. Fair ??? or Selfish ?? You be the judge.

Enough rant, I have a major headache from all the reading.

Thanks Keenan for the links they were very helpful and cleared alot of things for me. Basically we're screwed, D* will be getting my business when they get the conversion to mpeg 4 started and they get the HMC's.

Laters,
Mikef5

Mikef5

03-30-05, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by mechou
I live in an area where they (Comcast) been promising to upgrade for years. So far I believe it's *still* a 550Mhz system.

To me, it's unreasonable to expect everyone (or even a majority) to make the transition to HDTV right now. FCC is equally to blame. Had the FCC adopted "must carry" for both analog AND digital, you would bet that Comcast would have been on a fast track to upgrade. If the digital "source" is more readily available it's likely more people would upgrade instead of dragging their feet.

If Comcast is not willing to upgrade their plant, then as far as HDTV reception is concerned you have another alternative. Move on over to satellite. If sufficient numbers of people abandon Comcast, you can be sure they will see the error of their ways. Of course, if your or your neighbors are not willing to put your money where your mouth is (i.e. your assertion there is plenty of demand for HDTV & bandwidth in your neighborhood) then there will be no motivation for Comcast to upgrade whatsoever. Let your wallet do the talking. Otherwise wait till 2009 (or later) when the transition to digital will be complete.

"I pay the same price for my cable as the rest of the upgraded areas and getting less than half of the stations that the rest of the areas do." To me the answer here is simple. Don't pay until they upgrade. I'm not being facetious about this.

Bitching at people for not making the DTV transition sooner is definitely not constructive. Why don't you go challenge FCC, city hall (local franchise authority) or Comcast, since they are the ones really not doing their jobs?

Bottom line this bandwidth constraint is artificial and can be corrected. It's a supply side problem, not a demand side problem. After all, this is how the "free market" is supposed to work. You look for other alternatives if one vendor is not meeting your needs. What am I missing?

Mechou,
Let me try this one more time. I'll try and answer your inputs one at a time.
First I never said that everyone should be forced to adopt the digital transition right now but you have to set a deadline for sometime or it will never happen. There's always going to be some excuse. Also, I agree whole heartedly with your statement that the FCC is the major source for this problem. I have read just about every document that I could find about this, enough to make my head swim and I'm still confused to what the real deal is with this transition phase. You can read it so many ways that it's not funny. What really is a problem is that the average consumer doesn't have a clue on what is happening with this analog thing. They just buy what's in the store and go about their business. What are they going to do when the analog signal goes away ?? and it is going away, when ?? no one knows but it will go away.

As far as an alternative to Comcast, I've already made that decision. As soon as the transition to mpeg 4 is started with Directv, I will leave Comcast and not even look back. So my wallet is already walking.. and like I said the average customer has no idea on what's happening with their cable system but every person that I've had over to the house and has watched HD or digital are truly impressed and had no idea that it was available to them. Most of the public are very uninformed on this.

As far as Comcast caring if they lost all the people of Milpitas, they have already shown that they could care less by not upgrading our system and they never will and if you live in a 550 MHz area they will never upgrade your system either.

I have dealt with Comcast on these issues and I mean directly with Comcast. I still have Mr. Johnson's phone number. I have dealt with the franchise council but it's like talking to a wall. They have their own agendas and only see their own agenda as the right agenda.

This is getting to long and to much of a rant. So lets leave this as is. I agree that the FCC needs to get this resolved and to do a better job at getting this information out to the general public. I think we want the same things, just differences in how to go about it. Discussions are great, that's how you learn, and I have learned much in these forums. My rants are not directed at you personally and I hope you have not taken them as such. I think we should concentrate on getting Comcast to do the right thing and upgrade all the systems to the same level, then this would be a mute point because we would all have the bandwidth and programing that we are paying for and the transition to all digital would go much smoother.

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

03-30-05, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by mechou
I live in an area where they (Comcast) been promising to upgrade for years. So far I believe it's *still* a 550Mhz system.

What area are you in? It's helps if you put your location in your profile, especially with discussions about cable service.

keenan

03-30-05, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5

As far as Comcast caring if they lost all the people of Milpitas, they have already shown that they could care less by not upgrading our system and they never will and if you live in a 550 MHz area they will never upgrade your system either.

Comcast has actually stated as much, it is not cost effective for them to upgrade 550MHz systems. I can understand business decisions like that, it's just unfortunate that I live in an area where Comcast doesn't want to provide the level of services and programming that the other 86% of their customers get.

Unless the cablecos can get the FCC to roll with them on full digital carriage for security and theft reasons, which I don't see happening BTW, it will be a long time before any major additions are made on 550MHz systems.

There is no other logical conclusion to be drawn other than Comcast feels the HD and VOD are simply not that important to their bottom line in 550 areas. The folks who run Comcast are not stupid, they obviously realize that very soon satellite is going to blow them out of the water with HD offerings in 550 areas, so again, Comcast doesn't care, they are getting what they want out of these areas without upgrading. Bummer for us.

Wolfgang

03-30-05, 05:25 PM

I originally upgraded from the basic cable service to the Digital Silver package special so I can get DVR service. The special of $29.99 for the Digital Silver is going to run out at end of March, and I like to downgrade my service back to some reasonable level that still allows me to keep the DVR. I don't watch any standard analog channels, I just watch HD mostly. And being in Milpitas, I don't like to shell out $50 a month just to watch 6 HD channels.

Questions:

1. Does Comcast still insist standard cable for DVR service?
2. If so, what is the cheapest package I can get and still maintain DVR service.

Anybody tried this recently?

mechou

03-30-05, 05:33 PM

Yup, in essence, in those 550 Mhz areas, Comcast has already "bet the farm." Basically that means they'll only flick the analog to digital switch when forced to do so (now around 2009 if you factor in delays, but probably even later than that). Basically they're not going to upgrade just for some "temporary" increase in bandwidth over the next 5 years or so. After the transition, maybe they're hoping to win back those customers that have moved over to satellite.

As far as full digital carriage for security and theft reasons, there is already a process in place for that. You quoted it in one of the Title 47 CFR clauses earlier. The cable co can file waivers, but the affected people are also allowed to comment. The intent is put the onus on the cable co to demonstrate a that ppl are "stealing," and for people to put a check on what the cable co can do. I don't see any need for the FCC needs "to roll" with the cable co. on this. I believe that NYC is one of the places that has cable signals encrypted, for example.

There are other ramifications to this. You would need a STB or cablecard for every tv set in your house. You can probably kiss goodbye to PIP. And most importantly, you cannot record (like a VCR) unless it's "authorized" recording hardware (i.e. it has to be a 5C platform, don't bother if you have HTPC), even for local channels.

Originally posted by keenan
Comcast has actually stated as much, it is not cost effective for them to upgrade 550MHz systems. I can understand business decisions like that, it's just unfortunate that I live in an area where Comcast doesn't want to provide the level of services and programming that the other 86% of their customers get.

Unless the cablecos can get the FCC to roll with them on full digital carriage for security and theft reasons, which I don't see happening BTW, it will be a long time before any major additions are made on 550MHz systems.

There is no other logical conclusion to be drawn other than Comcast feels the HD and VOD are simply not that important to their bottom line in 550 areas. The folks who run Comcast are not stupid, they obviously realize that very soon satellite is going to blow them out of the water with HD offerings in 550 areas, so again, Comcast doesn't care, they are getting what they want out of these areas without upgrading. Bummer for us.

spoonman27

03-30-05, 05:34 PM

Iwanted to downgrade back to basic and keep the dvr. I have directv also so when Comcast hassled me I just gave them back the dvr. When directv expands this summer, I will be rid of all my comcast cable. I could not justify paying 30 bucks a month just to tape 3 shows in hd. The other ones I watch on directv. The ones I was taping in hd I will now watch on tivo sd.
Their customer service is so aggravating it wasn't worth it to me to pursue it further. Good luck.

hiker

03-30-05, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Wolfgang

Questions:

1. Does Comcast still insist standard cable for DVR service?
2. If so, what is the cheapest package I can get and still maintain DVR service.

Anybody tried this recently?
I went into my local office yesterday to pick up a second 6200 and check on DVR. Since I have only Limited Basic I asked the 2 ladies there about current requirements for DVR. They told me Standard Cable is still required plus they recently added another requirement: You must have at least one Digital Tier! So cheapest is Standard cable, about $45 plus Digital Classic tier $10. At least they now allow pickup of DVR so there's no install charge.

patmunn

03-30-05, 05:49 PM

Just wondering what the deal is with the cable modem speed in the 550mhz areas. I've been hearing commercials how Comcast is speeding up their internet service. Just wondering if this is going to be another service those of us in 550mhz area are going to miss out on. If it is, maybe that will get more people on board about Comcast underservicing our communities, i.e. they could give a rat's ass about HDTV, but might get upset if their internet service is slower than 86% of the bay area.

When I spoke to the city of Los Gatos they said the frachise agreement has no bearing on HSI.

keenan

03-30-05, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by patmunn

When I spoke to the city of Los Gatos they said the frachise agreement has no bearing on HSI.

Probably because when the franchise agreement was made there was no such thing as HSI, another advantage the cablecos have when these agreements are so long in length. They can add services they want to, but if the service was not specified in the original agreement(550 to 750/860 for instance) they don't have to do anything.

I don't know about the speed. I get 3Mbps DL from SBC/DSL for $30 a month.

keenan

03-30-05, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by mechou

As far as full digital carriage for security and theft reasons, there is already a process in place for that. You quoted it in one of the Title 47 CFR clauses earlier. The cable co can file waivers, but the affected people are also allowed to comment. The intent is put the onus on the cable co to demonstrate a that ppl are "stealing," and for people to put a check on what the cable co can do. I don't see any need for the FCC needs "to roll" with the cable co. on this. I believe that NYC is one of the places that has cable signals encrypted, for example.

There are other ramifications to this. You would need a STB or cablecard for every tv set in your house. You can probably kiss goodbye to PIP. And most importantly, you cannot record (like a VCR) unless it's "authorized" recording hardware (i.e. it has to be a 5C platform, don't bother if you have HTPC), even for local channels.

I'm curious about the NYC thing. They must provide those boxes without charge in order to do that I would think. It goes against the FCC ruling about navigation devices(TVs,VCRs) being able to tune basic cable without a STB be required or charged for. If it was that easy I'm surprised other cablecos have not done it.

mechou

03-30-05, 06:57 PM

This was from a quick search on google:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=2&post=225058#POST225058
and
http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/CiteFind/076630

Hehe, please don't be naive, the cost of the STB is part of the "cost" of subscribing to cable. It's just not a separate line item. And that's exactly what a "waiver" is for, a waiver to "the ability of customers to tune to basic cable without a STB required."

Originally posted by keenan
I'm curious about the NYC thing. They must provide those boxes without charge in order to do that I would think. It goes against the FCC ruling about navigation devices(TVs,VCRs) being able to tune basic cable without a STB be required or charged for. If it was that easy I'm surprised other cablecos have not done it.

MikeSM

03-30-05, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Probably because when the franchise agreement was made there was no such thing as HSI, another advantage the cablecos have when these agreements are so long in length. They can add services they want to, but if the service was not specified in the original agreement(550 to 750/860 for instance) they don't have to do anything.

I don't know about the speed. I get 3Mbps DL from SBC/DSL for $30 a month.

Actually, it's more complicated than this. If you recall, the city of fremont tried to establish customer service standards when @Home was first deployed and AT&T was trying to transfer the franchise from TCI. At that time, HSI service was considered a "video service" like basic video, so the local franchise had authority over it.

Then some idiots in the city of Portland sued AT&T to try and force AT&T to provide "open access" to other ISP's beyond @Home. Initially, some judge in the the federal court system ruled they had the jurisdiction to do this, but it was appealed to the 9th circuit. Eventually a full panel in the 9th circuit ruled that HSI was NOT a video service, and stripped the locals of any ability to regulate it, and also the ability to extract franchise fees for Internet service.

So by Portland trying to push this issue, all the cities wound up losing any influence over HSI they orginally had. There is still some confusion as to whether or not HSI is a "telecommunications service" or a "Information Service" under the '96 telecommunications act.

The Supreme court is also hearing a case right now "Brand X" that may end up clarifying this definition and determining if the Feds can force the Cable operators to resell data services to other ISP's, but in any case the locals lost their control because of the outcome of the Portland decision.

Thanks,
Mike

keenan

03-30-05, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by MikeSM
Actually, it's more complicated than this. I

Thanks,
Mike

No argument with any of this. My point was that with franchise agreements being so long in length time wise, any new tech or service that was not specified in the original agreement is not likely to show up on a system unless the cablco decides they want it to. Now there could be clauses in some of these agreements to cover new tech but without knowing what that tech may be they are probably pretty generic in their terms.

IOW, it is not really a balanced situation between the community/customers and the cableco. Per agreement, a cableco only has to provide what was in the original agreement, say 10 yrs ago in 1995. Today, in 2005 that's all they are still required to provide(550 for example) even though many new technologies are available. Providing these new services/tech is at the discretion of the cablco and not whether the franchiser wants it or not.

keenan

03-30-05, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by mechou
This was from a quick search on google:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=2&post=225058#POST225058
and
http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/CiteFind/076630

Interesting.

keenan

03-30-05, 07:40 PM

BTW, somewhat off topic, although it does involve cable, is a great article about the DTV transition..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=525531
Must-read article: "Spectrum Wars" by By Drew Clark, National Journal Group - AVS Forum

MikeSM

03-31-05, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by keenan
No argument with any of this. My point was that with franchise agreements being so long in length time wise, any new tech or service that was not specified in the original agreement is not likely to show up on a system unless the cablco decides they want it to. Now there could be clauses in some of these agreements to cover new tech but without knowing what that tech may be they are probably pretty generic in their terms.

IOW, it is not really a balanced situation between the community/customers and the cableco. Per agreement, a cableco only has to provide what was in the original agreement, say 10 yrs ago in 1995. Today, in 2005 that's all they are still required to provide(550 for example) even though many new technologies are available. Providing these new services/tech is at the discretion of the cablco and not whether the franchiser wants it or not.

Agreed, though the terms of the agreement don't have to be limited. For example, you could put in a requirement that new services would have to be offered in a given franchise when 10% of the MSO's other markets get it. Market test criteria have been found in some cable franchise agreements before, and they are designed to guard against falling behind.

But the folks who negotiate these agreements aren't thinking like this most of the time. It's all about internal networks for the city, public access channels, and other drivel that take up spectrum and don't matter to most of the residents of the city.

Trust me, you can do a lot better if you think about it.

Thanks,
Mike

bpearse

03-31-05, 12:59 AM

FYI, even those in 550MHz areas are upgraded to the new 4Mb/s download speed. All upgrades are done at this point, I believe. Saratoga, one of the 550MHz areas, is now at 4.0Mb/s. You do need to unplug your modem from power for 60 seconds, then plug it back in. You should then be at the new faster speed. Actually, I am getting about 4.2Mb/s download, which is VERY fast.

rickmccamy

03-31-05, 02:15 AM

I exchanged phone messages with Paul Valleriestra of the W.C. Attorney's office. He said the best case for completion of the upgrades (which haven't started) is nine months, " or it could be years". The city is trying to get the same franchise deals from Comcast that it got from Astound, a pipsqueak, two location cable company, that was eager to expand several years back.
I believe there is a hearing on April 21st that may not be open to the public, but on April 5th there is a city council meeting (comcast is not on the agenda) but members of the public can take 3 minutes to speak about issues that concern them.

keenan

03-31-05, 02:25 AM

From the San Francisco Bay Guardian Mar 30 2005-Apr 5 2005

It does have what seems to be a one-sided bent, but there is some interesting stuff it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.sfbg.com/39/26/news_comcast.html
San Francisco Bay Guardian News

The People v. Television
How Comcast is using cable to strangle democracy
By Camille T. Taiara

It took three visits to Gary Merrill Laufman's San Francisco home for Comcast technicians to get his cable service in working order. Laufman sat at home, waiting for hours each time â€“ during work hours.

"One time," he told the Bay Guardian, "they didn't come at all."

Comcast eventually gave Laufman $120 in credit on his bill after he made a couple of calls to San Francisco's Department of Telecommunications and Information Services last May. The agency oversees Comcast's franchise contract with the city, which grants Comcast the right-of-way to string its cable lines along the city's utility poles and under its streets and is set to expire at the end of the year (see "Reinventing Cable," 2/2/05).

But what really riles Laufman is Comcast's expensive prices. "What's cable going to cost in two years â€“ $70?"

Laufman's story is all too familiar to many San Francisco cable subscribers, who've seen their rates increase by 37 percent since Comcast bought out AT&T Broadband, the city's previous provider, and took over operations in November 2002.

"Just do a Google search on 'Comcast' and 'hate,' " Sydney Levy of Media Alliance suggested. So we did, and it generated 339,000 hits.

In fact, a 2004 American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast â€“ the nation's largest cable company, with 21 million cable subscribers nationwide and 70 percent of the nation's top 20 markets â€“ has the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue Service.

Even so, Comcast "surpass[ed] $20 billion in revenue for the first time" last year, chair and CEO Brian L. Roberts boasted when the company announced its year-end earnings Feb. 3.

So why is business still booming at Comcast? Deregulation and a set of favorable Federal Communications Commission policies â€“ in large part, the result of the cable industry's lobbying muscle and healthy campaign contributions â€“ have granted Comcast near monopoly power in 8 of the country's top 10 markets.

Comcast holds more than 100 franchise agreements in the greater Bay Area. Approximately 180,000 of San Francisco's 183,000 cable customers, or 98 percent of the city's cable users, subscribe to Comcast.

Now, just as San Francisco enters negotiations with Comcast to renew its franchise contract, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the nation's major cable-industry lobby group, is coming to town for its annual conference, being held at the Moscone Center April 3 to 5.

So this is a fine time to highlight a few things everyone should know about the Bay Area's chief cable provider â€“ including how it squeezes its customers, limits access to independent sources of information, and has launched full-scale attacks on labor and local governments.

All or nothing

A 2004 study by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) found that Comcast's rates have skyrocketed by 50 percent â€“ almost three times the pace of inflation â€“ since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 further deregulated the cable industry.

Comcast spokesperson Andrew Johnson told us the increase was simply the result of customers "buying more content." What he didn't explain was that Comcast and the NCTA have resisted providing Ã_ la carte programming, through which customers could choose which channels they want. Comcast's standard service in San Francisco consists of more than 80 channels â€“ including such exciting offerings as Jewelry TV and the Golf Channel â€“ at a rate of $45.99 a month. Customers must pay even more if they want popular movie channels like HBO and Showtime.

This means Comcast essentially forces customers to pay for channels they may not want. The CFA found that 80 percent of those customers wouldn't pay for ESPN if they didn't have to. "I can do without the jewelry channel," Laufman said.

The CFA points instead to a lack of real competition as the root cause of exorbitant cable rates â€“ and estimates that "the cost imposed on consumers by [cable's] abuse of market power is between $4.5 and $6 billion per year, compared to what prices would be in a competitive market."

Cable companies' ability to also provide Internet via their lines gives them a key advantage over satellite TV providers. And Comcast has been able to extract even higher returns by offering Internet discounts to cable TV customers.

The scheme has worked wonders for the cable industry, which has been enjoying a mushrooming share of the residential high-speed Internet market â€“ including 63 percent of San Francisco's, according to Nielsen/NetRatings findings released in September, and 83 percent of residential DSL nationwide, according to the CFA.

Telecom analysts warn that traditional telephone companies will likely suffer even greater setbacks as Comcast and other cable providers begin offering telephone service via emerging Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.

Content control

Perhaps more insidious is Comcast's control over what its customers see and read. Like its monolithic counterparts in the broadcast industry, Comcast has expanded vertically, buying up controlling interests in production facilities and using its advertising muscle to wrest exclusivity agreements from content providers.

"Cable operators are 64 percent more likely to carry the programming in which they have a majority ownership stake," the CFA found.

The trend is all the more harrowing when you consider the U.S. Public Interest Research Group's finding that cable is Americans' main source of news and entertainment.

"Comcast can make or break any potential program service or channel," Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told us. "They're able to exert all sorts of leverage, from dictating program formats to securing a significant minority, or even a controlling, financial interest."

But Comcast's rein over content reaches into the Internet, too, where â€“ unlike telephone companies, which are required by law to grant equal access to competing ISPs â€“ the company blocks competing service providers from accessing its cable lines and, thereby, its customers. Comcast could play favorites among different sites by making some available at higher speeds than others and even "outlaw devices [such as those used to download video and music] through acceptable-use policies," explained Ralf Muehlen, director of SFLan.org, which provides free wireless Internet access.

"It's certainly within their rights to do so under current federal regulations," he said. And any such moves would curtail the vitality of the Internet as a hub of the democratic exchange of information and ideas, making alternative, noncorporate viewpoints even less accessible than they already are.

The Wal-Mart of telecom?

Labor representatives say Comcast is so abusive in its employment practices that they've begun referring to the company as the Wal-Mart of the telecommunications industry. A recent study by American Rights at Work, titled "No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers' Rights in Telecommunications" and released in June, uncovered some disturbing practices by the company, including depressed wages and a variety of union-busting tactics.

Salaries "are approximately one-third lower than the unionized telephone companies," the report reads. "Employee turnover and the use of temporary workers ... are twice as high as the telephone industry average.... Only one in four locations where a union exists have been able to obtain a collective bargaining agreement."

"We lost 2,000 members since Comcast took over AT&T," Communication Workers of America's Lisa Morowitz told us, adding that the figure represents "over half of the employees we represent at Comcast." CWA is one of only two unions that represent Comcast workers nationwide and the only one representing Comcast employees in California, she said.

Comcast's Johnson said his company has reached agreements with all its unionized shops in the Bay Area. Morowitz answered that Comcast was obligated to do so by federal law. "It doesn't change the fact that they've got [hundreds] of unfair-labor-practice charges filed against them," she said. "They fire and harass union employees. They've literally moved work from unionized to nonunionized locations."

Johnson refused to answer further questions about Comcast's labor practices when asked about Comcast's wage structure versus that of the telephone industry.

Sticking it to cities

Workers aren't the only ones who've found Comcast difficult to deal with. Increasingly, the company has been playing hardball with local governments during franchise-renewal negotiations. It sued the city of San Jose in 2003, arguing, in essence, that the negotiations process violates the company's First Amendment rights. The courts found against Comcast, but the company is now appealing the decision. In the meantime, it's been seven years since San Jose's franchise agreement expired.

Comcast filed suit against Walnut Creek Feb. 25 after the city said it wouldn't allow the company to upgrade its system until they reached an agreement on a franchise renewal.

One week earlier, Marin County residents lost access to KPFA-FM and other regional radio stations after Comcast stopped providing the FM radio service local listeners relied on to get radio signals otherwise blocked by the area's hilly terrain.

"It was a business decision that reflects the overwhelming needs of our customers," Comcast's Johnson argued, even though more than 200 people showed up at San Rafael's City Hall March 9 to protest the move in front of the Marin Telecommunications Agency.

Media democracy advocates say these are but a few examples of a nationwide effort, by Comcast and other cable providers, to undermine the local negotiations process and lobby against municipalities having a say in what they demand in return for granting cable companies the rights-of-way needed to reach customers in their communities.

In Philadelphia, where Comcast is headquartered and enjoys multimillion-dollar tax breaks, the company doesn't even provide for a single public access channel â€“ a staple of most franchise agreements.

Fight back

As the expiration of Comcast's franchise agreement with San Francisco nears, local media activists are already holding informal meetings in local communities to gather public input they hope the city will use in its upcoming franchise negotiations with Comcast. The Department of Telecommunications and Information Services said it expects to launch formal town halls in mid-April.

Media Alliance is launching an online survey by April 3 â€“ the first day of the NCTA's conference â€“ for residents to sound off on Comcast's service and what they'd like to see come out of the city's negotiations, which the group will likewise submit as public comment.

But activists â€“ including those with Media Alliance, CWA, Code Pink, and others â€“ are also planning on making their presence felt as cable industry big-wigs and FCC representatives amass at Moscone Center, with a rally out front April 3, the first day of the NCTA conference.

"This is the time for people to speak up," Media Alliance's Levy urged. "And not just about what they don't like, but about what they want [from their cable provider] in the future."

keenan

03-31-05, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by MikeSM
But the folks who negotiate these agreements aren't thinking like this most of the time. It's all about internal networks for the city, public access channels, and other drivel that take up spectrum and don't matter to most of the residents of the city.

Trust me, you can do a lot better if you think about it.

Thanks,
Mike

This is a major part of the problem, as well as the fact that these city negotiators are probably/maybe unaware of what is available or what is on the horizon to include it in an agreement. At our Santa Rosa council meeting awhile back it was painfully obvious that the City Managers office and the council members were technologically impaired and ill prepared to deal with someone like Giles, who only answered questions asked of him and never proffered anything about what Comcast was going to do other than what was specified in the franchise agreement. He was a good soldier for Comcast.

keenan

03-31-05, 02:03 PM

It looks like UPN-HD is being added to Comcast soon according to JWhip who is very reliable. Of course that would be only for systems that have room.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=5411156#post5411156
Comcast's HD Plans, anyone? - AVS Forum

elicross

03-31-05, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Comcast filed suit against Walnut Creek Feb. 25 after the city said it wouldn't allow the company to upgrade its system until they reached an agreement on a franchise renewal.

This one has less to do with how bad Comcast is than it is with how stiff necked my government in Walnut Creek is.

Walnut Creek has a cable system that is as out-of-date as any in the country. It only gets some sixty-five to seventy channels, cannot accommodate HDTV, cannot accommodate cable internet, and can hardly accommodate more than the very most popular basic and digital cable stations. It's a cable system that must have been built in the early '80s and not upgraded since.

Walnut Creek is trying to squeeze a deal out of Comcast that they got out of a much smaller company, and in the process is leaving customers (including myself) out in the cold. Every other community surrounding Walnut Creek has been upgraded long since, and Walnut Creek is the only community in the area that has not allowed it. Also, the negotiations are not with Walnut Creek alone, but an agreement with a consortium of communities, of which Walnut Creek is the only one that has not allowed the upgrades.

I'm not usually a fan of corporate decisions, but Walnut Creek's opposition in this case should never have happened in the first place, and fighting the upgrade is throwing money away trying to block something that's in the best interests of the community.

keenan

03-31-05, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by elicross
T

I'm not usually a fan of corporate decisions, but Walnut Creek's opposition in this case should never have happened in the first place, and fighting the upgrade is throwing money away trying to block something that's in the best interests of the community.

My understanding of it is not that Walnut Creek is fighting the upgrade, but that they want an agreement in place first. I don't blame them for that, even though it means people in Walnut Creek will wait even longer for a good system, once Comcast gets the ball rolling it will be hard for the City to make sure they get what they want. I have read the report done by an outside consulting firm and Walnut Creek doesn't appear to be asking for anything more than any other city. They do want to make sure that there are some guarantees in place though on specific things. And in the long run you may appreciate their efforts, but it's tough having to wait.

Plus don't you have the option of going with Astound? Just having an option of another carrier is amazing in this era of cable monopolies.

platypus

03-31-05, 04:21 PM

Not a lot of posts relating to CableCard so I thought I'd share my experiences. We recently picked up a 32" Sharp LCD for the bedroom and wanted to take advantage of the CableCard feature. In the main HT, we have a DVR and are paying the additional $9.95/mo. Prior to the Sharp, we had a 6200 in the bedroom and were paying an additional $6.95 for the second box plus $5 for HD. The CableCard install was a bit of a boondoggle as the tech they sent wasn't that experienced and the more senior guy had to come out and finish the install.

After they finally got it up and running, it's working as advertised. We lost the guide and VOD features, but the particular TV we bought has a built-in onscreen TV Guide feature which works pretty well. It's not as good as the Comcast guide in terms of speed but it serves our needs.

Relative to the CableCard vs. STB, I believe the picture is marginally better with CableCard, particularly on the analog channels. About the only drawback I see is that the time it takes for the channel to lock in when changing channels is slower than with the STB. Generally, there's about a 1-3 second delay from the time I hear the audio to when I see the video.

In terms of cost, they told me I won't have to pay the additional $6.95/mo. for the second box anymore, but will still incur the $5/mo. for HD service. Plus, they billed me $15.99 for installation. Do these rates sound right?

Any other CableCard users out here in the SF Bay Area?

PLAT200

03-31-05, 08:19 PM

"This one has less to do with how bad Comcast is than it is with how stiff necked my government in Walnut Creek is."

I'm not willing to side with Comcast on this one yet. Fortunately I have been able to switch from Comcast to an Astound package with HDTV and HSI. The cost is significantly below what Comcast would charge. I've seen a lot of statements from Comcast about how they are ready to start the "upgrade", however I've seen nothing concrete regarding what they are upgrading to? --- 750?, 860? or just enough? That would concern me. Additionally from what I've researched before, I believe the City has an obligation to obtain the same level of service from Comcast as they have in their agreement with Astound. Frankly I feel that if a "pipsqueak" player like Astound can offer the services, I would like to think that a monster "cost effective" company like Comcast could do the same or more, right? I want the Comcast upgrade ASAP also, but only if their minimum upgrade is at least Astound's 860MHz and at a similar cost per channel. Let's just say that the bottom line is I don't trust Comcast without the franchise agreement holding them to certain performance and technology minimum standards.

greeno

03-31-05, 08:21 PM

Just got off of the phone with the CSR. I studied my bill (after adding digital tier) and noticed a 6.95 charge for converter box and remote. In all fairness I think it's been there since I got my first box, but just now noticed it and felt like jerking comcast's chain. I also pay $10 for 2 HD boxes ($5) each. This just seemed wrong, since if I turn in 1 box, my bill goes down by $11.95.

I told them this just seemed wrong. Oh the $5/HD box is for the signal they told me.

At the end, she asks me if I want to add a premium channel for another I forget how much. I passed.

Best,
jeff

davisdog

03-31-05, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by greeno
Just got off of the phone with the CSR. I studied my bill (after adding digital tier) and noticed a 6.95 charge for converter box and remote. In all fairness I think it's been there since I got my first box, but just now noticed it and felt like jerking comcast's chain. I also pay $10 for 2 HD boxes ($5) each. This just seemed wrong, since if I turn in 1 box, my bill goes down by $11.95.

I told them this just seemed wrong. Oh the $5/HD box is for the signal they told me.

At the end, she asks me if I want to add a premium channel for another I forget how much. I passed.

Best,
jeff

As usually, I think the CSR explanation is wrong....but I do think (unfortunately) that the bill is correct.

The $6.95 is standard for a 2nd Outlet/Box...The $5 HD equipment charge is tacked on top of that as a surcharge for the more expensive HD Hardware

So the HD Box is really $11.95....Where a regular box is $6.95....The first 6.95 is actually sunk into the Digital Package Cost...you get 1 regular box to start with and pay an extra $5 to upgrade it to an HD box (so it looks like the first HD box is $5, but it's really $11.95 also)

wco81

03-31-05, 08:54 PM

I pay $5 over the cost of analog basic for my HDTV service, which includes the Motorola box.

greeno

03-31-05, 09:00 PM

Davisdog,
You're exactly right. I understand it, they explained it right, but I just wanted to bust their chops about it.

Best,
jeff

Mikef5

04-01-05, 02:27 AM

FSN-HD in the 550 MHz and below areas !!!!

I just received an email response from Fox Sports Net. I had emailed them with my concerns about not being able to get the Giants and A's games in HD like 85% of the rest of the Bay Area and I sort of told them that I would no longer watch FSN ( OK, maybe a little harsh and maybe not fully true, I just have to watch the Giants.. :) ), but I wanted them to realize that some of their viewers are upset about not being able to see our home teams in glorious HD. Mr. Geer ( VP of Sales and Relations ) seems to think that Comcast is working really hard and that ALL areas will be upgraded and will be able to get all the programming. Well, he is sorely wrong as most of the people of the 550 MHz and below systems know. Anyway, what the people of these areas need to do is email FSN Bay Area and let them know that you want you Giants and A's in HD and that Comcast is not upgrading our systems so that we can receive it. If you remember email campaigns do work, like when Comcast screwed up the dvr roll out and when it looked like the non upgraded areas wouldn't get Fox-HD so let FSN Bay Area know what you want. I would have posted the email and his email address but he has not as of yet given me permission to do so, so until I hear back from him I will not post it.
So do you think Comcast will miss me when I'm gone later this year :)

Laters,
Mikef5

neoufo51

04-01-05, 04:21 AM

Hey guys...I just finally got OnDemand on my 6200 today but I still dont have the new I-Guide. Is that normal?

Just wondering.

hiker

04-01-05, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by neoufo51
Hey guys...I just finally got OnDemand on my 6200 today but I still dont have the new I-Guide. Is that normal?

Just wondering. That's normal, no i-guide for 6200 yet.

Anyone have an idea when?

kevini

04-01-05, 11:59 AM

Comcast finally fixed the ingress problem that has been plaguing the
Sundale are of Fremont.

INHD and INHD2 now come in load and strong. It took them 5 months to find it but it is resolved and thats all that I really care about :)

A squirrel chewed cable on the main feedline was the culprit.

Kevin

techdood

04-01-05, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by mikeF5
So do you think Comcast will miss me when I'm gone later this year?

I don't think Comcast will. Mass e-mail sessions will get some attention, however the real impact is when you e-mail the advertisers. If you threaten use of a rival product or service...that will spark e-mails to the event provider. Then something can be done. I dunno if it would be as much as an upgrade to 550 < areas, but maybe something to the point where FSBA would be seen in HD, somehow someway.

neoufo51

04-01-05, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by hiker
That's normal, no i-guide for 6200 yet.

Anyone have an idea when?
Ah, ok. Thanks for the info. Seems lame that it takes so long to get it.

Mikef5

04-01-05, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by techdood
I don't think Comcast will.

I know they won't, that was said with tongue in cheek....you must of missed the smiley. :p
I don't know if emailing the advertisers would do any good, they have so many areas and the loss of a few people would probably not effect them one way or the other but it's worth a shot.

Laters,
Mikef5

Mikef5

04-01-05, 01:29 PM

I just received another response from FSN Bay Area and Mr. Geer does not want the message or his email address posted so I will respect his wish and not post it. But you can go to their web site and give your input to them. Will it do any good ?? I don't know, they seem to think Comcast is great and is doing everything they can do for their customers and for the most part I agree. My problem is the way that Comcast treats the 550 MHz and below systems. If they would upgrade all areas to the same level then I could find little to fault Comcast for but to treat us like red headed step children is hard to swallow. They like my money but don't thing we are cost effective enough to upgrade us to the same levels as the rest of the areas.

Laters,
Mikef5

mjuevos

04-01-05, 01:55 PM

i have the LG 4200A and get CBS (channel 78 - ?), FOX (channel 78 - ?) and NBC (channel 116 - 1). i can't seem to find ABC however. does anyone know what channel ABC HD would be on and how i would go about getting it on the LG 4200A? also, there is no WB HD currently on comcast bay area, is this correct?

TPeterson

04-01-05, 02:33 PM

I think that you mean "79-x" for CBS and FOX. ABC (and PBS) is on 117-x. No WB yet, AFAIK.

xeenman

04-01-05, 02:48 PM

I was playing with the DVR last night, and I stumbled across VOD. Not a bad
service. It had some anime on there too.

techdood

04-01-05, 03:18 PM

yep. i miss those darned smileys when i reply with quotes. maybe it's just my eyes. LOL

I really feel for you ppl in those areas where its 550<. I used to live in San Jose on that binocular A/B 300 system. Moved into Sacramento to find they've upgraded their system way beyond the times they were Scripps when i used to work there. Being a Giants fan myself, you bay area'ns have an advantage over us, Ktvu broadcasts some games our Kmax affiliate doesnt get. I do hope most, if not all, of the FSBA HD games are shown here as well. All in all, I do miss the mega-tropolis of the bay...but it shouldn't keep me from the things I love. This forum, ppl involved, and my HD projector!

walk

04-01-05, 03:39 PM

walk

04-01-05, 03:58 PM

See, this is the kind of lunacy that sets me off into my little rants. I consider myself a liberal (small "l") I've read the Guardian and find some of it very enjoyable, but sometimes their anti-corporate slant goes off the deep end:

But Comcast's rein over content reaches into the Internet, too, where â€“ unlike telephone companies, which are required by law to grant equal access to competing ISPs â€“ the company blocks competing service providers from accessing its cable lines and, thereby, its customers. Comcast could play favorites among different sites by making some available at higher speeds than others and even "outlaw devices [such as those used to download video and music] through acceptable-use policies," explained Ralf Muehlen, director of SFLan.org, which provides free wireless Internet access.

Does anyone have ANY clue what the *F* they are talking about here?

I understand the part about how you can't buy cable HSI from other companies in the same way you can DSL - though it hardly matters does it? It all travels over the same wire.

BUT... How does Comcast make some sites available at higher speeds than others, or "outlaw devices" used to download video and music?? Seriously, put down the bong a minute and realize that YES most of corporate america are evil, hateful, greedy bastards.. but ya don't need to go making stuff up to prove it...

walk

04-01-05, 04:06 PM

1 more :)

KTVU-2 doesn't produce their Giants games in HDTV as far as I know. So those games won't be in HD on any system.

davisdog

04-01-05, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by walk

BUT... How does Comcast make some sites available at higher speeds than others, or "outlaw devices" used to download video and music??

Comcast can (and probably has) installed cache servers...basically big hard drives that will keep a local copy of select content (on comcasts internal network)...that way you can access it on comcast bandwidth instead of going to the site on the internet (which may just have a T1)..if the caching server doesnt have the content locally it just lets the request pass through to the internet

Mikef5

04-01-05, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by walk
1 more :)

KTVU-2 doesn't produce their Giants games in HDTV as far as I know. So those games won't be in HD on any system.

Actually, the games are produced by FSN Bay Area and from the conversations that I've had with Mr. Geer there will be about 10 games that will be in HD on KTVU-2 and that's directly from the horse's mouth :p
The people of FSN do seem to be sincerely concerned about their audience and what concerns them, it has been quite refreshing talking with a company that seems to give a rat's behind.

Laters,
Mikef5

todd22

04-01-05, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
I just received another response from FSN Bay Area and Mr. Geer does not want the message or his email address posted so I will respect his wish and not post it. But you can go to their web site and give your input to them. Will it do any good ?? I don't know, they seem to think Comcast is great and is doing everything they can do for their customers and for the most part I agree. My problem is the way that Comcast treats the 550 MHz and below systems. If they would upgrade all areas to the same level then I could find little to fault Comcast for but to treat us like red headed step children is hard to swallow. They like my money but don't thing we are cost effective enough to upgrade us to the same levels as the rest of the areas.

Laters,
Mikef5

Well I did my part and let FSN know the problem and how I felt. Don't know if it will do any good, but it's better than just sitting on my bum waiting for it to fall in my lap.

Thanks for the update Mike!

Mikef5

04-01-05, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by todd22
Well I did my part and let FSN know the problem and how I felt. Don't know if it will do any good, but it's better than just sitting on my bum waiting for it to fall in my lap.

Thanks for the update Mike!

Not a problem. I didn't know that Antioch was in the non upgraded areas, guess I'll have to put that on my list of areas not upgraded, the list is larger than I thought :)

Laters,
Mikef5

davisdog

04-01-05, 05:18 PM

okay..either I'm lazy or lame (I cant find a FSNBA website with a contact us link). Can one of you guys post that (or their generic email address)...I'll drop a note in their bucket (as one of the 16% of comcast users that doesnt get FSNBA HD :(

and to add insult to injury...since we have the HD capable boxes it makes the FSNBA Analog signal look like crapola because of the poor A/D conversion in the box

mechou

04-01-05, 05:25 PM

Heh, think about your logic here a minute. If Comcast is willing to put off a "temporary" cable plant upgrade for 5+ yrs, what makes you think they won't put off a massive STB (but temporary) deployment for all their customers for <2 yrs?

Apparently you've conveniently forgotten the integrated STB ban that the FCC just put off by one additional year, at the behest of the cable companies. This means any non-CableCARD (integrated) STBs they choose to universally deploy now will be largely useless in a year or so (unless FCC puts off the ban date again :)). Somehow I got the feeling Comcast isn't too eager to "eat" that cost.

The issue is not solely one of "cost," even though it does play a big role. There are some "technological" issues to deployment, if you buy into the cable co's argument.

Originally posted by walk
My point was yes, move all but the must-carry stations to digital. Even if the must-carry is 19, that's a big bandwidth savings vs the 80 analog stations they have now. I KNOW they are not mandated to carry cable networks like MTV, ESPN, F/X, USA, etc etc ... in analog/basic. Those could be made digital and free up a lot of B/W on starved 550mhz systems.

YES they would have to roll out digital boxes to a lot of their "basic" customers, and that would cost. The question is, would it cost less than upgrading the system? If not, then we can forget the whole debate... and keep clamoring for an upgrade..

todd22

04-01-05, 06:12 PM

Well they basically blew me off :)

In a nutshell I was told "hey man don't blame Comcast, they have done a great job upgrading a majority of the bay area... if it wasn't for them....they were the reason it came so quickly...blah blah blah." - everything I didn't want to hear. Then again it's not like I expected them to be bashing Comcast either.

Maybe I said something wrong? :( I mean yeah I told them how disappointed I was, and that I would possibly stop watching which I do realize is an empty threat, cuz I'll still be watching the games on FSN :)

Oh well... I think I need a lawyer to write my email rants/complaints.

Anyways I'm happy to hear a handful of games will be HD on fox. That's a start. Does anyone know if ESPN will be broadcasting their Sunday night games in HD? I tried looking for info on this a few days ago with no luck.

thanks.

todd

Mikef5

04-01-05, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by todd22
Well they basically blew me off :)

In a nutshell I was told "hey man don't blame Comcast, they have done a great job upgrading a majority of the bay area... if it wasn't for them....they were the reason it came so quickly...blah blah blah." - everything I didn't want to hear. Then again it's not like I expected them to be bashing Comcast either.

Maybe I said something wrong? :( I mean yeah I told them how disappointed I was, and that I would possibly stop watching which I do realize is an empty threat, cuz I'll still be watching the games on FSN :)

Oh well... I think I need a lawyer to write my email rants/complaints.

Anyways I'm happy to hear a handful of games will be HD on fox. That's a start. Does anyone know if ESPN will be broadcasting their Sunday night games in HD? I tried looking for info on this a few days ago with no luck.

thanks.

todd

Todd,
Did the email response give the guys name ??
I initially got the same Comcast is great but I pressed the matter with him. I did try to be civil with him and explain that even though I love watching the Giants games on FSN, I would be much happier if they would get Comcast to put it on ALL the systems so everyone could watch the Giants and the A's in glorious HD. I don't think I convinced him but he did come around and say maybe Comcast could do a better job but he was right about one thing, if TCI or AT&T still operated our cable systems we'd all be up a creek without a paddle. I will give Comcast that, they have done a good job upgrading some of the systems but why not all the systems ??
Well, you never get anything without being persistent so keep bugging Comcast, maybe they will see the error of their ways....one can only hope..:)

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

04-01-05, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
okay..either I'm lazy or lame (I cant find a FSNBA website with a contact us link). Can one of you guys post that (or their generic email address)...I'll drop a note in their bucket (as one of the 16% of comcast users that doesnt get FSNBA HD :(

and to add insult to injury...since we have the HD capable boxes it makes the FSNBA Analog signal look like crapola because of the poor A/D conversion in the box

I can't find it either...:p I found it awhile back when the schedule was announced but all I find now is the corporate Rainbow Media site in New York.

Mikef5

04-01-05, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by keenan
I can't find it either...:p I found it awhile back when the schedule was announced but all I find now is the corporate Rainbow Media site in New York.

This is what I initially used..... http://www.fsnbayarea.com/contact/
When he responded I just replied to his message and continued it from there.

Laters,
Mikef5

wco81

04-01-05, 06:56 PM

ESPN Sunday night games are in HD usually. Hopefully, they add more trucks so they can do some of the midweek games too.

It'll be interesting to see if they broadcast more road games on FSN in HD. A couple of the Warriors road games have been in HD, probably because they're taking the HD feed from an FSN in another city?

You would think most of the FSNs with baseball coverage will be working in HD prodution. I know Seattle was getting HD games before FSNBA started local HD production last year. You would think the Dodgers would have HD games at Dodger Stadium.

keenan

04-01-05, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by walk
See, this is the kind of lunacy that sets me off into my little rants. I consider myself a liberal (small "l") I've read the Guardian and find some of it very enjoyable, but sometimes their anti-corporate slant goes off the deep end:

Does anyone have ANY clue what the *F* they are talking about here?

I understand the part about how you can't buy cable HSI from other companies in the same way you can DSL - though it hardly matters does it? It all travels over the same wire.

BUT... How does Comcast make some sites available at higher speeds than others, or "outlaw devices" used to download video and music?? Seriously, put down the bong a minute and realize that YES most of corporate america are evil, hateful, greedy bastards.. but ya don't need to go making stuff up to prove it...

Part of what they are talking about is that cable-HSI does not fall under some of the rules and regulations that normal telecoms do like SBC for example. The issue is being debated now whether cable telephony is going to be regulated as it is with regular telephone companies. Obviously cable does not want that.

What the Guardian is talking about is the fact that it's a very simple thing for Comcast to block certain sites and accesses and favor, or let through sites that favor or maybe even have paid Comcast for "connection rites". In other words, acting as a "gatekeeper" much like your own personal firewall would do.

The Guardian does have a anti-corporate or liberal slant, but there is a lot of things in that article that cannot be ignored, it appears that Comcast is certainly not the nicest company around.

On a different note, there was an article in the New York Times(I think) yesterday about how cablecos will contract with developers in housing developments for providing cable TV, cable TV that owners of these homes must buy, whether they want it or not. They also do this with apartment complexes, you rent the apartment, you have to buy cable TV. Evidently this sort of crap goes on all over the place..

gtree10

04-01-05, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Actually, the games are produced by FSN Bay Area and from the conversations that I've had with Mr. Geer there will be about 10 games that will be in HD on KTVU-2 and that's directly from the horse's mouth :p

That's the same response I received from someone else at KTVU. Somewhere around 10 games.

MikeSM

04-02-05, 02:20 AM

todd22

04-02-05, 12:28 PM

mikef5- I'll post his name later when I can check.

I will reply to his message. Since I got all the bad thoughts out on my first email to him maybe it can turn into a better conversation :)

Well at least the A's Giants game on fox last night was not one of the 10 games :D

Mikef5

04-02-05, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by todd22
mikef5- I'll post his name later when I can check.

I will reply to his message. Since I got all the bad thoughts out on my first email to him maybe it can turn into a better conversation :)

Well at least the A's Giants game on fox last night was not one of the 10 games :D

Yep, sure looks a lot better on channel 702 than the games will on the old analog channel 40. Gee, I wonder why they just don't dump the analog channel 40 and move it to a digital tier ? That would free up a little bandwidth and they might even be able to squeeze in channel 720 so we could see the games in HD. What's the conversion, 1 analog equals 3 digitals or how many HD's ?? Man, my memory is going fast, must be the lack of a Doppler radar on our cable.. :p
Oh, I'm saying only do this on the 550 MHz and below systems, you guys on the upgraded systems don't need the bandwidth and you already get all this stuff.

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

04-02-05, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Yep, sure looks a lot better on channel 702 than the games will on the old analog channel 40. Gee, I wonder why they just don't dump the analog channel 40 and move it to a digital tier ? That would free up a little bandwidth and they might even be able to squeeze in channel 720 so we could see the games in HD. What's the conversion, 1 analog equals 3 digitals or how many HD's ?? Man, my memory is going fast, must be the lack of a Doppler radar on our cable.. :p
Oh, I'm saying only do this on the 550 MHz and below systems, you guys on the upgraded systems don't need the bandwidth and you already get all this stuff.

Laters,
Mikef5

You can get 10-12 digital channels in the space one analog takes, and 2 HD channels for one analog.

This thing with the FSNBA HD games is very aggravating because we can't get them from any other provider, it's just plain BS!!!!

Mikef5

04-02-05, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by keenan
You can get 10-12 digital channels in the space one analog takes, and 2 HD channels for one analog.

This thing with the FSNBA HD games is very aggravating because we can't get them from any other provider, it's just plain BS!!!!

When I talked to FSN, the guy said that they were in talks with D* and as soon as the new birds go up and there is enough bandwidth they would try and work a deal with them. Take that with a grain of salt, because I'm pretty sure the FSN-HD thing is exclusive to Comcast for at least a year so.....
Maybe I could bring that up to Mr. Johnson and see if they could do that for our areas. Worth a shot... :p

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

04-02-05, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
When I talked to FSN, the guy said that they were in talks with D* and as soon as the new birds go up and there is enough bandwidth they would try and work a deal with them. Take that with a grain of salt, because I'm pretty sure the FSN-HD thing is exclusive to Comcast for at least a year so.....
Maybe I could bring that up to Mr. Johnson and see if they could do that for our areas. Worth a shot... :p

Laters,
Mikef5

Oh yeah, there will gobs of bandwidth then, and DirecTV already carries FSNBA and since I can't imagine Comcast would have an exclusive on the HD feed hopefully we will get the HD on DirecTV. DirecTV already broadcasts HD FSN games in other markets already.

Mikef5

04-02-05, 03:41 PM

Keenan,
When do the new birds go up and become functional ?? If this thing is going to happen soon, I might forget this headache of trying to get stuff from Comcast and do the jump to D* early.

Laters,
Mikef5

MikeSM

04-02-05, 03:53 PM

keenan

04-02-05, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by MikeSM
Actually, if you are talking 256 QAM, It's 3 HD channels for 2 analog channels.

Thanks,
Mike

I thought 256 QAM yielded 38.8Mb/s in a 6MHz channel which would give you 2 per channel. The reference for this info I got from the following article,

http://bg.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_dtv_digital_cable/
DTV over digital cable: Reaching a larger audience

"In the United States, digital cable networks are based on quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) in 6MHz channels. There are two standard QAM implementations for cable: 64 QAM and 256 QAM. HDTV-capable cable set-top boxes are rather new and operate with 256 QAM. This modulation yields approximately 38.8Mb/s in a 6MHz channel. Many older set-top boxes work with 64 QAM at 26.94Mb/s, but these boxes rarely support HDTV decoding."

keenan

04-02-05, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Keenan,
When do the new birds go up and become functional ?? If this thing is going to happen soon, I might forget this headache of trying to get stuff from Comcast and do the jump to D* early.

Laters,
Mikef5

There is no hard date when they go online, but the first launches late this month and so far everything appears on schedule. The guesstimate is they will go live in the fall.

There is a webcast of a Chase Carey conference call with a B of A investor group here, it's dry and long but he does talk a little about their plans and what's coming down the road.

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media05/id96202281.cfm
Banc of America Securities Media, Telecommunications and Entertainment Conference

walk

04-02-05, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Part of what they are talking about is that cable-HSI does not fall under some of the rules and regulations that normal telecoms do like SBC for example. The issue is being debated now whether cable telephony is going to be regulated as it is with regular telephone companies. Obviously cable does not want that.

What the Guardian is talking about is the fact that it's a very simple thing for Comcast to block certain sites and accesses and favor, or let through sites that favor or maybe even have paid Comcast for "connection rites". In other words, acting as a "gatekeeper" much like your own personal firewall would do.

The Guardian does have a anti-corporate or liberal slant, but there is a lot of things in that article that cannot be ignored, it appears that Comcast is certainly not the nicest company around.

On a different note, there was an article in the New York Times(I think) yesterday about how cablecos will contract with developers in housing developments for providing cable TV, cable TV that owners of these homes must buy, whether they want it or not. They also do this with apartment complexes, you rent the apartment, you have to buy cable TV. Evidently this sort of crap goes on all over the place..

But... they don't block, and they wouldn't block, because they basically have no reason to do so, and doing so would open up a whole can of worms. It's just silly to even suggest such a thing as 'possible' - it's no more (or less) possible than it would be for DSL internet or dialup for that matter.. And the "devices used to share music & video" - those are called "personal computers' - outlawing those wouldn't leave them much of a customer base :) I guess fact-checking is overrated in today's journalism?

Regarding must-buy stuff with new construction - you have no idea. I do countertops for a living and I could tell you stories... like they one where a young couple was buying a new tract home and had to buy the 80-odd square feet of tile countertops, as well as the vinyl flooring in the kitchen, both of which they tore out before they had even started to move into the place... brand new tile and floors! But, the contractor got paid to put it in, and was damn sure going to do it.

As far as cable - a lot of apartment complexes will do a co-op deal, although it's usually for satellite not cable. You basically pay a coop fee for tv/phone/internet the same as you would for maintenence/yard care/etc.. no big deal really, happens every day.

As far as HD Giants games on KTVU - probably referring to the Saturday FOX national games. I don't think KTVU themselves have a HD truck (could be wrong tho, I know I've never seen anything locally produced by KTVU - news etc... in HD).

keenan

04-02-05, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by walk
I guess fact-checking is overrated in today's journalism?

No doubt about that...:D

keenan

04-02-05, 05:32 PM

It looks like the rumors about THT-HD on Comcast are starting to look even more real....although for us 550 folks it's no doubt something else we wont get...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=5423521#post5423521
The Magic 8 Ball speaks out on TNT-HD on Comcast! - AVS Forum

wco81

04-02-05, 05:59 PM

Now that the NBA season is almost over.

But they can make up for it if they get it online before any playoff games.

plumeria

04-03-05, 12:03 AM

> i have the LG 4200A and get CBS (channel 78 - ?), FOX (channel 78 - ?) and NBC
> (channel 116 - 1). i can't seem to find ABC however. does anyone know what
> channel ABC HD would be on and how i would go about getting it on the LG
> 4200A? also, there is no WB HD currently on comcast bay area, is this correct?

Tune to 117-x before 8pm.

Then you can get ABC and PBS-HD on channels 117-1 and 117-2 respectively (in East Bay at least). If you are using the LG 4200A in QAM Tuner mode, rather than OTA - you are stuffed after 8pm, due to a serious problem with the LG 4200A.

Please see several threads on this topic in the Hardware section.

peter

elicross

04-03-05, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by keenan
My understanding of it is not that Walnut Creek is fighting the upgrade, but that they want an agreement in place first. I don't blame them for that, even though it means people in Walnut Creek will wait even longer for a good system, once Comcast gets the ball rolling it will be hard for the City to make sure they get what they want. I have read the report done by an outside consulting firm and Walnut Creek doesn't appear to be asking for anything more than any other city. They do want to make sure that there are some guarantees in place though on specific things. And in the long run you may appreciate their efforts, but it's tough having to wait.

Plus don't you have the option of going with Astound? Just having an option of another carrier is amazing in this era of cable monopolies.

No, they're fighting the upgrade. The agreement with Comcast is not between Comcast and Walnut Creek alone, but with a consortium of communities -- every other of which is enjoying Comcast's upgraded service. Only Walnut Creek is holding out against the upgrades.

It is true that Comcast and the cosortium of communities have not come to an agreement yet, but a basic framework is worked out, and the agreement is expected to be fully detailed and worked out in May. So I'm left to wonder why Walnut Creek is spending money to defend against a lawsuit to upgrade and spending the money to counter-sue when the upgrades will happen in less than two months anyway? (Unless the Walnut Creek city council wants to sabotage the agreement.)

I doubt I will appreciate their efforts since so far, my research has not been able to discover what the sticking points are. In fact, I haven't head anything from directly contacting the Mayor's office on what benefits they are holding out on. If it was something that actually benefitted me, I'd think they'd be more vocal about it. But as it is, nothing benefits me since our politicians haven't been politic enough to work out a solution since 1999!

Finally, I do not have the option of going with Astound. For reasons I have not been able to determine, Astound does not serve my Walnut Creek address (nor any of my WC neighbors). Also, buildings and trees are blocking any access for a dish-style system to my apartment, and the hills around Walnut Creek rule out OTA. I cannot and will not get high definition signals until I can convince the Walnut Creek city council to get off their collective posteriors and finally allow Comcast to upgrade. Or until I get too fed up and move.

keenan

04-03-05, 04:21 AM

elicross, you have a PM...

Mikef5

04-03-05, 12:16 PM

So, what time is it ??? Just looked at the moto box and yes, you guessed it, they didn't advance the clock. Now anything I've got scheduled today is going to be screwed up. This in other areas ???

Laters,
Mikef5

bobby94928

04-03-05, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
So, what time is it ??? Just looked at the moto box and yes, you guessed it, they didn't advance the clock. Now anything I've got scheduled today is going to be screwed up. This in other areas ???

Laters,
Mikef5

It's the same in Rohnert Park, the time is one hour early. I also notice that I have lost my guide, it's all "to be announced." The box must have recycled.

Mikef5

04-03-05, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by bobby94928
It's the same in Rohnert Park, the time is one hour early. I also notice that I have lost my guide, it's all "to be announced." The box must have recycled.

Phew, just checked and I still have the guide so you probably had a power glitch or momentary loss of power but that doesn't have a lot to do with the clock :p
I really don't feel like calling Comcast, the CSR's will probably want to send a hit to the box to reset it... :rolleyes:

Laters,
Mikef5

Mikef5

04-03-05, 12:34 PM

bobby94928,

Do you run your tv and cable box off a backup power supply ?? I run mine off an APC and it eliminates a lot of the problems with small glitches resetting the box and my TV needs a cool-down period for proper shutdown ( helps to extend the bulb life).

Laters,
Mikef5

bobby94928

04-03-05, 12:49 PM

Thanks for the tip Mikef5.

edmc

04-03-05, 01:47 PM

Here in Pleasanton, my DVR also did not advance the time. Just as Mikef5, I was concerned that my Scheduled Recordings would be messed up.

But then I took a look at the Guide. Sure enough, the Guide appears to be entirely in PST - in other words, even though the time is displayed wrong, the programming data is correct.

Just a quick/easy check. Go to Channel 2 or 702 to 9pm on any weekday and sure enough you will find the 10 o'clock news scheduled.

I suppose the display will be adjusted eventually (I could find no way to do it in the menu), but rest assured the EPG data won't be off by an hour...

John Mace

04-03-05, 01:53 PM

What's up with KQEDHD? For the last 2 days I don't get any picture, just sound. Whenever I switch to KQEDHD, the picture freezes on whatever channel I was watching, and only the audio switches over. Anyone else seeing this?

I just don't get the deal with not switching the time. This happens everytime we change the clocks. How freakin' hard is it to have the clock set to the right time in the wee hours of the morning...?

russwong

04-03-05, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by hiker
I have 6200, Limited Basic with Digital Classic tier and want to add another 6200 to the household. Digital Classic tier is supposed to include SD digital box but I already have HD box.

Since CSRs are clueless about extra charges I thought I'd ask here. Is it $6.95 or $11.95 ($6.95 + $5.00) or? Thanks

Hey hiker,

I have limited basic and two HD boxes. On my bill, it's the program fee + $5 +$6.95 (the $6.95 is called digital equipment).

ie. I only pay 1 $5 for the HD content and I'm viewing it on two 6200 boxes.

I hope that answers your question. On the same note, there is a possiblity that I'm being undercharged, so who knows what it's supposed to be.

Russ

dmlove51

04-03-05, 02:25 PM

Mikef5

04-03-05, 03:33 PM

I think we should start a poll on when we think Comcast will update the clock.

I say they will update the clock the same time they update the 550 MHz and below systems..... :)

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

04-03-05, 03:40 PM

Is todays Giants game going to be HD? If not it's a shame KTVU decided to pre-empt the HD NASCAR race today to show a pre-season SD game.

The race looks great in HD on DirecTV...:p

jasonander

04-03-05, 04:39 PM

A Comcast CSR just 'zapped' my box and the time is still an hour behind. She insists that if this didn't work, the box needs to be swapped out. Geez... the CSRs are absolutely useless.

davisdog

04-03-05, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by jasonander
A Comcast CSR just 'zapped' my box and the time is still an hour behind. She insists that if this didn't work, the box needs to be swapped out. Geez... the CSRs are absolutely useless.

Cool...I think we should all call and schedule a box swap for tomorrow ;)

davisdog

04-03-05, 04:49 PM

JasonQG

04-03-05, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Is todays Giants game going to be HD? If not it's a shame KTVU decided to pre-empt the HD NASCAR race today to show a pre-season SD game. This is baseball country, not the south. I think they got it right. :)

rickmccamy

04-03-05, 05:08 PM

Provincial country, maybe, Vroooom, Vroooom. No steroids in Nascar!

keenan

04-03-05, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by JasonQG
This is baseball country, not the south. I think they got it right. :)

I enjoy baseball about as much as I enjoy NASCAR, I will only watch either if it's in HD. Given that, the NASCAR race was a no brainer today... :)

pufftissue

04-03-05, 06:18 PM

Is it normal to get different channels with my dvico fusion hdtv III QAM tuner each time i autoscan channels? i am in SF with comcast cable.

I now I have inhd 1,2,3 and espn hd. As well as Discovery Home Theater, and something like showtime or hbo (some movie channel). All for free b/c I don't pay for anything more than basic cable.
Yet sometimes these channels don't show through, and sometimes they do.

It's like I have conditioned myself to autoscan afresh each 3 weeks or so, and it's like a grab bag. I'm wondering if I could access even more channels consistently if I did something different, or if this variation simply reflects the little loopholes in comcast's coverage that change inexplicably from week to week?

Thanks

fitprod

04-03-05, 06:21 PM

For what it's worth, Bay Point, CA is still the 550 system.

I'm trying to hold out for D* until this fall when the MPEG 4 units are readily available, and the NFL Sunday Ticket promotions start. If they reach a carriage agreement with FSN BA for HD before then, I might break down early.

Being a sports nut, I've very disappointed that I cannot receive FSN HD, espeically since it solely an issue of Comcast needing to upgrade their system. I was informed by a CSR last week that they "have no immediate plans to upgrade our system."

I wrote FSN BA and informed them of that answer from Comcast informed them that until I start receiving FSN HD, I have no immediate plans to watch FSN. While that might seem like and idle threat to them (as one previously mentioned), they should remember without local teams, they have no channel.

Since there is a HD feed for most of the games, I see no point in watching the analog channel, period.

This wouldn't be so annoying except that we receive PBS HD, which is a dead channel from 5AM to 8PM, making it fairly useless. Not to mention the 3 Digital PBS stations (190, 191 & 192) which are off the air from 7PM to 5AM. I enjoy PBS' programming, and support KQED, but this is a waste of space.

On a different note, tonight's Sunday Night Baseball game is only available on ESPN 2 HD, since the college games are on ESPN HD. - I likely wont watch the baseball game...

Fitprod

Mikef5

04-03-05, 06:32 PM

So is ANYONE in the Bay Area seeing the real time ???? God, even my computer knows how to display the correct time, to bad this is the weekend or I'd call Ms. Nichol and ask her what time it is... :)
Now, back to the game.....

Laters,
Mikef5

hiker

04-03-05, 06:47 PM

Time updated to DST on 6200 a short while ago.

wco81

04-03-05, 06:47 PM

My Motorola box has correct time.

edmc

04-03-05, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Is todays Giants game going to be HD?

HD but 4x3... InHD2/FSN-HD and ESPN-HD were 16x9 last year. Disappointing that KTVU-HD is 4x3, but I'm happy enough not to have to endure Analog SD on Channel 2 (easily the worst Analog station reception on my Comcast cable).

Mikef5

04-03-05, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by wco81
My Motorola box has correct time.

And your location is ???? I'm trying to find out if this is system wide or head-end specific. Thanks for the input thought.

Laters,
Mikef5

bobby94928

04-03-05, 06:54 PM

Rohnert Park went to correct time about 3:30 this afternoon.

John Mace

04-03-05, 07:41 PM

My reguilar Digital Cable box has the correct time, but the HD box is still an hour off. That doesn't make sense...

John Mace

04-03-05, 07:41 PM

My reguilar Digital Cable box has the correct time, but the HD box is still an hour off. That doesn't make sense...

davisdog

04-03-05, 07:57 PM

The Santa Clara headend was updated about 2 hours ago.

By the way...for those on 550Mhz networks..get ready to add TNT-HD to the list of channels that Comcast can't fit on our systems :(

keenan

04-03-05, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by davisdog

By the way...for those on 550Mhz networks..get ready to add TNT-HD to the list of channels that Comcast can't fit on our systems :(

Yeah, no sh*t. :mad:

keenan

04-03-05, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by fitprod
For what it's worth, Bay Point, CA is still the 550 system.

I'm trying to hold out for D* until this fall when the MPEG 4 units are readily available, and the NFL Sunday Ticket promotions start. If they reach a carriage agreement with FSN BA for HD before then, I might break down early.

Being a sports nut, I've very disappointed that I cannot receive FSN HD, espeically since it solely an issue of Comcast needing to upgrade their system. I was informed by a CSR last week that they "have no immediate plans to upgrade our system."

I wrote FSN BA and informed them of that answer from Comcast informed them that until I start receiving FSN HD, I have no immediate plans to watch FSN. While that might seem like and idle threat to them (as one previously mentioned), they should remember without local teams, they have no channel.

Since there is a HD feed for most of the games, I see no point in watching the analog channel, period.

This wouldn't be so annoying except that we receive PBS HD, which is a dead channel from 5AM to 8PM, making it fairly useless. Not to mention the 3 Digital PBS stations (190, 191 & 192) which are off the air from 7PM to 5AM. I enjoy PBS' programming, and support KQED, but this is a waste of space.

On a different note, tonight's Sunday Night Baseball game is only available on ESPN 2 HD, since the college games are on ESPN HD. - I likely wont watch the baseball game...

Fitprod

Nice post and welcome to the forum. :)

The KQED idea might work like what they do on INHD, the pre-emption of programming for games, but so many games would run beyond and/or don't even start until 8PM it would conflict with KQED's programming.

The DirecTV stuff will start to happen in the fall and will no doubt have ESPN2 has DirecTV is already paying for the channel, TNT-HD and probably FSNBA-HD as well since there will a lot of bandwidth available, more than Comcast could even think of competing with.

I am only speaking for myself, but I would imagine there will be a tremendous amount of 550MHz Comcast subs defecting to DirecTV as soon as the local-HD is lit up. The MPEG4 capable DVR I'm guessing won't be available until early next but for someone interested in programming, the switch to DirecTV is a no-brainer.

keenan

04-03-05, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
The Santa Clara headend was updated about 2 hours ago.

I have no idea what mine says, I have it covered up anyway...:p

Mikef5

04-03-05, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
The Santa Clara headend was updated about 2 hours ago.

By the way...for those on 550Mhz networks..get ready to add TNT-HD to the list of channels that Comcast can't fit on our systems :(

Not here in Milpitas. Seems strange that it would for Saratoga and not Milpitas since we're on the same head end. Davisdog, do you have a dvr box or standard 6200 box ??
Man, you think Comcast could get something this simple done right. :rolleyes:

Laters,
Mikef5

davisdog

04-03-05, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Not here in Milpitas. Seems strange that it would for Saratoga and not Milpitas since we're on the same head end. Davisdog, do you have a dvr box or standard 6200 box ??
Man, you think Comcast could get something this simple done right. :rolleyes:

Laters,
Mikef5

Mike...I think I may have been cross eyed....My 6412 currently says 5:12 (and its really 6:12)..so Santa Clara Headend guys may still be asleep

sad...even Bill Gates gets it right every year

Mikef5

04-03-05, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
Mike...I think I may have been cross eyed....My 6412 currently says 5:12 (and its really 6:12)..so Santa Clara Headend guys may still be asleep

sad...even Bill Gates gets it right every year

I think the headend guys are MIA or better yet AWOL ...:p
If Comcast waits long enough, until we fall back, they won't have to change anything.. :)

Laters,
Mikef5

wco81

04-03-05, 09:53 PM

Cupertino.

Not a DVR.

Mikef5

04-03-05, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by wco81
Cupertino.

Not a DVR.

So, it's looking like it might be specific to the dvr box. Anyone with a dvr box have the correct time ???

Laters,
Mikef5

dmlove51

04-03-05, 11:16 PM

Earlier today the time and the guide/scheduled recordings were all still on Pacific Standard Time, so even though everything was off an hour, it still would have recorded the correct programs. In their infinite wisdom, the time has now been corrected, but not the scheduled recordings, so everything I have set to record isn't; instead, the program that's on 1 hour earlier is recording. This is a 6412 in Burlingame, CA.

edmc

04-04-05, 12:10 AM

[As dmlove51 reported above] after reporting that my DVR was still on PST but that the Guide data appeared to be "correct" (i.e. a program on at 9pm PDT appeared to be on at 8pm PST in the Guide and, if scheduled to record before the "spring forward", still scheduled to be recorded), I had thought all was good.

Went out to dinner only to return to find that Comcast had gotten around to telling my box to go to PDT. Indeed, the Guide data was also "corrected". All well and good...

Except now ALL my scheduled recordings were off by an hour. I know that this wasn't just my imagination because the DVR was recording 60 minutes on just before Cold Case this evening - and failed to record Cold Case once it started.

And this is depite having quite a number of Series Recordings which should have selected programs (e.g. Cold Case) to be recorded.

WAF for this DVR just went way down :-(... Fortunately, I was home in time to correct the situation...

bmark

04-04-05, 01:05 AM

Anyone's Series recording messed up? Mine are showing it's supposed to record programs like Cold Case Files and I don't even have that on my series recording. All my series recordings are not showing up on my dvr just programs which are not even close to what I usually record.

mikel51

04-04-05, 01:08 AM

I found that I had to delete the series recordings and then reenter them to get the correct programs. I am not sure if the software would have sorted this out with time or not.

John Mace

04-04-05, 01:12 AM

I still don't understand why my std digital cable box shows the correct time but my HD box is off by an hour. Both are (obvioiusly) on the same cable connection. Don't the boxes get the time signal as data on the cable line?

Philip Klein

04-04-05, 02:10 AM

A slight variant on the problems from the time change. I don't have any series recordings on the 6412 but had scheduled several recordings for such movies as Rabbit Proof Fence and Kill Bill. While the time on the DVR was finally changed late today, the scheduled reportings have now become some Wayams film and the Disney cartoon Open Range- not an hour earlier but the movie starting before what I believe I had scheduled.

But the major problems is that I CAN NOT DELETE those incorrect programs. I select the recording and then indicate that I don't want to record it but I can't delete the incorrect recording. I can schedule a new recording and then delete those but am unsuccessful in deleting the mistakes.

Any ideas? Will the correct scheduled recording reappear in the morning? I turned off the box but that didn't work. Do I have to unplug the box and wait for the guide to reload and reschedule again?

- Phil

JasonQG

04-04-05, 02:41 AM

My recordings survived the time switch. Santa Rosa must be Comcast's favorite city. ;)

zooey91

04-04-05, 02:58 AM

I'm having similar problems. All the programs I've set to record for the week are no longer set, but instead whatever is in the prior hour is set. I went back to set up the correct show, which I was able to do, but I can't cancel the recording of the wrong shows.

To make matters worse, it seems that I'm only able to record on one tuner now. If I try to set two things up for the same time it won't let me.

Can you say FUBAR?

Jim

dvdlrsn

04-04-05, 03:23 AM

I was having the same PST to DST problem other people have seen, got King of the Hill instead of the Simpsons, DOH! All the future scheduled recordings were also incorrect. So I pulled the plug on the box. So far while the guide data is reloading the DVR has been choosing the correct programs for future recordings.

I think I spoke too soon. Although the first few shows it scheduled appeared to be correct, it has gone back to picking the wrong shows. Pulling the plug does not seem to have worked. Waiting for more guide data to load....

David

wco81

04-04-05, 09:46 AM

Wow, sounds like Comcast better hurry out those Tivos.

Is the DVR with MS software faring any better? Guess only the Comcast customers in Seattle know.

mikel51

04-04-05, 09:56 AM

I'm not sure when this happened, but last night I noticed that Foster City now has Video on Demand. This is the first time that I have noticed it,

wareagle

04-04-05, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by wco81
Wow, sounds like Comcast better hurry out those Tivos.

Is the DVR with MS software faring any better? Guess only the Comcast customers in Seattle know.

Well, we made the PDT transition in Seattle OK. Also, got firmware 9.17 (from 9.12 -- skipped 9.15) and a new MSFT s/w version last week (not sure what they changed). We don't seem to have nearly as many problems here. The use of the dual tuners is transparent (no manual switching). Some people have problems, but mine have been minor.

jtb256

04-04-05, 11:44 AM

I was under the impression that Comcast would be broadcasting the FSN-HD games on INHD2, but no games are showing up on the HD channels in the guide here in Petaluma. Anyone with any idea if the games are going to be broadcast?

Also, not sure why we don't get FSN-HD when we are using bandwith for a Special Events channel and a KQED channel that are dead most of the time.

davisdog

04-04-05, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by jtb256
I was under the impression that Comcast would be broadcasting the FSN-HD games on INHD2, but no games are showing up on the HD channels in the guide here in Petaluma. Anyone with any idea if the games are going to be broadcast?

Also, not sure why we don't get FSN-HD when we are using bandwith for a Special Events channel and a KQED channel that are dead most of the time.

I'm not sure the FSN-HD schedule into the InHD2 guide data...you just have to assume that when FSN is doing a local game that it's HD counterpart will appear on InHD2 (or in some areas they put it on HDSE)...the contract w/InHD allows them to insert local programming on InHD2 nationwide so most use that to conserve bandwidth

ps...I think the KQED bandwidth is shared with the SD counterparts (that are on when the HD channel is off)...at least that's the way it is OTA and I assume comcast is doing the same thing (I should probably check the frequencies to confirm)

John Mace

04-04-05, 12:34 PM

Los Gatos is still on PST, according to Comcast HD cable box. Day two and waiting...

davisdog

04-04-05, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by John Mace
Los Gatos is still on PST, according to Comcast HD cable box. Day two and waiting...

yes...still PST this morning in Saratoga...but it appears we are better off than the other areas in the Bay Area where they managed to switch the STB clock (but not the guide data)

Mikef5

04-04-05, 12:41 PM

I just emailed Ms. Nichol who is in charge of the SaraMilgatos headend to see if she has any info on this problem and to see if they were even informed that there was a problem. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

Laters,
Mikef5

todd22

04-04-05, 01:01 PM

Yep, sure looks a lot better on channel 702 than the games will on the old analog channel 40. Gee, I wonder why they just don't dump the analog channel 40 and move it to a digital tier ? That would free up a little bandwidth and they might even be able to squeeze in channel 720 so we could see the games in HD. What's the conversion, 1 analog equals 3 digitals or how many HD's ?? Man, my memory is going fast, must be the lack of a Doppler radar on our cable..

Mikef5 - hey yeah it was Chris Geer who replied to my email as well. I just sent him a response, diving further in to what I think the problem is and basically why they should care.

Probably a rehash of what you already told him :D

He was under the impression that me boycotting would not affect them in any way (and he is pretty much right) but usually that is not an answer you give to a customer... this is coming from someone who use to work in the retail/customer service field.

But again I was in my mind civil and appreciative in replying to his comments.

Todd

Mikef5

04-04-05, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by todd22
Mikef5 - hey yeah it was Chris Geer who replied to my email as well. I just sent him a response, diving further in to what I think the problem is and basically why they should care.

Probably a rehash of what you already told him :D

He was under the impression that me boycotting would not affect them in any way (and he is pretty much right) but usually that is not an answer you give to a customer... this is coming from someone who use to work in the retail/customer service field.

But again I was in my mind civil and appreciative in replying to his comments.

Todd

He's actually a very nice guy and did sympathize with me about not getting the HD feed, not a lot that he can do about it but I did ask him to talk to Mr. Johnson when he saw him again. I think we'd have a better shot at having Comcast dropping the analog broadcast of FSN and rebroadcasting it as a digital channel, that would free up enough bandwidth to add channel 720 and maybe even TNT-HD and maybe enough bandwidth to fix the clock :p .

Laters,
Mikef5

keenan

04-04-05, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Philip Klein
A slight variant on the problems from the time change. I don't have any series recordings on the 6412 but had scheduled several recordings for such movies as Rabbit Proof Fence and Kill Bill. While the time on the DVR was finally changed late today, the scheduled reportings have now become some Wayams film and the Disney cartoon Open Range- not an hour earlier but the movie starting before what I believe I had scheduled.

But the major problems is that I CAN NOT DELETE those incorrect programs. I select the recording and then indicate that I don't want to record it but I can't delete the incorrect recording. I can schedule a new recording and then delete those but am unsuccessful in deleting the mistakes.

Any ideas? Will the correct scheduled recording reappear in the morning? I turned off the box but that didn't work. Do I have to unplug the box and wait for the guide to reload and reschedule again?

- Phil

You may have to do a complete re-boot or re-setting of the DVR. The following procedure wipes everything(supposedly, never needed to try it) and then reloads the guide data. You will lose all recordings and any settings that you had. This info is from the 6412 thread.

Factory reset of the 6412

1. DCT6412 should be turned on
2. Press Cable, Power off, ok/Select, to bring up the Diagnostics Page
3. With diagnostics page showing press Replay (15-sec rewind), DVR, DVR, DVR, Live.
4. 6412 now should show "Clr" in the LED display.
5. Press ok/Select to proceed with the reset (and presumably Exit to cancel).
6. The 6412 should now reset and download Your account settings & Guide data from the Local headend.

John Mace

04-04-05, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
yes...still PST this morning in Saratoga...but it appears we are better off than the other areas in the Bay Area where they managed to switch the STB clock (but not the guide data)

I called Comcast about an hour ago, and the CSR had me unplug the box for a minute, and the power up again. Not sure if she "pulsed" it also, but now I've got the correct time and the iGuide is correct also.

Philip Klein

04-04-05, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by keenan
You may have to do a complete re-boot or re-setting of the DVR. The following procedure wipes everything(supposedly, never needed to try it) and then reloads the guide data. You will lose all recordings and any settings that you had. This info is from the 6412 thread.

Factory reset of the 6412

1. DCT6412 should be turned on
2. Press Cable, Power off, ok/Select, to bring up the Diagnostics Page
3. With diagnostics page showing press Replay (15-sec rewind), DVR, DVR, DVR, Live.
4. 6412 now should show "Clr" in the LED display.
5. Press ok/Select to proceed with the reset (and presumably Exit to cancel).
6. The 6412 should now reset and download Your account settings & Guide data from the Local headend.

I unplugged the 6412 this morning but at least by the time I had to leave for work, the incorrect scheduled recordings are still there. Look tonite.

For a factory reset of the 6412, does that wipe out the recordings that I have already made that I want to keep?

- Phil

davisdog

04-04-05, 03:08 PM

davisdog

04-04-05, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Philip Klein

For a factory reset of the 6412, does that wipe out the recordings that I have already made that I want to keep?

- Phil

disregard...was talking about a conventional reset

Mikef5

04-04-05, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by John Mace
I called Comcast about an hour ago, and the CSR had me unplug the box for a minute, and the power up again. Not sure if she "pulsed" it also, but now I've got the correct time and the iGuide is correct also.

John,
If I remember right you are in the Milpitas area ??
I just unplugged and waited 5 minutes and plugged back in and still in standard time, hour behind. So at least in my case that doesn't work.

Laters,
Mikef5

mds54

04-04-05, 03:23 PM

TNT-HD coming soon!
....according to the "magic 8 Ball" at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=526649

Mikef5

04-04-05, 03:39 PM

Ok, I broke down and actually called the CSR's and they reset the box and guess what ??? It worked and the guide is correct also, so if you are still on standard time, call and have them reset the box.
Now, back to the A's game... :)

Laters,
Mikef5

MikeSM

04-04-05, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by keenan
I thought 256 QAM yielded 38.8Mb/s in a 6MHz channel which would give you 2 per channel. The reference for this info I got from the following article,

http://bg.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_dtv_digital_cable/
DTV over digital cable: Reaching a larger audience

"In the United States, digital cable networks are based on quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) in 6MHz channels. There are two standard QAM implementations for cable: 64 QAM and 256 QAM. HDTV-capable cable set-top boxes are rather new and operate with 256 QAM. This modulation yields approximately 38.8Mb/s in a 6MHz channel. Many older set-top boxes work with 64 QAM at 26.94Mb/s, but these boxes rarely support HDTV decoding."

Keenan, you're right. I was thinking of the data rate including FEC bits using trellis coding that 8VSB uses. Of course there is no need to preserve the FEC bits when transcoding the data to 256 QAM, so you're right, going to 256 QAM yields 2 HD signals in a 6 Mhz channel.

Thanks,
Mike

todd22

04-04-05, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
He's actually a very nice guy and did sympathize with me about not getting the HD feed, not a lot that he can do about it but I did ask him to talk to Mr. Johnson when he saw him again. I think we'd have a better shot at having Comcast dropping the analog broadcast of FSN and rebroadcasting it as a digital channel, that would free up enough bandwidth to add channel 720 and maybe even TNT-HD and maybe enough bandwidth to fix the clock .

Laters,
Mikef5

I think it actually does good to spread the heat around to the networks and not just Comcast. The networks that eventually get enough crap could end up going to Comcast to see why their "potential" customers are so upset.

Originally posted by davisdog
It might be worth sending him the list of all the cities that don't get the HD feed (ie 550Mhz) so he realizes how broad it is....Keenan or somebody had the list I think

Hey davisdog - not a bad idea, it couldn't hurt, even if he already knows the problem areas. I actually gave him a link to that SFGate article on Comcast that was posted 20-30 threads ago.

As much as I don't follow Womens college B-ball, damn that game looked good last night. That was my first experience of HD sports in my home since getting the TV/service. Too bad it wasn't the NY/Bos game :(

keenan

04-04-05, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
Recordings and Recording Schedule are saved

No, I don't think so...a "factory" style re-boot wipes everything from what I understand, it essentially wipes the hard drive other than the OS. The box then reloads with an automatic download from the headend.

scanpa over in the 6412 thread has more info on this.

keenan

04-04-05, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by davisdog
It might be worth sending him the list of all the cities that don't get the HD feed (ie 550Mhz) so he realizes how broad it is....Keenan or somebody had the list I think

The 16% list, these cities are 550Mhz

Antioch
Bay Point
Benicia
Castro Valley
Hayward
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Pittsburg
San Leandro
San Lorenzo
Santa Rosa
Saratoga
Vallejo

Portions of the below listed cities are also 550MHz,

Sunnyvale

There may be other communities next to these cities that operate from the same plant but I'm not sure what they are, for instance I think Cupertino would be one of them.

rjcrum

04-04-05, 05:14 PM

Add Sunnyvale, or at least portions thereof, to the list.

davisdog

04-04-05, 05:17 PM

yep...sunnyvale should be on the list (not all but I think at least 50% is 550Mhz.)

Monte Sereno should be on the list (a branch of the 550Mhz Saramilgatos system)

Cupertino is ok (at least most of it is upgraded)

keenan

04-04-05, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by MikeSM
Keenan, you're right. I was thinking of the data rate including FEC bits using trellis coding that 8VSB uses. Of course there is no need to preserve the FEC bits when transcoding the data to 256 QAM, so you're right, going to 256 QAM yields 2 HD signals in a 6 Mhz channel.

Thanks,
Mike

Yeah, the bottom line with all this is, if we could get Comcast and whatever parties that need to sign off on it, to just digitize even 5 analogs that would free up room for up to 10 HD channels.

I have to think that there must be some heavy business/regulatory/local franchise/content provider pressures and reasons why they just don't digitize some of the more obscure analog cable channels. Just one analog to digital would give us two HDs...sadly, the only reason I can think of is that HD is just not as popular or as money-making as providing these analog channels to their basic subs...

keenan

04-04-05, 05:21 PM

If anyone knows of more cities I will add it to that post.

davisdog

04-04-05, 05:26 PM

Monte Sereno can be on the top list (all of it is 550Mhz)..by branch I meant it connects into the Los Gatos/Saratoga nodes

keenan

04-04-05, 05:36 PM

Fixed.

MikeSM,

You seem as if you have some insider contact with Comcast, what is the conventional wisdom there about 550MHz systems? With TNT-HD likely being just another HD channel we won't get and the fact that DirecTV will very likely be offering far more HD content than Comcast on 550MHZ systems come the latter part of the year, my question is, is Comcast just going to sit pat on these systems and absorb the loss of subs? Being that HSI is the only other service(no VOD, far less HD) that is offered on these systems, do they think they will stem the loss to DirecTV? Is there any plan to avoid the loss of subs?

bobby94928

04-04-05, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by keenan
No, I don't think so...a "factory" style re-boot wipes everything from what I understand, it essentially wipes the hard drive other than the OS. The box then reloads with an automatic download from the headend.

scanpa over in the 6412 thread has more info on this.

You are absolutely correct, Keenan. You do the reset, you lose everything. It makes the box go back to just like it was when it entererd your house.

MikeSM

04-04-05, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Yeah, the bottom line with all this is, if we could get Comcast and whatever parties that need to sign off on it, to just digitize even 5 analogs that would free up room for up to 10 HD channels.

I have to think that there must be some heavy business/regulatory/local franchise/content provider pressures and reasons why they just don't digitize some of the more obscure analog cable channels. Just one analog to digital would give us two HDs...sadly, the only reason I can think of is that HD is just not as popular or as money-making as providing these analog channels to their basic subs...

Keenan, you would be surprised at how many people call in and scream when an analog channel moves to digital. I mean SCREAM. Take sci-fi channel - hardly any viewers. I think food channel has higher ratings. I know a couple systems who moved it, and the amount of complaints they took from users was enormous. So I don't fault COMCAST for not willing to do that.

Another issue is contracts. The MSO's have contracts where they pay so much per channel. The programmers want analog coverage. Why? Because everyone gets analog, and only something like 1/3 have digital. So if you are SCI-FI channel, etc..., and you are selling ads on your channel, and those ads are valued primarily by the number of eyeballs that can see them, they you don't want to be on digital, and so you'll negotiate a contract that is much more favorable to the MSO if it's carried on analog. Moving something off analog thus may involve contract changes that can be linked with other channels as well, since many channels are owned by the same mega-content companies, and they negotiate rates for packages. No programmer wants to be on digital only if he can avoid it.

As for HD, because you don't pay anything beyond your basic HD fee for HD programming, the MSO doesn't get paid any more if he carries HD than the basic analog channel. Add to that, because most of the local ad inserts don't work now in HD, MSO's actually lose ad revenue when you watch the HD version of the channel, and not the analog version. Ever see the NBC logo for 30 secs or 60 secs when watching a KNTV program? If you flip to analog, you'll see an ad running. That ad isn't on the HD version. Someone paid for that ad, and that's revenue being lost. This is changing, but it's still an issue.

That said, Comcast recognizes they have a big advantage over satellite in HD, at least for now, so having lots of HD helps keep people on Cable and not defecting to DBS. Lots of people have left DBS in fact to go back to cable because of HD and HD-DVR's at such low prices. So Comcast wants to find a way to get more HD out there.

When you consider all this, I come to the conclusion the best way to get more HD is to get your local franchise authority to dump some of the silly public access channels, maybe with a contractual term that requires that spectrum to be used for additional HD transport.

It's not as simple as just picking a few analog channels and dumping them to the digital tier.

Thanks,
Mike

PS I had dinner with a friend last night who was in town for the Cable show, and he told me that Ted Stevens (R-AK) is pushing Cable to sell a family friendly tier (ir no offensive content like MTV, Bravo, etc...), or face consquences that could be painful. He was theorizing that if cable companies wanted to push people to digital, and avoid the need for RF filters, that they could take MTV and such out of the analog tier into digital. Thus the expanded basic service could be the family friendly tier, and MTV and other channels could propel a whole new push to digital. The MSO's could use the Senate forcing the issue to help them in their contracts with time-warner etc..., that basically require some of these channels to be in the analog tier.

Once you push programs into the digital domain, you have a lot of flexibility in terms of flexible packages. It's ironic that the whole indecency debate may end up creating free bandwidth for more HD services in 550 markets. :-)

PPS Note, my friend didn't work in the programming arm of the cable company he works for, so this is all speculation. But keep in mind Ted Stevens is a very powerful senator, and can create a lot of prob lems for the cable industry, and he has a lot of other senators who share his view.

Thanks,
Mike

Mikef5

04-04-05, 06:41 PM

Could someone explain the 64 QAM vs. 256 QAM advantages or disadvantages. In other words does it free up bandwidth to shift to 256 from 64 QAM ??

I just did a check of all digital channels that I receive and out of 59 digital channels 45 are 64 QAM and only 14 are 256 QAM, also there are 73 analog channels which there are a couple that could be done away with or rebroadcasted on a digital channel. It just seems like they could squeeze more out of this system if they were a little bit more efficient or creative.

Laters,
Mikef5

MikeSM

04-04-05, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Mikef5
Could someone explain the 64 QAM vs. 256 QAM advantages or disadvantages. In other words does it free up bandwidth to shift to 256 from 64 QAM ??

I just did a check of all digital channels that I receive and out of 59 digital channels 45 are 64 QAM and only 14 are 256 QAM, also there are 73 analog channels which there are a couple that could be done away with or rebroadcasted on a digital channel. It just seems like they could squeeze more out of this system if they were a little bit more efficient or creative.

Laters,
Mikef5

As keenan said before, 64 QAM results in about 30 Mbps/6 mhz channel. 256 QAM, results in about 42 Mbps/6 Mhz channel. There are two tradeoffs.

1) The network needs a higher carrier to noise ratio to be able to carry 256 QAM with no errors than 64 QAM. Basically, the more aggressive the coding, the better quality of the channel you need.

2) Some of the older STB's couldn't support 256 QAM. They will have to be swapped out to move the whole system to 256 QAM, which is expensive.

#1 isn't really an issue in most of the rebuilt systems in the Bay Area. You couldn't get reliable HD service out there if that wasn't the case.

#2 may be an issue - I forgot how old the DCT 2000's were that didn't support 256 QAM, but if there are a few out there that could be a problem. There is also the issue that the demods in these old boxes wern't as good as in the new ones, so even if they did 256 QAM, they may still need a high C/N than the 6200's need as an example.

If all SD programming moved to 256 QAM in a system, this would save a lot of bandwidth, but because of how these signals are transported, an MSO wouldn't want to do this unless they could convert the whole market at once. So transitioning is a bit of a problem if you have some older systems out there or old boxes scattered in the region.

Thanks,
Mike

MikeSM

04-04-05, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by keenan
Fixed.

MikeSM,

You seem as if you have some insider contact with Comcast, what is the conventional wisdom there about 550MHz systems? With TNT-HD likely being just another HD channel we won't get and the fact that DirecTV will very likely be offering far more HD content than Comcast on 550MHZ systems come the latter part of the year, my question is, is Comcast just going to sit pat on these systems and absorb the loss of subs? Being that HSI is the only other service(no VOD, far less HD) that is offered on these systems, do they think they will stem the loss to DirecTV? Is there any plan to avoid the loss of subs?

I think you have different views in different parts of comcast. I think they are under pressure from the markets to slow the rate of capital expenditure on rebuilds - they have spent a ton of money in the last 10-15 years, and wall street doesn't expect this to be a ongoing expense. Pretty much every MSO has stopped rebuilds when they got to a certain point. It's not like Comcast didn't rebuild 550 systems. Redwood City, San Mateo, and a bunch of other markets were upgraded. in the last couple of years. Some systems missed that window because of various considerations, and I don't think you are going to see that capital come back.

This is especially true since Fellows has effectively carried the day on the all-digital network architecture. Essentially, rather than spending capital on upgrades, they will spend it on additional cheaper STB's that will convert the whole base to digital, and enable them to sell a lot more services. They return on that capital should be higher than a pure rebuild with 860 Mhz technology, since they'll be able to deliver VOD, additional PPV, and more premium content than the equivalent 860 Mhz network would with 1/3 of the subs on digital.

But what this has done has taken some of the 550 Mhz systems that would be next on the rebuild order, and moved them to the tail end of the all digital conversion. So essentially all markets end up in the same place, but the 550 systems gets there last in this model rather vthan first in the old model.

This isn't going to result into higher defections to DBS, actually in my mind, and the mind of comcast leadership, should actually dramatically reduce the move to DBS. That's because one big issue in competing with DBS is is the analog channels. In most markets, they have clearly inferior quality compared to the digital signal, and they also have inferior audio. If what you watch most of the time is analog, then that's a big competitive advantage for the all digital DBS provider.

HD at this point isn't that big a deal because not that many people have HD sets. You may end up losing a handful of subs to DirecTV if they have TNT in HD and Cable doesn't, but they'll lose a lot more subs if the only TNT is a mediocre analog version.

You have to keep in mind they have to look at DBS defections from 750 and 860 Mhz systems too, not just the small number of 550 Mhz systems out there. This strategy deals with DBS defections in the braoder base of systems. If you had infinite capital, you'd clearly do both, but you don't, so you end up dealing with the best bang for the buck first.

That's why they are doing what they are doing, AFAIK. I may end up grabbing dinner with a Comcast friend this week, in which case I'll ask some more about the 550 Mhz systems. If there is a flaw in my thinking on this, please let me know, since I can communicate that flaw to him too. :-)

This isn't probably want you folks in the 550 Mhz systems wanted to hear, but I think it's true. If you really wanted to make an impact thougj, and not solve the problem for all the 550 Mhz markets, but just this one, I do have an idea for you. It's a little crazy, but I guarantee it'll raise the level of the problem here to senior management.

The National Show is here in SF this week. Get together and go picket the show, complaining about why your cities are being discriminated against, and are paying the same prices for inferior service, and how the ads Comcast is running here are deceptive. If you do this this week, all the cable trade press will pick this up and report it, not to mention some of the national press and the visiting FCC staff too. You WILL get a lot of attention. It may even result in the local GM getting more capital to silence you guys. It's a way of putting your passion to work, and you'll become well known to the senior management of every cable company in the US. :-).

On the other hand, if it's not that big a deal, then work it the way you have been through the local franchises. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. :-)

Just my $.02.

Thanks,
Mike