It may be what they want but why should I be subsidizing them. Cable companies are no more of a monopoly than the SAT companies so why would the law single them out.
One of the reasons is that cable uses public owned property to distribute their signals, satellite does not.

You kiddin'? Still got all my tie-dyed T-shirts! :D
You old fart .. :D
Mine was tie-dyed red white and blue, the old man thought I was being patriotic, I just liked the colors ;)

Laters,
Mikef5

anyone in santa clara having issues with 724(ESPN2HD) and/or 726(TNTHD)?

I get an error message saying that this channel will be available shortly.
Has been like this for a couple days.
Tried to reset the DVR, but no change.

What the customer pays for a package isn't the determining factor with Comcast, it's what the broadcasters pay Comcast to have their programing shown on cable. Most broadcasters believe that their best coverage for their ads is on the analog channels and that's why Comcast will not do away with the analog channels, that's what the broadcasters want and what's in the contract agreements between Comcast and the broadcasters.

Laters,
Mikef5
I my be wrong but my understanding is that Comcast is required to carry all (or at least most) of the basic local channels without charge to the provider. Of coarse they can charge the shopping channels and any others that will pay but Comcast actually pays quite a bit of money for some comercial channels such as ESPN. Also most HD channels above 709 are quite expensive to Comcast since many are comercial free or limited comercial content.

For example, the new Discovery series HD Atlas cost Discovery approximately the same per episode of a primetime drama series.

I my be wrong but my understanding is that Comcast is required to carry all (or at least most) of the basic local channels without charge to the provider. Of coarse they can charge the shopping channels and any others that will pay but Comcast actually pays quite a bit of money for some comercial channels such as ESPN. Also most HD channels above 709 are quite expensive to Comcast since many are comercial free or limited comercial content.

For example, the new Discovery series HD Atlas cost Discovery approximately the same per episode of a primetime drama series.
The way the contracts are written, the local broadcasters want their ads to be seen on the system that has the biggest viewing audience and that is the analog system. That's why they can't move them to the digital tier to free up bandwidth, it's in the contract. As far as who pays who, I think it depends on the channel and how bad they want to be on cable or how bad cable wants the channel. I know that the Shopping channels pay alot of money to be on cable. I'm sure ESPN soaks Comcast for letting them be shown on cable. I was pointing out why analog will not go away any time soon.

Laters,
Mikef5

lol have u not seen comcast's digital offerings? digital cable is a luxury good, or at least priced like one.


i guess i haven't seen all of them.
I'm going to need one of Alice's "one makes her big" pill to get my head around having to pay that much $ for TV...

i guess i haven't seen all of them.
I'm going to need one of Alice's "one makes her big" pill to get my head around having to pay that much $ for TV...
You can spend more than that for a night out for two. Also, think of all the money you save for movies and DVD rentals.

You can spend more than that for a night out for two. Also, think of all the money you save for movies and DVD rentals.


so true, tho, i have not been to the movies since since 'the baby was born'... (three years ago) ! we have been to the moo-ie (best buy) store lots tho to buy dvd's.
does On Demand come with all the digi packages or is that another 'extra'?

Is there any schedule for movies coming to On Demand HD?

so true, tho, i have not been to the movies since since 'the baby was born'... (three years ago) ! we have been to the moo-ie (best buy) store lots tho to buy dvd's.
does On Demand come with all the digi packages or is that another 'extra'?
I believe On Demand is available to all digital packages if you are not in a 550 MHz area. If you subscribe to premium channels, you can view the On Demand for those channels without charge. Others can not even view those On Demand channels.

Comcast recently has started providing more significant On Demand for HD. Even though I don't get TNT-HD, I can view the On Demand HD for TNT-HD. Starz and Encore are now providing On Demand for their HD movies. The process is slow but is improving.

" If you have Comcast, You have On Demand " so the tv ad goes.
Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Santa Rosa, parts of Sunnyvale all have Comcast. Guess what they don't have ??? Is there a disclaimer in that ad ??? How could there be, Comcast is saying everyone that has Comcast has On Demand. Where's the truth in advertising ???
Yes I'm tired of seeing that ad.

Laters,
Mikef5

" If you have Comcast, You have On Demand " so the tv ad goes.
Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Santa Rosa, parts of Sunnyvale all have Comcast. Guess what they don't have ??? Is there a disclaimer in that ad ??? How could there be, Comcast is saying everyone that has Comcast has On Demand. Where's the truth in advertising ???
Yes I'm tired of seeing that ad.

Laters,
Mikef5

I can sleep better at night now that I dont see that ad anymore :)

ps...Even my dreams are in HD now after switching from Comcast 550Mhz to Dish!!!! :D

i hope that day comes soon, but i think there will be quite the revolt if comcast turned off analog TOO soon. this is what i think comcast needs to do before they can shut off analog:

- offer extra STBs for a nominal fee or just include it in the package price
- lower the basic digital tier to around 30-40 bucks from the 50-60 bucks it is now.

what a chicken/egg problem!

I think comcast should rent 700 series box for free all users with anything above basic cable. I have seen 700 box I would be surprised if it costs more than 50-70 bucks. It can be easily amortized in a few months. This will free up so much b/w for them. And yeah, they should charge only nominal fee for extra outlets. Otherwise, there won't be any motivation for anyone without a HDTV or without any interest in digital channels to get an STB and most users won't switch.

I can sleep better at night now that I dont see that ad anymore :)

ps...Even my dreams are in HD now after switching from Comcast 550Mhz to Dish!!!! :D
Soon Steve soon .... as soon as I finish these mushrooms.... oh yeah, and the Kool-aide :p ;)

Laters,
Mikef5

" If you have Comcast, You have On Demand " so the tv ad goes.
Saratoga, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Santa Rosa, parts of Sunnyvale all have Comcast. Guess what they don't have ??? Is there a disclaimer in that ad ??? How could there be, Comcast is saying everyone that has Comcast has On Demand. Where's the truth in advertising ???
Yes I'm tired of seeing that ad.

Laters,
Mikef5


ok.
There are several Daly City/Pacifica channel listing areas listed on the comcast web site. do the CSRs ususally know what they're talking about regarding 550mhz areas vs 840hz areas? So for me here on the sunny side, is it possible to be stuck in a 550mhz area? if that's the case, i'll go dish and skip the see-if-i-like-Comcast-first part of my foray into pay tv.
thanks for all the help on this... :)
wendek

ok.
There are several Daly City/Pacifica channel listing areas listed on the comcast web site. do the CSRs ususally know what they're talking about regarding 550mhz areas vs 840hz areas? So for me here on the sunny side, is it possible to be stuck in a 550mhz area? if that's the case, i'll go dish and skip the see-if-i-like-Comcast-first part of my foray into pay tv.
thanks for all the help on this... :)
wendek
To the best of my knowledge I don't think Daly City/Pacifica is a 550 MHz area, at least no one in that area has ever complained about not getting any new HD channels. If you can look at the channels that are available for your zip code, on the Comcast site, look for ESPN2-HD, TNT-HD or NFL-HD if you see any of these you are not in a 550 MHz area. Or when you talk to a CSR ask if you get On Demand, if you do you're not in a 550 MHz area.

Laters,
Mikef5

Mikef5,

What do you need FSN-HD for at this point? The rest of the regular season is meaningless to the As (sadly meaningless for my Giants, too, but for a different reason of course.) After the regular season ends, all the HD coverage will be on "regular Fox" (i.e., KTVU-HD for us) and ESPN.

Tom

I noticed the last couple of days that I have had some odd, digital-like drop outs in "analog" channels. Notably, horrible juddering/lost frames. Worst examples were the A's game on KICU the night Huston Street blew the 9-6 lead and they failed to clinch, and last Saturday's ND-MSU college football game on ESPN2-39(which was supposed to be on ESPN2-HD on the West Coast but which the bright folks at Comcast got messed up, giving us the BC-NC St. game instead). Seeking an answer, I went into the service menu on the 6412 and noticed that "analog" channels were now being broadcast with QAM--so I guess my neighborhood in Mill Valley has had ADS flipped on. What gives about the horrible picture problems? I do NOT have a signal strength issue--the service menu confirms that the DVR has not had any data losses on either tuner. Is this just to be expected in the ADS world?

Tom

I noticed the last couple of days that I have had some odd, digital-like drop outs in "analog" channels. Notably, horrible juddering/lost frames. Worst examples were the A's game on KICU the night Huston Street blew the 9-6 lead and they failed to clinch, and last Saturday's ND-MSU college football game on ESPN2-39(which was supposed to be on ESPN2-HD on the West Coast but which the bright folks at Comcast got messed up, giving us the BC-NC St. game instead). Seeking an answer, I went into the service menu on the 6412 and noticed that "analog" channels were now being broadcast with QAM--so I guess my neighborhood in Mill Valley has had ADS flipped on. What gives about the horrible picture problems? I do NOT have a signal strength issue--the service menu confirms that the DVR has not had any data losses on either tuner. Is this just to be expected in the ADS world?

Tom

The judder you see seems to be an issue when you go from an HD channel to a ADS channel between 2-76. It is fixable by just channeling up and down.

Comcast has no magic button to push to give you the game that you think you should see. ESPN2-HD was in control of what game was broadcast, in this case the West Coast got the BC-NC St. game.

I think comcast should rent 700 series box for free all users with anything above basic cable. I have seen 700 box I would be surprised if it costs more than 50-70 bucks. It can be easily amortized in a few months. This will free up so much b/w for them. And yeah, they should charge only nominal fee for extra outlets. Otherwise, there won't be any motivation for anyone without a HDTV or without any interest in digital channels to get an STB and most users won't switch.
Since the 700 series doesn't do HD, I just don't see a huge motivation for folks currently not using an STB to start using an STB even if it was free. It was my impression the DCT-700 only provided composite and RF output, not even svideo. I do feel that is Comcast's plan for the long term though.

Since the 700 series doesn't do HD, I just don't see a huge motivation for folks currently not using an STB to start using an STB even if it was free. It was my impression the DCT-700 only provided composite and RF output, not even svideo. I do feel that is Comcast's plan for the long term though.

I guess the incentive would be that, without it, you would get no TV at all. I'm not sure any of the folks who watch analog only channels today actually know what S-Video is. They just have the coax plugged into the TV right now, no different than the RF output. The key here is that the remote would have to control the TV on-off and volume while changing channels on the STB without the push of a TV or Cable button. My remote for my 6412 does that today so I think it's a no brainer.

Since the 700 series doesn't do HD, I just don't see a huge motivation for folks currently not using an STB to start using an STB even if it was free. It was my impression the DCT-700 only provided composite and RF output, not even svideo. I do feel that is Comcast's plan for the long term though.
The 700 box is not made to be able to show HD on a digital set, it is to allow people with old analog tv sets to get the digital channels without having to get a new digital tv, that's it's only function in life. I still can't for the life of me fathom out why people continue to want analog tv. It's a total waste of bandwidth and the picture quality sucks, even when compared to a bad digital channel. 2009 can't come soon enough for me :rolleyes:

Laters,
Mikef5

I still can't for the life of me fathom out way people continue to want analog tv.

the most common response i get from my buddies even after they've seen my HD.

"i like it, but analog is good enough for me"

i do suspect price is the one and only reason however.

The 700 box is not made to be able to show HD on a digital set, it is to allow people with old analog tv sets to get the digital channels without having to get a new digital tv, that's it's only function in life. I still can't for the life of me fathom out why people continue to want analog tv. It's a total waste of bandwidth and the picture quality sucks, even when compared to a bad digital channel. 2009 can't come soon enough for me :rolleyes:

Laters,
Mikef5

A co-worker fo mine just got a 700 series box -- his wife wanted on OnDemand. He was pleasantly suprised at how small it was but was a little put off by the lack outputs. It only has s-video, and composite video/audio. But I guess the target market for this box doesn't need anything more...

the most common response i get from my buddies even after they've seen my HD.

"i like it, but analog is good enough for me"

i do suspect price is the one and only reason however.
Yep, and when color tv came out I'm sure people said " Why do I need a color tv ?? B/W is good enough for me "
Yes, it is all about money but that argument is getting weaker all the time. I just bought a 32 inch LCD tv for less than $800 and since then it's dropped even more. If that's to expensive there are smaller sizes at or near the $500 mark and if that's to expensive, you need to get a better job. Most people on this forum are not poor, you own a computer ( that's how you got on this forum :)) that probably costs more or the same as a new digital tv, you just choose a computer rather than a digital tv.

Laters,
Mikef5

the most common response i get from my buddies even after they've seen my HD.

"i like it, but analog is good enough for me"

i do suspect price is the one and only reason however.


wow! really??
i am awestruck every time i watch the game in HD. Every blade of grass, the color, the crispness... i'm surprised not everyone wants this.
I figured if i was going to get a new TV it might as well be the new technology too, even if the price was astronomical compared to the huge heavy tube tv i can't even lift.

A co-worker fo mine just got a 700 series box -- his wife wanted on OnDemand. He was pleasantly suprised at how small it was but was a little put off by the lack outputs. It only has s-video, and composite video/audio. But I guess the target market for this box doesn't need anything more...
On Demand..... :confused: :confused: don't know what you're talking about...... :rolleyes:

The 700 is a nice little box that does what it is suppose to do and nothing more. I would make those boxes available in the 550 MHz areas and drop analog or at least some of them. You still meet the requirement of the broadcasters to get to the largest viewing audience yet you can free up bandwidth to add more HD content. Cheapest and fastest way to do an upgrade to programing without actually having to do a system hardware upgrade.

Laters,
Mikef5

Yep, and when color tv came out I'm sure people said " Why do I need a color tv ?? B/W is good enough for me "
Yes, it is all about money but that argument is getting weaker all the time. I just bought a 32 inch LCD tv for less than $800 and since then it's dropped even more. If that's to expensive there are smaller sizes at or near the $500 mark and if that's to expensive, you need to get a better job. Most people on this forum are not poor, you own a computer ( that's how you got on this forum :)) that probably costs more or the same as a new digital tv, you just choose a computer rather than a digital tv.

Laters,
Mikef5

I hear ya Mike, but..... Let's look at my 81 year old Mother in Law. She's got a 27" analog TV. It's 2 years old. She falls asleep in front of that TV more than watches it, but she does watch it. She is the primary target for the 700. With the 700 all we need to do is change her channel to 3, if it has an RF output or Local Input otherwise. She doesn't see all that well, does she really need a new TV? I don't think so. It takes 2 weeks for her to learn to use a new remote. Granted, if she had a 700, she'd have a 2 week learning curve, but then we're in like Flynn. You have to remember that she isn't on this forum and doesn't own a computer. I bought her first color TV 32 years ago. She said black and white was good enough for her just like you said. There are a bunch of folks out there just like her. I still like the idea of forced digital with free 700s.

I hear ya Mike, but..... Let's look at my 81 year old Mother in Law. She's got a 27" analog TV. It's 2 years old. She falls asleep in front of that TV more than watches it, but she does watch it. She is the primary target for the 700. With the 700 all we need to do is change her channel to 3, if it has an RF output or Local Input otherwise. She doesn't see all that well, does she really need a new TV? I don't think so. It takes 2 weeks for her to learn to use a new remote. Granted, if she had a 700, she'd have a 2 week learning curve, but then we're in like Flynn. You have to remember that she isn't on this forum and doesn't own a computer. I bought her first color TV 32 years ago. She said black and white was good enough for her just like you said. There are a bunch of folks out there just like her. I still like the idea of forced digital with free 700s.
I do understand, my Mom's the same way, but that's what the 700 is suppose to do for those people. Instead of plugging the cable into her tv's rf input you plug it into the 700 and that connects to the tv. She's happy because she still sees her old analog channels and will be able to see the new digital channels. She sees no difference than before and will get more channels available to her since she can now see the digital channels just down converted to analog for the tv and she doesn't have to get a new digital tv to do that. It's a win-win situation. She's happy that she still sees her old channels and now she can see more channels with the new digital channels that she couldn't get before and Comcast frees up bandwidth to add more digital or HD content.

Laters,
Mikef5

i have two HDTV and one analog tube... so would i get one of the 700 boxes for that tv or can i use one of the new digital ones with it? Sounds like it would be better than just sticking the cable to the TV's RF and i'd get the "guide" also, right?

Anybody else missing 9.1 -9.5 (PBS KQED) using QAM tuner for the last few nights? I am in San Carlos area.

Same old response from Comcast - not obligated to provide HD without utilization of their box, so blah blah blah...yes it works fine through the 6412.

i have two HDTV and one analog tube... so would i get one of the 700 boxes for that tv or can i use one of the new digital ones with it? Sounds like it would be better than just sticking the cable to the TV's RF and i'd get the "guide" also, right?
You can hook up any Comcast digital receiver to your analog tv by using the RF output on the box or by using the S-Video or composite outputs if your analog tv has them.

Laters,
Mikef5

Anybody else missing 9.1 -9.5 (PBS KQED) using QAM tuner for the last few nights? I am in San Carlos area.

Same old response from Comcast - not obligated to provide HD without utilization of their box, so blah blah blah...yes it works fine through the 6412.
Try doing a complete rescan on your tuner. Comcast has changed some of the KQED stations around even in the 550 MHz areas. That's what I did and that's how I know they changed them.

Laters,
Mikef5

I live in Solano County - Benicia, to be specific - and I get the San Francisco HDTV channels (KTVU, KNTV, KRON, KPIX, KGO, KQED - channels 702-709) instead of the Sacramento ones. Then again, Benicia's analog Comcast system doesn't carry the Sacramento network stations (except for KCRA), like it does in Vacaville (and Fairfield - at least it did when I lived there before I moved in August 2003), so that probably has something to do with determining which HDTV stations a particular city would get.

-- Don

The 700 box is not made to be able to show HD on a digital set, it is to allow people with old analog tv sets to get the digital channels without having to get a new digital tv, that's it's only function in life. I still can't for the life of me fathom out why people continue to want analog tv. It's a total waste of bandwidth and the picture quality sucks, even when compared to a bad digital channel. 2009 can't come soon enough for me :rolleyes:
I understand the purpose of the 700.

The point was that people who are not using a box today either don't want the box, don't need the box, or are just status quo people.

For the first 2 categories the common reasons are:
1) don't want 2 remotes (yes, learn to program your remote, but that argument frequently fails with this category folk)
2) I have a PVR like TiVo or ReplayTV and I don't want to use the damn IR blaster
3) I have lots of TVs and I don't want a box attached to each one, it isn't convenient.
4) this box just sucks up more electricity and I don't care for anything additional it offers

IMO the majority of analog users today are analog because they want the convenience of that setup. If someone wants to force DCT-700's out there, the convenience of analog cable is basically lost and there isn't really anything gained, so there is little incentive for an analog user to get a DCT-700.

If their was some incentive like ability to receive HD locals then analog users might actually start *requesting* DCT-700s and migration would be quicker.

If the incentive is the analog channels are gone and without the DCT-700 you'll get no service, then I think many existing analog folks, if forced to work with an STB would gladly just switch to Dish to get the better HD lineup and equivalent to lower pricing for compareable plans. This is not something Comcast would want.

I do think what is going to happen is the DCT-700 is going to be phased in and once it reaches critical mass we'll start seeing some analog channels migrate to digital. I doubt we will have full analog shutoff for quite a long time and you can expect the locals to be transmitted on analog at least until the OTA cutoff and possibly longer. However, just the partial reduction of analog channels will yield reasonable bandwidth for future upgrades.

Basically the statement I didn't agree with was just making DCT-700 free would entice analog folks to switch to using it. I just don't think that is true because of the reasons people are sticking with analog today. BTW not everybody has bad analog. In my area, the analog stations look just as good or better than the ADS stations.

I also think it is hard for Comcast to force a migration of analog users when the convenience of analog is a big reason keeping folks from switching to satellite.

Well this is probably the wrong thread but every thread is so large/long!

Has anbody in the Bay Area been able to obtain or exchange to a MOT 6416 or 3416.

For the $$$ I am paying to Comcast I would love 40 GB more for HD Content.

I understand the purpose of the 700.

The point was that people who are not using a box today either don't want the box, don't need the box, or are just status quo people.

For the first 2 categories the common reasons are:
1) don't want 2 remotes (yes, learn to program your remote, but that argument frequently fails with this category folk)
2) I have a PVR like TiVo or ReplayTV and I don't want to use the damn IR blaster
3) I have lots of TVs and I don't want a box attached to each one, it isn't convenient.
4) this box just sucks up more electricity and I don't care for anything additional it offers

IMO the majority of analog users today are analog because they want the convenience of that setup. If someone wants to force DCT-700's out there, the convenience of analog cable is basically lost and there isn't really anything gained, so there is little incentive for an analog user to get a DCT-700.

If their was some incentive like ability to receive HD locals then analog users might actually start *requesting* DCT-700s and migration would be quicker.

If the incentive is the analog channels are gone and without the DCT-700 you'll get no service, then I think many existing analog folks, if forced to work with an STB would gladly just switch to Dish to get the better HD lineup and equivalent to lower pricing for compareable plans. This is not something Comcast would want.

I do think what is going to happen is the DCT-700 is going to be phased in and once it reaches critical mass we'll start seeing some analog channels migrate to digital. I doubt we will have full analog shutoff for quite a long time and you can expect the locals to be transmitted on analog at least until the OTA cutoff and possibly longer. However, just the partial reduction of analog channels will yield reasonable bandwidth for future upgrades.

Basically the statement I didn't agree with was just making DCT-700 free would entice analog folks to switch to using it. I just don't think that is true because of the reasons people are sticking with analog today. BTW not everybody has bad analog. In my area, the analog stations look just as good or better than the ADS stations.

I also think it is hard for Comcast to force a migration of analog users when the convenience of analog is a big reason keeping folks from switching to satellite.

I don't think so. I think the majority of people who are on analog are there because they don't want to pay for digital so there's no reason to have a box. The average consumer has 2, maybe 3 TV's in the house. Attaching a small, tissue-box sized box really isn't that big a deal. I can see from your point of view about the IR Blaster with Tivo/Replay. But the reality is the vast majority doesn't have a Tivo or Replay. People might grumble a bit but as with anything in life, they get over it.

Does anyone know how to get the digital SD local channels to work on the TiVo S3? They work ok on my DCT-6200 cable box. I thought digital SD was working after cablecard 1 checkout but I'm getting analog SD now after card 2.

Yesterday got the cablecards installed in my S3. It was a lot less painful than I thought after reading so many horror stories over at TiVoCommunity forum. Apparently, Comcast in the S.F. Bay Area has more experience with cablecards. Even though my S3 was the first my installer had seen the only problems he had was getting through to the headend and my neighborhood network encountered a brief system wide outage. Two Motorola cablecards, one a version 4.05 (red) and the other a 4.21 (blue).

I understand the purpose of the 700.

The point was that people who are not using a box today either don't want the box, don't need the box, or are just status quo people.

For the first 2 categories the common reasons are:
1) don't want 2 remotes (yes, learn to program your remote, but that argument frequently fails with this category folk)
2) I have a PVR like TiVo or ReplayTV and I don't want to use the damn IR blaster
3) I have lots of TVs and I don't want a box attached to each one, it isn't convenient.
4) this box just sucks up more electricity and I don't care for anything additional it offers

IMO the majority of analog users today are analog because they want the convenience of that setup. If someone wants to force DCT-700's out there, the convenience of analog cable is basically lost and there isn't really anything gained, so there is little incentive for an analog user to get a DCT-700.

If their was some incentive like ability to receive HD locals then analog users might actually start *requesting* DCT-700s and migration would be quicker.

If the incentive is the analog channels are gone and without the DCT-700 you'll get no service, then I think many existing analog folks, if forced to work with an STB would gladly just switch to Dish to get the better HD lineup and equivalent to lower pricing for compareable plans. This is not something Comcast would want.

I do think what is going to happen is the DCT-700 is going to be phased in and once it reaches critical mass we'll start seeing some analog channels migrate to digital. I doubt we will have full analog shutoff for quite a long time and you can expect the locals to be transmitted on analog at least until the OTA cutoff and possibly longer. However, just the partial reduction of analog channels will yield reasonable bandwidth for future upgrades.

Basically the statement I didn't agree with was just making DCT-700 free would entice analog folks to switch to using it. I just don't think that is true because of the reasons people are sticking with analog today. BTW not everybody has bad analog. In my area, the analog stations look just as good or better than the ADS stations.

I also think it is hard for Comcast to force a migration of analog users when the convenience of analog is a big reason keeping folks from switching to satellite.
So what is the purpose of going to ADS. To shift the programing to all digital. The old stick the cable into the tv days are going away and so is analog. Yes, you can stick the old cable into a digital set and have cable cards but we're talking about analog. To ease that transistion to all digital is why Comcast is doing the simulcasting analog and digital to those areas that have the bandwidth. The goal is to eventually drop analog and have a complete digital system. You do realize that splitting your cable and running cable to other tv's without it going to a box is not supported by the cable company and is not suppose to be done, Comcast just doesn't enforce that and looks the other way. Call Comcast and tell them you have a problem with your cable and you're not using their box and see what they tell you. Yes, it's convenient and nice to have but it's not supported and any damage that occurs with that setup is your problem and not Comcast.
If Comcast would just upgrade all the systems this would not be a problem in our area, but they're not going to anytime soon so it's a problem here. Comcast could isolate this loop off the main loop and do that switch without it affecting the rest of the loops. That's the purpose for having loops within loops to isolate areas of trouble and fix it without affecting the rest of the loops. You could do that with programing as well. This has been an on going problem and all that it is accomplishing is forcing digital customers out of this area and to Dish and Directv and leaving just analog people here, so why would Comcast ever upgrade this area ???

Laters,
Mikef5

I understand the purpose of the 700.

Basically the statement I didn't agree with was just making DCT-700 free would entice analog folks to switch to using it. I just don't think that is true because of the reasons people are sticking with analog today. BTW not everybody has bad analog. In my area, the analog stations look just as good or better than the ADS stations.


agreed. 'motivation' was wrong word I used. Yes, making DCT-700 free does not mean people would want it. But charging for it is just a non-starter, however cheap it is. At least with free STB Comcast can pursuade with free On Demand, better picture for many, later federal law etc. I know I can get many friends to use one if it if it is free.

Mikef5--

I'll bet that a lot of us with basic-only cable have no STB at all now. Comcast is happy to take the money and couldn't care less how many TV sets are hooked up to that wire. Many of us would simply stop paying the $15 or so per month if the "basic cable" option went away. I like having the extra reliability of the cable feed for the HD locals, given the Bay Area's OTA vagaries, but there's no way I'm going to pay substantially more for the other junk that (potentially) comes in on that cable. ;)

So what is the purpose of going to ADS. To shift the programing to all digital.
I think you are reading from my response just the portions you want to respond to.

My point is *not* that ADS and analog are going to coexist forever. Nor is it that analog should never go away. My point was that I don't feel making the DCT-700 free is going to entice large #s of existing analog users to switch over. If you want to disagree with that statement feel free to, but it isn't necessary to explain to me the rationale for ADS repeatedly.

Except for people with really bad analog signals, the DCT-700 is just a stick, with the carrot being for somebody else who actually uses digital cable and doesn't have enough bandwidth for the channels they watch. If Comcast wants people to voluntarily migrate to the DCT-700 in large #s, give them a carrot.

Originally Posted by sfhub
I understand the purpose of the 700.I don't think you do or you wouldn't have said this... "If their was some incentive like ability to receive HD locals then analog users might actually start *requesting* DCT-700s and migration would be quicker."

The purpose of the 700 is to allow digital signals to be seen on analog tv sets period. To see HD you need a digital tv, if you have a digital tv you don't need the 700 and you don't really need analog. That being said, you can see a channel like 702 with the 700 box it just won't look like a normal analog station does but it is viewable. People are just either to cheap, stuck in the same old ruts and don't want to change or just don't care one way or the other.

Laters,
Mikef5

But charging for it is just a non-starter, however cheap it is. At least with free STB Comcast can pursuade with free On Demand, better picture for many, later federal law etc. I know I can get many friends to use one if it if it is free.
That I can agree with. Certainly if made free, there would be more people interested in the DCT-700 than if it was being charged for. At the minimum people with bad analog signals will have more incentive to switch.

I don't think you do or you wouldn't have said this... "If their was some incentive like ability to receive HD locals then analog users might actually start *requesting* DCT-700s and migration would be quicker."

The purpose of the 700 is to allow digital signals to be seen on analog tv sets period. To see HD you need a digital tv.
Have you actually seen HD channels downconverted to svideo? They look significantly better than ADS channels.

My point again is putting together a successful strategy to get people to migrate quicker. If giving a carrot (that the DCT-700 is incapable of providing) is the answer then the DCT-700 is the wrong product for that incentive.

IMO the best way to do that is to look at why people are staying with analog and address those reasons, giving them something better at little to no cost, not give them the same thing with more inconvenience.

sfhub,
Read my entire post. Comcast can isolate the 550 MHz areas and do the 700 box thing without affecting the rest of the areas. Are you in a bandwidth starved area ??? If not what I purposed will not affect you or your area one bit and you shouldn't care if they do or not. It's fine and dandy that people with all that bandwidth to spare are so worried about what could be done in areas that are not so fortunate.

Laters,
Mikef5

Have you actually seen HD channels downconverted to svideo? They look significantly better than ADS channels.

Yes, I do it now with the 6412 dvr, the down converted channels look better than the analog channels do, So if I want to watch a SD channel that's how I view them, the only channel that I do that for is FSN SD channel 40 and I can do that with HD channels because my tv will allow me to make the picture look like a normal channel. I don't have any analog equipment in my house, it's all digital.

Laters,
Mikef5

sfhub,
Read my entire post. Comcast can isolate the 550 MHz areas and do the 700 box thing without affecting the rest of the areas. Are you in a bandwidth starved area ??? If not what I purposed will not affect you or your area one bit and you shouldn't care if they do or not. It's fine and dandy that people with all that bandwidth to spare are so worried about what could be done in areas that are not so fortunate.
You seem to be of the opinion I'm lobbying in some way that your area be stuck with its existing analog lineup for eternity.

On the contrary, I'm just looking at the analog to digital migration from the point of view of the analog users as opposed to the viewpoint of digital users who mainly see the analog users as dead weight holding them back from more bandwidth needed for their HD viewing.

If you want them to migrate, I don't think it is the best approach for a digital user to say I need *you* to migrate to the DCT-700 (or which ever box) because *I* need more bandwidth. I think it will be much more successful if one sets up the conditions needed for the analog user to say I *want* the DCT-700 (or which ever box)

sfhub,

OK, what could Comcast offer the analog customers that would get them to change to digital ??
Can't be digital channels, you need a digital tv for that.
Can't be HD you need a digital tv for that.
So what could they offer them to change ??? Come up with a good comprehensive strategy to get analog people to switch to digital and I promise you I'll use all my contacts to try and get that implemented and I have more contacts than just one.
The problem is analog people are stuck in a comfortable rut and don't want to change, don't want to spend the money or just don't care.
I'm serious if you or anyone can come up with a good way to get people off their analog system I'll push it as hard as I can.

Laters,
Mikef5

The co-worker I referenced in a previous post is pretty much your "typical" Comcast subscriber. Lives in Lafayette, does well for himself and has an SD TV that's about 6 years old. Up until now, analog did him fine. I asked him today why it took so long to switch and he said "I thought digital meant more money and I didn't want to spend any more money". When his wife started hearing about OnDemand, that's when they switched. I asked if having the box was an annoyance and he said "No, not really". He did have to re-program his universal remote but that wasn't a problem. Could Comcast get away with forcing people to "pay" for a DCT-700? Probably not. Could they hide the costs somewhere else? Probably.

Charging subs a fee for the DCT700 is a non-starter.

Charging subs a fee for the DCT700 and offering them some of the more popular digital cable channels may work, although that would be a zero gain for most of these subs, and some might even still see it as a loss(cost).

The DCT700 will have to be free, and there will have to be some value added incentive for them to use it. Additional programming would seem to be the easiest way to accomplish that.

By all accounts, cable will be providing analog signals well beyond the OTA analog cutoff date.

OK, what could Comcast offer the analog customers that would get them to change to digital ??
Can't be digital channels, you need a digital tv for that.
Can't be HD you need a digital tv for that.
So what could they offer them to change ???
Well for starters, the downconverted HD locals look significantly better than the ADS versions, so if they had a (theoretical) DCT-710 that received HD and downconverted to svideo, offering better PQ and DD5.1, that is a reason to switch - better PQ, better audio, and it is free.

If they offered a tradein program for PVR users where they get the 3412 and service for promotional price (like they do with the dish tradein program) that would help.

If they instructed their installers on how to program the comcast remote to control the TV and the cable box, that would help also.

If they made sure the DCT-700 (or equivalent) was EnergyStar certified that would help too.

Maybe some combination of programming incentives also.

I'm sure there are smart people out there that can come up with better ideas.

I don't think there is one silver bullet that will appeal to everyone, but if you have a comprehensive strategy that addresses all the inertia, I think that will be a more successful approach.

The co-worker I referenced in a previous post is pretty much your "typical" Comcast subscriber. Lives in Lafayette, does well for himself and has an SD TV that's about 6 years old. Up until now, analog did him fine. I asked him today why it took so long to switch and he said "I thought digital meant more money and I didn't want to spend any more money". When his wife started hearing about OnDemand, that's when they switched. I asked if having the box was an annoyance and he said "No, not really". He did have to re-program his universal remote but that wasn't a problem. Could Comcast get away with forcing people to "pay" for a DCT-700? Probably not. Could they hide the costs somewhere else? Probably.
You know that could be a draw in some areas, make a big deal about being able to get On Demand which most of it is free and offer the box for little or no cost but here's the rub.
In the 550 MHz areas we don't have enough bandwidth to add another channel, analog or digital, we don't even get On Demand so that carrot can't be offered in an area that needs it the most. So it won't work here but might in other areas but they don't need to free up bandwidth, they have enough to digital simulcasting and still have enough left over to add new HD channels. So great idea, just doesn't help the areas that need it the most.

Laters,
Mikef5

Actually they don't care how many TVs you have hooked up to (basic analog) cable.

When I moved into this apartment I just ordered Standard cable (didn't have the HD set yet) and had the nice lady hookup and/or install 3 seperate outlets in different rooms. One she even had to drill thru the wall and install an outlet and cover plate - no extra charge. Another one she happily installed a splitter on so I could hook up both a TV and cable modem.

I guess another approach is to just send out one DCT-700 to every analog-only subscriber in SaraMilGatos regardless of whether they want or will use it, just so you can mark their account as digital instead of analog, thereby giving Comcast more flexibility in the contract negotiations for moving channels to digital.

Well for starters, the downconverted HD locals look significantly better than the ADS versions, so if they had a (theoretical) DCT-710 that received HD and downconverted to svideo, offering better PQ and DD5.1, that is a reason to switch - better PQ, better audio, and it is free.Ok, right now there is a box the 6200 that can do just that. The only problem is the HD picture displayed using s-video out will make the picture look smaller. My tv allows me to zoom or adjust that picture. I don't know if an analog tv can do that like I said all my equipment is digital.

If they offered a tradein program for PVR users where they get the 3412 and service for promotional price (like they do with the dish tradein program) that would help.I don't understand what you are saying here. You don't own anything with cable, all boxes are leased so what would you be trading in ??? I can see the promotional price though and that might be one incentive to offer.

If they instructed their installers on how to program the comcast remote to control the TV and the cable box, that would help also.
Boy, I don't know, I would feel pretty silly if I couldn't figure out a remote but I'm pretty sure that Comcast has a handout that explains how to do that. I gave mine to my Mom
If they made sure the DCT-700 (or equivalent) was EnergyStar certified that would help too.I don't know if they are or aren't maybe Dave could enlighten us.

Maybe some combination of programming incentives also.
Maybe targeting the 550 MHz areas to get them to change to digital, seems like a workable idea.
I'm sure there are smart people out there that can come up with better ideas.
That's why I asked and waiting for, a couple of yours are do able.

Laters,
Mikef5

When they installed cable at my folks house (HD that is) the guy programmed the remote for the TV as well.

As far as digital-only, my guess is they won't really be giving people a choice.... Whenever it is that they finally decide to pull the plug on analog, people with old TVs will get nothing but snow, and they will simply HAVE TO supply some kind of STB to those people. I don't know what or if they will charge for the boxes though, but I can easily see them going back to the "per outlet" charge, since each "outlet" needs a box...

anyone in santa clara having issues with 724(ESPN2HD) and/or 726(TNTHD)?

I get an error message saying that this channel will be available shortly.
Has been like this for a couple days.
Tried to reset the DVR, but no change.


Ok, they now come in but have HUGE stutters every couple of seconds.
Currently watching the Yankees game on 724, and the Mummy on 726.

Anyone? Anyone?

When they installed cable at my folks house (HD that is) the guy programmed the remote for the TV as well.

As far as digital-only, my guess is they won't really be giving people a choice.... Whenever it is that they finally decide to pull the plug on analog, people with old TVs will get nothing but snow, and they will simply HAVE TO supply some kind of STB to those people. I don't know what or if they will charge for the boxes though, but I can easily see them going back to the "per outlet" charge, since each "outlet" needs a box...
I hope you are right but the Comcast CEO in one of his interviews said that they were not going to completely do away with analog but would keep some of them so as not to alienate the analog customers, kind of shot down my hopes of seeing any new channels any time soon.

Laters,
Mikef5

Ok, right now there is a box the 6200 that can do just that. The only problem is the HD picture displayed using s-video out will make the picture look smaller. My tv allows me to zoom or adjust that picture. I don't know if an analog tv can do that like I said all my equipment is digital.
Ideally such a device would be at DCT-700 price point, not at 6200 price point (which includes analog circuitry and mpg encoder) The problem you mention is the forced letterboxing of HD channels as opposed to giving the user the choice of how they want it displayed (zoomed, anamorphic-style, etc.).
I don't understand what you are saying here. You don't own anything with cable, all boxes are leased so what would you be trading in ??? I can see the promotional price though and that might be one incentive to offer.
Assuming PVRs are preventing people from letting go of analog, trade in your TiVo or ReplayTV and Comcast will give you 3412 + digital cable for $29.99/month for a year. Adjust the #s to make sense. Basically the same concept they use for trading in your dish.

Boy, I don't know, I would feel pretty silly if I couldn't figure out a remote but I'm pretty sure that Comcast has a handout that explains how to do that. I gave mine to my Mom I don't know if they are or aren't maybe Dave could enlighten us.
I guess your mom is just above average because I have heard the complaint over and over again from older folk that cannot figure out how to program their remotes. I don't personally think it is difficult to do but I don't find VCRs hard to program either, but that is another thing people have problems doing. If it is so simple, I don't see what the issue with the installer doing it for you. Your goal after all should be to eliminate reasons why people are resistant to going to digital cable as opposed to trivializing their complaint. If you really feel this is a non-issue, do a poll and see how many people "know of" somebody who is resistant to going with a cable box because of the perceived inconvenience of using 2 remotes. I say perceived because it may not be an actual inconvenience if they knew how to program their remotes. I say "know of" because I assume most folks on this forum know how to do so.

Let me see if I understand this right. Comcast is extremely worried that they will loose $12 per month customers. Therefore so they shouldn't loose these customers, the customers should get a free STB. Comcast should not charge for the install. Comcast should add new channels and maybe HD free of charage. Comcast should have some sort of promotional price reduction. Comcast should instruct the customer in the use of the STB and remote. Comcast should expect and provide free support service.

So I guess the next step should be that Comcast should make up a business plan and get some investors to back the idea and reap in the rewards.

As far as digital-only, my guess is they won't really be giving people a choice.... Whenever it is that they finally decide to pull the plug on analog, people with old TVs will get nothing but snow, and they will simply HAVE TO supply some kind of STB to those people.
I have no doubt it will go all or mostly digital at some point in the future. That point could be very far out though if they do not get enough people shifted over to digital. It is one thing to shut down analog when 5% of your customers use it. It is quite something else to shut it down if 50% of your customers use it. I'm sure Comcast has some percentage in mind where they will be willing to switch to mostly or all digital.

If folks want the bandwidth early, IMO Comcast will need to make special effort to accelerate the migration process or they will just be at the whim of natural progression until analog users become negligible.

I think with the analog to digital ratio the way it is right now, forcing STBs on people who don't need or want one has a good chance of just pushing them to satellite and I think that is a big reason why Comcast is resistant to doing so.

Assuming PVRs are preventing people from letting go of analog, trade in your TiVo or ReplayTV and Comcast will give you 3412 + digital cable for $29.99/month for a year. Adjust the #s to make sense. Basically the same concept they use for trading in your dish.I see like the Dish buy back only for analog devices like Tivo.

Ideally such a device would be at DCT-700 price point, not at 6200 price point (which includes analog circuitry and mpg encoder) The problem you mention is the forced letterboxing of HD channels as opposed to giving the user the choice of how they want it displayed (zoomed, anamorphic-style, etc.).I would bet that the DCT-700 will do the same things as the 6200, I'll see if I can find the user manual for the DCT-700 and see what it says.

As far as the remote thing. I didn't say my Mom was above average, I programed it for her but she wanted to have the manual so she could refer to it if she had any problems. I think a person should be able to take a little responsiblity on their own and not expect to be spoon fed. When you bought your tv did the salesman program your remote, did he show you how to hook the tv up and which connection would be the best. No, I bet you read the manual and took responsiblity on learning all you could about your tv. I also don't classify people as old folk, I'm an old folk and I'm able to do just about anything that you young whipper snappers can do. Just because you are old doesn't make you stupid or incapable of reading an instruction manual.

Laters,
Mikef5

Comcast is extremely worried that they will loose $12 per month customers.
I think they are more worried about their $50/month limited + expanded basic customers.

I think they are more worried about their $50/month limited + expanded basic customers.
Yes.


Regarding the DCT700, information on how things are going/work in Calaveras County would probably shed some light on the subject. When I get some time I'll see if I can dig anything up, other than the old news articles when Comcast first implemented it.

I also don't classify people as old folk, I'm an old folk and I'm able to do just about anything that you young whipper snappers can do. Just because you are old doesn't make you stupid or incapable of reading an instruction manual.
It isn't a knock on older folk or a comment on their intelligence so I wouldn't make something of it that wasn't intended. It just happens to be a phenomena that is more often seen with people who have not grown up in a world where every new device has programming and customization features. I know well educated people who just cannot deal with programming electronics. Sometimes they can't read the little tiny numbers on the remote programming page. Sometimes they just aren't used to doing the programming, yet for other topics they are experts at the top of the class.

BTW it is actually more than just programming your remote, it is making sure that the TV is tuned to the correct input when it is turned on so the cable box will work, whether that be RF3, or svideo input.

And I don't understand this "take responsibility thing" Digital users want analog users to switch to a digital STB, so why is it the analog user that needs to take responsibility when what they have is working fine and others want them to change their setup? For you guys to get your bandwidth, wouldn't it make sense to make it as painless as possible for the analog users to switch to a digital STB?

Regarding the DCT700, information on how things are going/work in Calaveras County would probably shed some light on the subject. When I get some time I'll see if I can dig anything up, other than the old news articles when Comcast first implemented it.
That would be great.

And I don't understand this "take responsibility thing" Digital users want analog users to switch to a digital STB, so why is it the analog user that needs to take responsibility when what they have is working fine and others want them to change their setup? For you guys to get your bandwidth, wouldn't it make sense to make it as painless as possible for the analog users to switch to a digital STB?
Your point is well taken. I expect that cost more than anything is holding up the conversion just as cost is holding up the upgrades of 550 MHz systems. Both are holding back the progress of the digital revolution. Now if this was the old days when when companies like AT&T was a monopoly, both would just be done and the cost no mater what it was would be passed along to the consumer.

I guess your mom is just above average because I have heard the complaint over and over again from older folk that cannot figure out how to program their remotes. So you've never heard a younger person say over and over they are having a problem with programing their remotes ?? Did you ever think that the older person was pulling your leg to make you think they couldn't do it just to get you to do it. The take responsiblity remark had to do with learning to program your own remote it had nothing to do with digital or analog anything.

Laters,
Mikef5

trade in your TiVo or ReplayTV and Comcast will give you 3412

over my dead body :D

So you've never heard a younger person say over and over they are having a problem with programing their remotes ?? Did you ever think that the older person was pulling your leg to make you think they couldn't do it just to get you to do it.
I'm sure it happens, but I've not personally heard of this. I hear my son or daughter programmed the remote for me and I hear stuff like it was working fine when you left but now all I get is blue screen, then I realize somebody had changed to input2 instead of input1 and I tell them they need to change the TV to input1.

Then they say why do they need a cable box, it was much easier before when they could just press on/off and ch+/- and not have to worry about the input thing. I tell them with the box they get VOD and and the digital channels. Then they tell me the never use VOD and can they pay less if they drop the digital channels because they hardly watch them.

In the case of my parents, I broke out the JP1 cable and programmed their remote from the PC so whenever they turn on the TV or press the "cable" button, it forces the TV to input1 using discrete input commands. I also fixed the volume punch through so the volume buttons control the correct device no matter what they are watching, cable box, DVD, or VCR. They haven't complained about the cable box since, but I really wouldn't expect most folk to be able to do this programming.

To increase the rate of migration I think Comcast should foolproof as much as possible the install. Obviously not everyone will need their remotes programmed, but for those folks where this is an impediment to them giving up analog, when the installer leaves, the remote should at least turn on the TV, switch to the correct input for the cable box (or switch to ch3), the volume keys should control the TV volume, and the ch keys should control the cable box. Someone mentioned earlier Comcast already programs the remote in some cases or areas.
The take responsiblity remark had to do with learning to program your own remote it had nothing to do with digital or analog anything.
But the analog users' remote is working fine as is. It is only because somebody wants them to migrate to a digital STB so that somebody else can have more bandwidth that they are being inconvenienced with this programming the remote and making sure the TV is on ch3 or the correct input thing. So it does have to do with analog to digital because their current setup is working fine but for bandwidth reasons we want them to switch to a digital STB.

I am not disagreeing with the point you made, but someone that uses a universal remote, reprograms them is so not typical :) I know so many people with advanced degrees in tech who either don't see a need for it or don't want to be bothered with with programming.

Yes, I think many people won't mind an STB. The % of people with strong (or any) opinions on these things is very low. That way, number people who actually want convenience of analog cable would not be much more than people who actually want digital. Most would fall under 'yeah, whatever' category. If comcast calls them and says "take this STB and it is way better than ananlog and and its free", most would say 'fine'. Of course, things like 'free HDTV' etc would be even sweeter.

I think biggest bottleneck here is Comcast.

btw, I don't think 700 would cost even $50. There are DVD players below $40. 700 has tuner but does not have DVD drive and other things. Of course 700 has more complex software.. but should cost nothing since its already running on millions of boxes.

btw, what does Analog Shutdown in 2009 mean? is Comcast prohibited from transmitting analog?

The co-worker I referenced in a previous post is pretty much your "typical" Comcast subscriber. Lives in Lafayette, does well for himself and has an SD TV that's about 6 years old. Up until now, analog did him fine. I asked him today why it took so long to switch and he said "I thought digital meant more money and I didn't want to spend any more money". When his wife started hearing about OnDemand, that's when they switched. I asked if having the box was an annoyance and he said "No, not really". He did have to re-program his universal remote but that wasn't a problem. Could Comcast get away with forcing people to "pay" for a DCT-700? Probably not. Could they hide the costs somewhere else? Probably.

btw, what does Analog Shutdown in 2009 mean? is Comcast prohibited from transmitting analog?
The shutdown affects OTA stations only. Cable/sat can still do whatever it is they do.

There are issues being talked about as to what cable can do with the signal they get from the broadcaster as far as down-rezzing and the like, but the NTSC OTA shutdown really doesn't have anything to do with cable. Expect cable to continue to provide analog signals for many years to come.

I'm sure it happens, but I've not personally heard of this. I hear my son or daughter programmed the remote for me and I hear stuff like it was working fine when you left but now all I get is blue screen, then I realize somebody had changed to input2 instead of input1 and I tell them they need to change the TV to input1.

Then they say why do they need a cable box, it was much easier before when they could just press on/off and ch+/- and not have to worry about the input thing. I tell them with the box they get VOD and and the digital channels. Then they tell me the never use VOD and can they pay less if they drop the digital channels because they hardly watch them.

In the case of my parents, I broke out the JP1 cable and programmed their remote from the PC so whenever they turn on the TV or press the "cable" button, it forces the TV to input1 using discrete input commands. I also fixed the volume punch through so the volume buttons control the correct device no matter what they are watching, cable box, DVD, or VCR. They haven't complained about the cable box since, but I really wouldn't expect most folk to be able to do this programming.

To increase the rate of migration I think Comcast should foolproof as much as possible the install. Obviously not everyone will need their remotes programmed, but for those folks where this is an impediment to them giving up analog, when the installer leaves, the remote should at least turn on the TV, switch to the correct input for the cable box (or switch to ch3), the volume keys should control the TV volume, and the ch keys should control the cable box. Someone mentioned earlier Comcast already programs the remote in some cases or areas.

But their remote is working fine as is. It is only because somebody wants them to migrate to a digital STB so that somebody else can have more bandwidth that they are being inconvenienced with this programming the remote and making sure the TV is on ch3 or the correct input thing. So it does have to do with analog to digital because their current setup is working fine.
Wow, I'm speechless. I see this is futile, enough, forget I brought the whole thing up. Comcast will do what ever it wants with this area but not with me.

Laters,
Mikef5

btw, what does Analog Shutdown in 2009 mean? is Comcast prohibited from transmitting analog?
I don't believe the digital cutoff date in 2009 says anything about what Comcast can and cannot do, at least it didn't in past incarnations of the bill. From past readings it is only related to OTA broadcasts. The driving point there is the bandwidth is already being auctioned off for other uses so stuff really needs to shut down.

In Comcast's case, it is their decision based on their customer mix and business plan what makes sense for them and there is no government mandate.

Why does TNT-HD, ch 726, show a stretched pic on a 9x16 screen? All other 700 channels show a proper 9x16 image, or if they are 3x4 images, they show them with sidebars.

I get Not Authorized on 726.

But I get everything else that's not premium like HBO or Showtime.

First-time poster here.

I have standard cable (basic + extended basic) and have been able to get all the local HD stations that Comcast carries (in clear QAM) with no problem until recently.

Comcast moved the local HDs around in the middle of last week -- presumably to accomodate the move to 24-hour transmission by KQED-DT. Ever since, I have lost PSIP on several of the locals, and have not been able to find KQED-DT anywhere. The rest of the KQED lineup (KQED-K etc) does show up, but at odd locations.

Do folks in the Campbell / West San Jose area still get KQED-DT? If so can you tell me which QAM channel it has moved to?

Here is what my QAM local HD lineup looks like:

KTVU-DT -- 2.1
KRON-DT -- 114.8
KPIX-DT -- 5.1
KGO-DT -- 7.1
KNTV-DT -- 79.1 (used to be 11.1)
KNTV-xx -- 79.3 (used to be 11.2)

KQED-DT -- ???? (used to be 9.1, now nowhere to be found)
KQED-E -- 108.2 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-W -- 108.8 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-L -- 108.9 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-K -- 108.10 (used to be 9.x)

Except for KRON-DT, we used to get proper mapping on all the local HDs until last week.

I don't believe this is an issue with my QAM tuners -- I have a Sony HD DVR and a Vizio TV and both are (mis)-behaving in the same way.

I had no luck calling Comcast -- just got the canned (and misleading) response that you need their HD box to receive even the HD locals.

It is annoying as he@@ that Comcast will not provide customer support to help us get the HD channels that we are entitled to receive with even basic cable.

I don't believe the digital cutoff date in 2009 says anything about what Comcast can and cannot do, at least it didn't in past incarnations of the bill. From past readings it is only related to OTA broadcasts. The driving point there is the bandwidth is already being auctioned off for other uses so stuff really needs to shut down.

In Comcast's case, it is their decision based on their customer mix and business plan what makes sense for them and there is no government mandate.

Thaks. Then I am willing to bet the standard cable will stay ADS well beyond 2010. Only thing that will change this is some fundamental change in cable business.

KQED-DT -- ???? (used to be 9.1, now nowhere to be found)


Its got to be there at some freq. I don't think they would suddenly start encrypting it. Did you check every digital channel that has been scanned? My QAM tuner does not at scan time if a channel is in clear or not.

KQED-DT -- ???? (used to be 9.1, now nowhere to be found)
KQED-E -- 108.2 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-W -- 108.8 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-L -- 108.9 (used to be 9.x)
KQED-K -- 108.10 (used to be 9.x)
...
I don't believe this is an issue with my QAM tuners -- I have a Sony HD DVR and a Vizio TV and both are (mis)-behaving in the same way.

Well, KQED-HD has never really been at 9.1, it was mapped to 9.1 from the real channel.

In my area, KQED-HD has shared the same 6MHz with KGO-HD for quite a long time (117.x). When they did the KQED upgrade, they left KQED-HD in place at 117.2 and moved the KQED-[EWLK] channels elsewhere. There's a chance 117 might work for you.

I suggest you rescan using your QAM tuner and try channels 100 and up. It could be on a lower channel also, but most HD channels appear to be above 100 either by chance, convention, or convenience.

If you have a HD STB, press power, then setup/ok right away, choose option D06, read the frequency and someone should be able to tell you what channel to try.

I don't believe this is an issue with my QAM tuners -- I have a Sony HD DVR and a Vizio TV and both are (mis)-behaving in the same way.

I had no luck calling Comcast -- just got the canned (and misleading) response that you need their HD box to receive even the HD locals.

It is annoying as he@@ that Comcast will not provide customer support to help us get the HD channels that we are entitled to receive with even basic cable. So let me make sure you're saying what I think you are saying.
You think Comcast should provide you support for your equipment ( Sony HD DVR and Vizio Tv) because it's not working properly or you're having problems with your equipment ??? Is that what you are saying ??
If you are Comcast owes you support for the equipment that they give you to receive their signals. They don't owe you support for your equipment, they have no idea how your equipment works, they barely know how their equipment works ( at least the CSR's)
There are people here that will help you but don't fault Comcast for not supporting anything other than their equipment. This is not a slam against you just letting you know why they said what they said about support.

That being said, looking at your channel numbers I'd be looking in the 108 area. In my loop KQED-HD is at 99.2 and that's using my LG 4200 so it might display differently on your Sony. Try doing a full rescan, it's there but it'll take a little hunting around to find it.

Edit-- I just did a rescan and check on my Sony Tv and in my loop KQED-HD is on 99.2 the same as displayed on my LG, that's where it's been for a while but the SD channels for KQED have moved to the 98 channel area. So all it takes is a rescan and a little hunting and I'm sure you'll find it.

Laters,
Mikef5

Why does TNT-HD, ch 726, show a stretched pic on a 9x16 screen? All other 700 channels show a proper 9x16 image, or if they are 3x4 images, they show them with sidebars.

because TNT thinks people hate black bars. they stretch more than 50% of their schedule.

Edit-- I just did a rescan and check on my Sony Tv and in my loop KQED-HD is on 99.2 the same as displayed on my LG, that's where it's been for a while but the SD channels for KQED have moved to the 98 channel area. So all it takes is a rescan and a little hunting and I'm sure you'll find it.
So I wonder if 550 folks actually got the KQED-HD 24/7 + higher bitrate upgrade despite not having any bandwidth available?

So I wonder if 550 folks actually got the KQED-HD 24/7 + higher bitrate upgrade despite not having any bandwidth available?
It is being shown 24/7 on our loop but I don't know what the bit rate is, but it does make one wonder how they did it. I do know that they moved the KQED SD channels around so they might be muxing the signals differently. I do know that the OTA signal is not the same as the Comcast signal. On OTA it is not 24/7 but still at the old times, coming on at 8 pm.

Laters,
Mikef5

The judder you see seems to be an issue when you go from an HD channel to a ADS channel between 2-76. It is fixable by just channeling up and down..

Bobby C, thanks for this tip. I believe I've experienced this phenomenon in other settings than when switching back and forth from HD to low def, but I'll keep an eye on it.

Comcast has no magic button to push to give you the game that you think you should see. ESPN2-HD was in control of what game was broadcast, in this case the West Coast got the BC-NC St. game

This is NOT correct. Check out the description here:

HD Sports Guide on ND vs. MSU (http://www.hdsportsguide.com/singleNews.php?page=294)

ND vs. MSU was the ABC game for the eastern 2/3s of the country. In that part of the country, ESPN2 was carrying the BC game. On the west coast, USC was the "no. 1 game", bumping ND v. MSU to ESPN2. This is demonstrated as the low def feed in our market was in fact the ND vs. MSU game. There were two potential high def feeds available to Comcast through its satellite connection to ESPN, but some numbskull incorrectly selected the high def feed of the BC vs. NC State game.

It is being shown 24/7 on our loop but I don't know what the bit rate is, but it does make one wonder how they did it. I do know that they moved the KQED SD channels around so they might be muxing the signals differently. I do know that the OTA signal is not the same as the Comcast signal. On OTA it is not 24/7 but still at the old times, coming on at 8 pm.

Laters,
Mikef5
The HD channel appears to be only transmitting at a bit rate that is 3 mb/s higher than previously. That bit rate plus about 3.5 mb/s from the SD channel that is also transmiting 24/7 means that Comcast had to find about an extra 6.5 mb/s in the system. Maybe by moving content around, they found enough of contineous space.

The HD channel appears to be only transmitting at a bit rate that is 3 mb/s higher than previously. That bit rate plus about 3.5 mb/s from the SD channel that is also transmiting 24/7 means that Comcast had to find about an extra 6.5 mb/s in the system. Maybe by moving content around, they found enough of contineous space.
Or since FSN-HD is not a full time channel yet they might be muxing the two to get that extra bit rate. I need to check the box to see what the frequencies are for those 2 channels.
Edit - Just checked the two channels and their frequencies are nowhere close 117 MHz and the other is 531 MHz.

Laters,
Mikef5

Its got to be there at some freq. I don't think they would suddenly start encrypting it. Did you check every digital channel that has been scanned? My QAM tuner does not at scan time if a channel is in clear or not.

Well, there are a hundred music subchannels on a couple of main channels which I thought I could safely skip over :-) But other than that, I did look at every digital channel. I also did a re-scan a couple of days later, to no avail.

Well, KQED-HD has never really been at 9.1, it was mapped to 9.1 from the real channel.

In my area, KQED-HD has shared the same 6MHz with KGO-HD for quite a long time (117.x). When they did the KQED upgrade, they left KQED-HD in place at 117.2 and moved the KQED-[EWLK] channels elsewhere. There's a chance 117 might work for you.

I suggest you rescan using your QAM tuner and try channels 100 and up. It could be on a lower channel also, but most HD channels appear to be above 100 either by chance, convention, or convenience.

If you have a HD STB, press power, then setup/ok right away, choose option D06, read the frequency and someone should be able to tell you what channel to try.


Yes, I know the "9.1" etc are virtual mappings. Unfortunately neither of my QAM tuners will tell me the real channel number if they pick up a valid mapping via the PSIP. So I don't know where KQED-DT used to be before last week.

I don't have a Comcast STB of any kind, but thanks for the tip about reading the frequency off of one. I will try this at a friend's place -- he lives close enough that we should be on the same head-end.

So let me make sure you're saying what I think you are saying.
You think Comcast should provide you support for your equipment ( Sony HD DVR and Vizio Tv) because it's not working properly or you're having problems with your equipment ??? Is that what you are saying ??


No, that is not what I am saying. I should have been more specific -- all I wanted from the Comcast CSR is the physical channel number for the missing station.

Later,

smr

No, that is not what I am saying. I should have been more specific -- all I wanted from the Comcast CSR is the physical channel number for the missing station.

Later,

smr
The CSR wouldn't have the slightest idea of which physical channel number a station is on. The channel numbers on different headends will vary throughout the country due to different size cable systems, different local channels, and different cable channels for different areas (eg. UHD, INHD2, TNT-HD, etc.).

More than likely the CSR would not have access to all the different channel maps throughout the country. In fact during one of the reconfigurations for ADS, the local Systems Administrator accidently configured out channel 705 (CBS HD) for the Fremont area. When I called to complain that it has been out for 2 days, the CSR said there was nothing she could do expect send a technician to the house. When I argued with her that she should notify the Systems Administrator for the Fremont area, she said a technician would have to verify that and he would then take the correct action. Worrying that the problem may persist for several weeks, I agreed to make an appointment. Fortunately the problem was fixed in another 2 days so I canceled the appointment.

because TNT thinks people hate black bars. they stretch more than 50% of their schedule.

Who makes these bonehead decisions? I don't even want to watch when they do that, it looks funny. I tried watching The Mummy last night and it just looked goofy, so I watched something else. If I did want to stretch the picture I'll do it through my TV options. At least then I would a choice. TNT, please don't make that decision for me. Okay I'm done.

because TNT thinks people hate black bars. they stretch more than 50% of their schedule.

I hate fat faces.

I had a TiVo S3 installed with 2 cablecards and noticed these charges when I viewed recent activity online:
$18.99 install requiring trip
$6.95 add'l outlet 1
$6.95 add'l outlet 2
$5.00 add'l HDTV service

I went to Novato office and after much discussion with the ladies there, one of them showed me an internal memo regarding Comcast policy on the S3 with 2 cablecards. First cablecard is free, 2nd is $1.50/mo. Not bad, IMO, but I shall reserve final opinion until I get next bill in the mail. Also the trip charge should be $15.99 (Upgrade of optional services requiring separate trip), not $18.99 (Additional outlet connection requiring separate trip). My account is being adjusted to remove those additional charges totaling $18.90/mo. + $3 and adding in the $1.50/mo.

Also you are entitled to a free cable box if you have digital package and it is connected to the same TV as the S3. I think that is for an SD box, as I have an HD box (DCT-6200) which they are charging additional $5/mo for "HD Equipment Fee".

So far, the S3 is a great box. I am having one channel lineup problem that maybe someone can help me with. I have 2 channels with the ESPN2 HD id, 724 and 725. The actual ESPN2 HD programming is viewed on 724 but the guide has "Regular Schedule" repeated. Chan 725 has a INHD logo showing when viewed but guide shows what is showing on ESPN2 HD. It looks to be a TiVo guide data problem since the 6200's guide has the show descriptions correct. Anyone else have this? Sorry keenan, but I don't think you can even get ESPN2 HD, can you? ;)

No, we don't have it up here.
You didn't by chance get a copy of that internal memo did you? :)

I'm going to be returning my 6412 next week and I hope I have the same good experience as you had at the office.

BTW, so far, my S3 has worked flawlessly.

No, we don't have it up here.
You didn't by chance get a copy of that internal memo did you? :)

I'm going to be returning my 6412 next week and I hope I have the same good experience as you had at the office.

BTW, so far, my S3 has worked flawlessly.
I asked for a copy of the internal memo and she would not give it to me. I do have the Novato office local phone number from callerid when she called after confirming my credits with her supervisor. If you want it let me know, and I will PM it.

I had a TiVo S3 installed with 2 cablecards and noticed these charges when I viewed recent activity online:
$18.99 install requiring trip
$6.95 add'l outlet 1
$6.95 add'l outlet 2
$5.00 add'l HDTV service

I went to Novato office and after much discussion with the ladies there, one of them showed me an internal memo regarding Comcast policy on the S3 with 2 cablecards. First cablecard is free, 2nd is $1.50/mo. Not bad, IMO, but I shall reserve final opinion until I get next bill in the mail. Also the trip charge should be $15.99 (Upgrade of optional services requiring separate trip), not $18.99 (Additional outlet connection requiring separate trip). My account is being adjusted to remove those additional charges totaling $18.90/mo. + $3 and adding in the $1.50/mo.

Also you are entitled to a free cable box if you have digital package and it is connected to the same TV as the S3. I think that is for an SD box, as I have an HD box (DCT-6200) which they are charging additional $5/mo for "HD Equipment Fee".

So far, the S3 is a great box. I am having one channel lineup problem that maybe someone can help me with. I have 2 channels with the ESPN2 HD id, 724 and 725. The actual ESPN2 HD programming is viewed on 724 but the guide has "Regular Schedule" repeated. Chan 725 has a INHD logo showing when viewed but guide shows what is showing on ESPN2 HD. It looks to be a TiVo guide data problem since the 6200's guide has the show descriptions correct. Anyone else have this? Sorry keenan, but I don't think you can even get ESPN2 HD, can you? ;)

Good info. Should help people who are planning on getting the S3.

I asked for a copy of the internal memo and she would not give it to me. I do have the Novato office local phone number from callerid when she called after confirming my credits with her supervisor. If you want it let me know, and I will PM it.
Send it, couldn't hurt to have just in case.

Try doing a complete rescan on your tuner. Comcast has changed some of the KQED stations around even in the 550 MHz areas. That's what I did and that's how I know they changed them.

Laters,
Mikef5

I did rescan last night, and I ended up with EXACTLY the channels SMR06 is finding mapped to his QAM tuner as well (though I also am getting ESPN2 and ESPN).

So where did KQED go? My rescan doesn't even list 9.x as hidden, it simply is no longer being broadcast. All KQED channels are gone from 9.1-9.5, though you can find the digital channels (9.2-9.5) up the in higher channel numbers. I only care about KQED-HD, and IT IS GONE!!!

I did rescan last night, and I ended up with EXACTLY the channels SMR06 is finding mapped to his QAM tuner as well (though I also am getting ESPN2 and ESPN).

So where did KQED go? My rescan doesn't even list 9.x as hidden, it simply is no longer being broadcast. All KQED channels are gone from 9.1-9.5, though you can find the digital channels (9.2-9.5) up the in higher channel numbers. I only care about KQED-HD, and IT IS GONE!!!
Probably the Systems Administrator for your headend made a mistake and enabled encryption for KQED HD instead of ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD. He probably also forgot to insert the PSIPs for KQED channels.

I went to Novato office and after much discussion with the ladies there, one of them showed me an internal memo regarding Comcast policy on the S3 with 2 cablecards. First cablecard is free, 2nd is $1.50/mo. Not bad, IMO, but I shall reserve final opinion until I get next bill in the mail. Also the trip charge should be $15.99 (Upgrade of optional services requiring separate trip), not $18.99 (Additional outlet connection requiring separate trip). My account is being adjusted to remove those additional charges totaling $18.90/mo. + $3 and adding in the $1.50/mo.

Also you are entitled to a free cable box if you have digital package and it is connected to the same TV as the S3. I think that is for an SD box, as I have an HD box (DCT-6200) which they are charging additional $5/mo for "HD Equipment Fee".


I called Comcast in Walnut Creek today, and they told me the same thing. The CSR that I spoke with said that they just changed the policy two days ago. Before that they were giving 2 CCs for free. I have my CC install scheduled for Wed. :)

I called Comcast in Walnut Creek today, and they told me the same thing. The CSR that I spoke with said that they just changed the policy two days ago. Before that they were giving 2 CCs for free. I have my CC install scheduled for Wed. :)Does everyone really need to individually have an extended discussion with CSRs to get the "right" updated fee for the s3's 2nd cablecard, or will they be updating people's accounts to match this new (still undisclosed) fee?
Assuming the answer is one has to ask a CSR, is there a magic phrase that's working well for folks? I noticed someone at tivocommunity threatened comcast with an FCC letter to get their fees adjusted. Surely that's overkill.

Does everyone really need to individually have an extended discussion with CSRs to get the "right" updated fee for the s3's 2nd cablecard, or will they be updating people's accounts to match this new (still undisclosed) fee?
Assuming the answer is one has to ask a CSR, is there a magic phrase that's working well for folks? I noticed someone at tivocommunity threatened comcast with an FCC letter to get their fees adjusted. Surely that's overkill.
You would assume that would be the case, that we shouldn't have to go through all those hoops, but with Comcast it's a stretch to assume that one CSR even knows the name of the CSR sitting right next to them much less anything about their products.

This is SOP for companies like this, spend little to nothing on salary, training and communication until it actually starts to effect the bottom line.

Does everyone really need to individually have an extended discussion with CSRs to get the "right" updated fee for the s3's 2nd cablecard, or will they be updating people's accounts to match this new (still undisclosed) fee?
Assuming the answer is one has to ask a CSR, is there a magic phrase that's working well for folks? I noticed someone at tivocommunity threatened comcast with an FCC letter to get their fees adjusted. Surely that's overkill.
Welcome to Comcastic Land!

I have never had a change to my account go the way I was originally told. I really had to think long and hard before getting the S3 because I knew it meant another trip to my local office to argue. At least they have a local office, unlike the sat providers, so you can go there and talk to a real person. I've had to deal with D* and E* about billing problems and it's maddening but the problems don't happen as much.

What I learned is that Comcast has codes they enter for each of the services so that their billing system will charge you correctly. But it seems the problem is that the wrong codes or wrong quantity of codes get entered by the CSR. On the subject of the $1.50/mo charge for S3 2nd cablecard, I saw the code in the memo I mentioned but didn't write it down.

I hope you are right but the Comcast CEO in one of his interviews said that they were not going to completely do away with analog but would keep some of them so as not to alienate the analog customers, kind of shot down my hopes of seeing any new channels any time soon.
They could keep ch. 2-30 or so, as analog, and migrate the rest to digital Even just eliminating 30-82 would free up enough b/w for a couple of HD channels I guess (or, a dozen home-shopping channels...)

Even just eliminating 30-82 would free up enough b/w for a couple of HD channels I guess Each channel they move should free up about enough space for another HD channel, or 4 SD channels. Though the way Comcast compress, make that 2 HD and 10 SD.

Each channel they move should free up about enough space for another HD channel, or 4 SD channels. Though the way Comcast compress, make that 2 HD and 10 SD.
Actually its 10-16 SD channels at the current 2.5-3.5 mb/s bit rate or 2-3 HD channels at the current 12-19 mb/s bit rate when using one 256QAM (38.6 mb/s) 6MHz band.

I did rescan last night, and I ended up with EXACTLY the channels SMR06 is finding mapped to his QAM tuner as well (though I also am getting ESPN2 and ESPN).


I get ESPN (79.2) and ESPN2 (116.1) as well. Didn't list them earlier per Mikef5's suggestion to not publicize "premium" channels being sent in the clear.

So it is likely that RBurks and I are at the same head-end.

Now I'm curious: what is the extent of the area served by a typical head-end, anyway? Are we talking a few city blocks, or entire cities, or multiple cities?

They could keep ch. 2-30 or so, as analog, and migrate the rest to digital Even just eliminating 30-82 would free up enough b/w for a couple of HD channels I guess (or, a dozen home-shopping channels...)
Not even that many, ignoring VOD, I think all you need to move is 3 channels and 550 could have the same HD lineup as the rest of us. If you need VOD, move another 4 channels.

So I just had HD Comcast installed. So the only befit of getting HD cable is ESPN and FSN in HD?

I am watching an A's game of FSN and guess what, it is not on FSN HD. I am watching a movie on TnT, have to pay extra for TnT HD.

There is no UPN/WB in HD(or whatever they are called now) but i really dont need those channels.

What I do need is KICU which has the A's game.

The only thing that I see ANY benefit to getting HD through comcast is ESPN/ESPN2.

What is the point of FSNHD if there is a test pattern on their channel 24-7

it seems as if 3/4 of the content on HD channels is SD 4x3 until prime time or an "exciting" Giants game.

Am I missing something?

First cablecard is free, 2nd is $1.50/mo.

Did you see anything about more then two cards (for two S3s)?

Also, does anyone have just limited basic and cable cards?

It looks like Comcast is playing a game and I guess the game is over. Comcast discontinued INHD2 but gave us TNT-HD which is OK. Then many of us found out that we were grandfathered for some reason and would have to pay extra to get TNT-HD (in my case $2.31 per month). Today while changing channels, I noticed that TNT-HD is now being received without paying the extra amount. I guess Comcast just wanted to annoy us.

So I just had HD Comcast installed. So the only befit of getting HD cable is ESPN and FSN in HD?

I am watching an A's game of FSN and guess what, it is not on FSN HD. I am watching a movie on TnT, have to pay extra for TnT HD.

There is no UPN/WB in HD(or whatever they are called now) but i really dont need those channels.

What I do need is KICU which has the A's game.

The only thing that I see ANY benefit to getting HD through comcast is ESPN/ESPN2.

What is the point of FSNHD if there is a test pattern on their channel 24-7

it seems as if 3/4 of the content on HD channels is SD 4x3 until prime time or an "exciting" Giants game.

Am I missing something?


wait, what's ur question? comcast has no control which games FSNBA puts in HD or not. FSNBA does put a lot of games in HD. baseball season is almost over, so FSNBA won't have many baseball games until next april. they will have warriors and sharks in HD. TNT will have NBA in HD. Discovery HD is gorgeous. ESPN and ESPN2HD u already know about. having primetime network channels in HD is great! HD is great, you just need to explore it a bit. so what was ur question again?

Today while changing channels, I noticed that TNT-HD is now being received without paying the extra amount. I guess Comcast just wanted to annoy us.
You may want to check to see whether you are receiving TNT-HD because it is not being encrypted or because it is encrypted but your box has been authorized. If the former, the games may still continue. If the latter, then the games have probably stopped.

You may want to check to see whether you are receiving TNT-HD because it is not being encrypted or because it is encrypted but your box has been authorized. If the former, the games may still continue. If the latter, then the games have probably stopped.
It looks like the games are over for TNT-HD but not for other channels. Things have changed around since the last time I scanned the cable channels. On my cable system, ESPN2 HD and TNT-HD are together on band 118. TNT-HD is encrypted but ESPN2 HD is not. ESPN HD is on 116 and is also not encrypted. The KQED channels are on 117 and have not been PSIPed.

Either they forgot to encrypt ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD or maybe they are giving a free teaser preview.

I expect the Systems Administrator just forgot to PSIP the KQED channels.

Hi to all,

I've never posted to the group but I have been getting the daily digests for a short bit now.

I am up in Santa Rosa area and while not a big tv fan at this time, my boyfriend is and we do have comcast hd service.

What I'd like to say as part of introducing myself is an offer to check on any comcast details you might want to know of in this area.

While I might not be full of the details tonight, if you tell me what you need to know and maybe I might need to know where to look I'd gladly check for you. lol is this coming out right?

don't worry, I'm a very quick study.

We have both comcast hd and cable internet. and a hd tv/large screen/ whatever... like I mentioned I'm just not into tv right now, music is my big thing, reading, believe it or not there is life without tv, lol. I can't convince my bf of this, I don't expect any converts here!, lol, just kidding with you.

Well, that's it. I do get the daily digests, thanks for that, I guess I do it for him, lol, and I'd be glad to help you all out if I can.

Nice to meet you, btw.

twilasue/sandy

Folks,
Any reason I am able to get ESPN thru my cableCARD but not without it? My TV does have QAM and picks up the regular local HD channels including ESPN2HD. So on Mondays I plug in the cableCARD just to get the monday night game in HD. I just can't understand why I get it thru cableCARD but not without it?
FYI I have basic and expanded with cable directly going into tv.

Folks,
Any reason I am able to get ESPN thru my cableCARD but not without it? My TV does have QAM and picks up the regular local HD channels including ESPN2HD. So on Mondays I plug in the cableCARD just to get the monday night game in HD. I just can't understand why I get it thru cableCARD but not without it?
FYI I have basic and expanded with cable directly going into tv.

Probably because ESPN is encrypted. The cable card decrypts it but your QAM tuner can't.

I had a message on my 6412 in Rohnert Park this morning. It said that as of Oct 27 Showtime East, Showcase East, BET Jazz, and Lime were going away. All of them, of course, are digital channels. Seems like they are going to make room for a new HD channel. I hope anyway.

Folks,
Any reason I am able to get ESPN thru my cableCARD but not without it? My TV does have QAM and picks up the regular local HD channels including ESPN2HD. So on Mondays I plug in the cableCARD just to get the monday night game in HD. I just can't understand why I get it thru cableCARD but not without it?
FYI I have basic and expanded with cable directly going into tv.
I assume you do not susbscribe to HD Service to get HD channels other than local channels. If that is correct it appears that both ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD were unencrypted just recently on many cable systems. I expect that Comcast is now running free previews for those channels and will be encrypting them again shortly. On my system, that was just done very recently and I had to rescan again to pick them up. ESPN HD is currently on 116.1 and ESPN2 HD is on 118.1 on my system. Did you rescan recently?

State Franchise Bill finally signed by the Governor....here's the link to it

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4190/

I don't care if it's AT&T or Verison or whoever, get your butt's to the 550 MHz areas soon ;)

Laters,
Mikef5

So what wiil that bill allow other companies to do, share the Comcast cable infrastructure, lay new cables, install wireless cable and/or use the phone lines?

Go Dodgers!!

Go Dodgers!!


I agree!!!!!

So what wiil that bill allow other companies to do, share the Comcast cable infrastructure, lay new cables, install wireless cable and/or use the phone lines?

Nope. What it does allow is companies to negotiate franchise agreements at the state level as opposed to the city level. Having to get a franchise agreement for each and every city can be very tedious and expensive for telecommunication companies (see Walnut Creek) and proponents of the bill say it made companies not want to bring their services into to certain cities. By having a state-based agreement, companies like Verizon, AT&T, and even Comcast will be able to enter a market in any city they choose without having to negotiate with each and every city. Companies will still have to build their own infrastructure however once they get the franchise agreement, they're free to do it wherever they want.

Go Dodgers!!

Oh, that's just mean. At lease let Mike console himself for a few days. :D

Which also means that if Comcast doesn't see any revenue increasing advantage to upgrading areas like Santa Rosa and SaraMilGatos I don't imagine AT&T will be seeing dollar signs in their eyes for these areas either.

Oh, that's just mean. At lease let Mike console himself for a few days. :D
:p

Nope. What it does allow is companies to negotiate franchise agreements at the state level as opposed to the city level. Having to get a franchise agreement for each and every city can be very tedious and expensive for telecommunication companies (see Walnut Creek) and proponents of the bill say it made companies not want to bring their services into to certain cities. By having a state-based agreement, companies like Verizon, AT&T, and even Comcast will be able to enter a market in any city they choose without having to negotiate with each and every city. Companies will still have to build their own infrastructure however once they get the franchise agreement, they're free to do it wherever they want.

It would be nice if this made Verizon more likely to deploy FiOS widely throughout the state and bring FiOS TV. I believe they're in a few Southern Cal cities and that's only with the FTTP, not the video service.

But it appears Verizon doesn't poach in AT&T areas and vice versa. At least they didn't for POTS and DSL and no reason to believe they will for fiber.

What this will do is more bribes, er lobbying at Sacramento. If Comcast decides they no longer owe the cities franchise fees, then cities may seek to raise property taxes to get the lost revenues from those fees back.

Meanwhile, will it result in lower TV bills? Probably not, even if Comcast stops paying franchise fees, they're not going to lower their prices. Not only that, we pay some kind of taxes regardless.

Which also means that if Comcast doesn't see any revenue increasing advantage to upgrading areas like Santa Rosa and SaraMilGatos I don't imagine AT&T will be seeing dollar signs in their eyes for these areas either.

The hope is that Comcast is just playing the "waiting" game and hoping that future cable technologies will allow them to continue to service these non-upgraded areas. Because a company like Verizon or AT&T has to basically start from scratch anyway, these cities could be just a lucrative as any other Bay Area city. The problem is that it could take a while to put the infrastructure in place -- at lease for Verizon. AT&T may have a better shot since they just have to upgrade from the home to switching station (I believe).

They're going to have to lower their prices if a new competitor offers the same quality cable service in my area at a lower price...

They're going to have to lower their prices if a new competitor offers the same quality cable service in my area at a lower price...

There's no indication that AT&T's service is the same quality.

Or lower in price.

Unless you're in the right location, cable will still have the fatter pipe into the home.

Now if AT&T went to FTTP like many are urging, things would be different.

It would be nice if this made Verizon more likely to deploy FiOS widely throughout the state and bring FiOS TV. I believe they're in a few Southern Cal cities and that's only with the FTTP, not the video service.

But it appears Verizon doesn't poach in AT&T areas and vice versa. At least they didn't for POTS and DSL and no reason to believe they will for fiber.

What this will do is more bribes, er lobbying at Sacramento. If Comcast decides they no longer owe the cities franchise fees, then cities may seek to raise property taxes to get the lost revenues from those fees back.

Meanwhile, will it result in lower TV bills? Probably not, even if Comcast stops paying franchise fees, they're not going to lower their prices. Not only that, we pay some kind of taxes regardless.

Cities will still get the money for the franchise fee -- they just won't be able to negotiate the fee themselves. I haven't read through the final bill yet but I believe a franchise agreement can be no more then 5% of the total revenue and that drops as more companies offer services in a particular city. The price drops are not supposed to come from the franchise fees but rather the competition. The hope is if there are more choices, companies may be forced to lower prices to meet the competition. That's the hope...

There's no indication that AT&T's service is the same quality.

Or lower in price.

Unless you're in the right location, cable will still have the fatter pipe into the home.

Now if AT&T went to FTTP like many are urging, things would be different.

The problem with going FTTN (Fiber To The Node), which AT&T is doing, is that I believe the current implementation can only handle 4 simultaneous video streams, only one of them being HD (this does not include VoIP or 6Mb/1Mb internet). However this doesn't mean that future compression technologies won't be able to expand this. That being said, I agree -- if you're going to do it, do it right. I can only imagine the cost though of bringing fiber to the home. A company really has to make a commitment if they're going to do that as it will be a while before they see returns.

Go Giants!!

wow look how i hacked keenan's message!! ok i just got home from that game... how fun it was to see those dodgers clinch on our home field. GIANTS 07!!

anyway i haven't been at AT&T in a while and since I've been there, they've outfitted the entire park with sony LCDs. the FOX feed was in HD on those screens (it was all FOX graphics)!! i am now 100% sure they can get the HD feed from the park. someone explain to me why they down-convert??

Well Verizon said this week that it costs them a bit over $900 per home to install FiOS.

That is down from like $1100-1200 last year.

Oh, that's just mean. At lease let Mike console himself for a few days. :D
To late I already tore out all my hair, I'm now a Telly Savalas look a like ... :D ;)

Good thing the A's made it or I'd disown them both and go back to the Cubs... oops, another losing team, I'm even in a losing 550 MHz area, seems to be a trend. ;)

Laters,
Mikef5

The hope is that Comcast is just playing the "waiting" game and hoping that future cable technologies will allow them to continue to service these non-upgraded areas. Because a company like Verizon or AT&T has to basically start from scratch anyway, these cities could be just a lucrative as any other Bay Area city. The problem is that it could take a while to put the infrastructure in place -- at lease for Verizon. AT&T may have a better shot since they just have to upgrade from the home to switching station (I believe).
I was thinking the same thing. Go with Dish for a year or so and wait to see what happens now that there is going to be some competition for the cable companys. I figure it will take them that long to do the build outs and get most of the bugs out.

Laters,
Mikef5

Well Verizon said this week that it costs them a bit over $900 per home to install FiOS.

That is down from like $1100-1200 last year.

I wonder how much the terrain comes in to play with this. It looks like most of the places where Verizon has implemented FiOS it's relatively flat. With the Bay Area being a very "diverse" terrain, I wonder if that's going to affect their decision to come here.

I don't think it's the terrain. For instance, Verizon serves Los Gatos I think, which isn't that flat.

It's maybe some noncompete understanding with the other Bells.

Also, they probably don't have any plant out here at all. Sure they can't use copper but they could use COs and other central facilities from which to do their buildouts. AT&T has all those plus right-of-way agreements with all the cities and other govt. agencies which own poles and so on.

Verizon has enough places to hit in their own territory before going after other markets. And many of those places aren't in the easiest terrain or places to build to.

I don't think it's the terrain. For instance, Verizon serves Los Gatos I think, which isn't that flat.

It's maybe some noncompete understanding with the other Bells.

Also, they probably don't have any plant out here at all. Sure they can't use copper but they could use COs and other central facilities from which to do their buildouts. AT&T has all those plus right-of-way agreements with all the cities and other govt. agencies which own poles and so on.

Verizon has enough places to hit in their own territory before going after other markets. And many of those places aren't in the easiest terrain or places to build to.

According to the FiOS wiki, pretty much all of the California cities are in Southern California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fios#California) but I wouldn't be surprised if it's out of date. I have no idea what's involved in physically upgrading an area. I live up in the hills of Moraga so if Comcast can upgrade this area (which they did...or rather AT&T did) I'm hopeful that any other MSO could do it just as easily. I know they have those special tools now that can cut a small sliver of concrete and lay the cable on all in one step. Then they just go down and fill in that sliver. Not like the "old days" where they had to cut a huge hunk of concrete wherever they were laying the cable.

Well Verizon said this week that it costs them a bit over $900 per home to install FiOS.

That is down from like $1100-1200 last year.
I think Verizon should be a little cautious about competing in areas with 550 MHz systems. Until recently, cable system amplifier spacing had to be redone when upgrading from a 550 MHz system to a 750 MHz. Although new amplifiers were relatively inexpensive costing probably less than $40 per househould in a typical city, the repositioning of the amplifiers was difficult and expensive.

One manufacturer has been providing higher gain amplifiers for quite a while but those amplifiers have limited bandwidth increase from 550 MHz to 625 MHz or 750 MHz to 860 MHz.

http://cc.electramedia.com/site/CableServ_3/pdf//CableServ_Amplifier_Upgrades.pdf

However, now it appear that Scientific Atlanta now has amplifiers that can upgrade cable systems from 550 MHz to 750 MHz or even to 860 MHz without changing the spacing of the amplifiers.

http://www.scatmag.com/technical/upgrade%20with%20gain.pdf#search=%22%22550%20MHz%22%2C%20%22 750%20MHZ%22%2C%20upgrade%2C%20cost%22

So there appears to be hope for 550 MHz cable system customers.

I think Verizon should be a little cautious about competing in areas with 550 MHz systems. Until recently, cable system amplifier spacing had to be redone when upgrading from a 550 MHz system to a 750 MHz. Although new amplifiers were relatively inexpensive costing probably less than $40 per househould in a typical city, the repositioning of the amplifiers was difficult and expensive.

One manufacturer has been providing higher gain amplifiers for quite a while but those amplifiers have limited bandwidth increase from 550 MHz to 625 MHz or 750 MHz to 860 MHz.

http://cc.electramedia.com/site/CableServ_3/pdf//CableServ_Amplifier_Upgrades.pdf

However, now it appear that Scientific Atlanta now has amplifiers that can upgrade cable systems from 550 MHz to 750 MHz or even to 860 MHz without changing the spacing of the amplifiers.

http://www.scatmag.com/technical/upgrade%20with%20gain.pdf#search=%22%22550%20MHz%22%2C%20%22 750%20MHZ%22%2C%20upgrade%2C%20cost%22

So there appears to be hope for 550 MHz cable system customers.
Maybe I'm missing something here. AT&T uses their own pre-existing phone lines, they only are building out from the CO to node ( I think that's right ) but has nothing to do with cable companys and how they have set things up or what amps they are using. So AT&T doesn't care about 550 MHz or not only that there are alot of people that want better options than what the cable company is giving them and they already have access to those people through their phone lines. I have no idea how Verison is doing it but they seem to be concentrating in areas that they own and the Bay Area is mostly SBC/AT&T but I do believe they also have nothing to do with cable company systems or how they are set up. Most of what you referenced is for cable company's and while they sound nice, I'll be retired again or pushing up daisy's before we see that in our 550 MHz areas. Comcast needs compelling reasons for them to part with any money that they think they can't make a profit on and right now with all these people clinging on to their analog equipment they just aren't going to do it. Pessimistic ?? Yes, but I won't be shocked if they don't upgrade us and will be dooly impressed if they do.

Laters,
Mikef5

Well, i just had comcast out to turn on the cable tv and "install" three outlets. Had i known that "install" three outlets meant drilling holes into the floor i would have cut the holes in the walls my self and put outlet boxes in! Silly me. Is that the way the "install outlets" these days? and i have an easy house to install stuff, no crawling around on the ground, but nice clean garage under the house and i even vacuumed up the spiders. he had it easy and i get three holes in the floor. doh!
Otherwise, i'm enjoying the shows... got everything and HD.

Maybe I'm missing something here. AT&T uses their own pre-existing phone lines, they only are building out from the CO to node ( I think that's right ) but has nothing to do with cable companys and how they have set things up or what amps they are using. So AT&T doesn't care about 550 MHz or not only that there are alot of people that want better options than what the cable company is giving them and they already have access to those people through their phone lines. I have no idea how Verison is doing it but they seem to be concentrating in areas that they own and the Bay Area is mostly SBC/AT&T but I do believe they also have nothing to do with cable company systems or how they are set up. Most of what you referenced is for cable company's and while they sound nice, I'll be retired again or pushing up daisy's before we see that in our 550 MHz areas. Comcast needs compelling reasons for them to part with any money that they think they can't make a profit on and right now with all these people clinging on to their analog equipment they just aren't going to do it. Pessimistic ?? Yes, but I won't be shocked if they don't upgrade us and will be dooly impressed if they do.

Laters,
Mikef5
I was just referring to the fact that if Verizon or AT&T went head to head with Comcast in 550 MHz area based on a business plan that they can get many of the disgruntled 550 MHz Comcast customers, Comcast can inexpensively upgrade the systems to 750 MHz leaving Verizons with probably a pretty bad business plan. I was pointing out that prior to the SA ampliefiers, it would have probably cost over $200 per household, large service distruptions, and time consuming to get a cable system upgraded from 550 MH to 750 MHz.

I too would like the phone companies to start supplying video services to give me a choice and to get Comcast moving on providing better digital services. However, because of the large initial cost and current competition from cable companies, I would doubt that they will be significant players.

I would think that especially AT&T would be very hesitant to compete in video services since they already lost a lot of money when they upgraded cable systems in the late 90s and there wasn't any competition at that time.

I also do not know how phone companies provide video services.

I also do not know how phone companies provide video services.
AT&T does fiber to the node and then copper to the home. Verizon does fiber all the way to the home.

The consensus is that Verizon's method is technically superior and can provide for higher throughput than AT&T's usage of the same old twisted pair that your plain old telephone service uses. The Verizon method is of course more expensive.

AT&T does fiber to the node and then copper to the home. Verizon does fiber all the way to the home.

The consensus is that Verizon's method is technically superior and can provide for higher throughput than AT&T's usage of the same old twisted pair that your plain old telephone service uses. The Verizon method is of course more expensive.
So what is the difference between what phone companies do than the typical cable system? They both use optical so they both require amplifiers (4 to 8 per mile). Are the phone companies installing optical to primarily upgrade the phone systems and to offer video services or is it primarily to compete with cable systems? I can't see the economics if it is primarily to compete with cable systems. Maybe they just don't have a choice since cable systems are making inroads into phone services.

Both. The phone companies need to fight back because the cablecos are going after internet and phone customers. Providing video is a natural progression so they can compete with the cable "triple play".

Of all 3 providers, AT&T seems to be the weakest solution because of the "weakest link" of that last connection to the home, but they claim they can get more than the 25mbps throughput that they are getting currently. Plus, the AT&T systems is like switched video where only the requested signal is sent down the line whereas cable sends everything down the line. Of course, cable is also moving toward SW as well. I think Verizon is sending all the signals with their fiber currently.

Both. The phone companies need to fight back because the cablecos are going after internet and phone customers. Providing video is a natural progression so they can compete with the cable "triple play".

Of all 3 providers, AT&T seems to be the weakest solution because of the "weakest link" of that last connection to the home, but they claim they can get more than the 25mbps throughput that they are getting currently. Plus, the AT&T systems is like switched video where only the requested signal is sent down the line whereas cable sends everything down the line. Of course, cable is also moving toward SW as well. I think Verizon is sending all the signals with their fiber currently.
So AT&T is VOD. 25 mb/s should be OK for the last 100 feet and it alows them to use the home phone wiring. If AT&T is only VOD, it would seem that they should be able to get away with far fewer amplifiers per mile (maybe less than 1) plus the cable would require much less bandwidth which should reduce the cost significantly.

However if they install the cable with the lower bandwidth capabilities, this would probably hurt them in the future.

So AT&T is VOD. 25 mb/s should be OK for the last 100 feet and it alows them to use the home phone wiring. If AT&T is only VOD, it would seem that they should be able to get away with far fewer amplifiers per mile (maybe less than 1) plus the cable would require much less of a bandwidth which should reduce the cost significantly.

It's not VOD like cable does VOD. It's not like you go to a menu that has pre-recorded content stored at the head-end. Like Keenan was saying, instead of sending EVERY live channel ALL the time, it only sends down the channel(s) that you've requested. So if you have 2 TV's, both with dual tuner DVR's, you would have a total 4 streams being sent down from the CO. it is a MUCH better use of bandwidth as the provider only needs to send down those channels that requested. I've heard the biggest downside is that channels changes can be long because it has to initiate each channel change from the CO.

It's not VOD like cable does VOD. It's not like you go to a menu that has pre-recorded content stored at the head-end. Like Keenan was saying, instead of sending EVERY live channel ALL the time, it only sends down the channel(s) that you've requested. So if you have 2 TV's, both with dual tuner DVR's, you would have a total 4 streams being sent down from the CO. it is a MUCH better use of bandwidth as the provider only needs to send down those channels that requested. I've heard the biggest downside is that channels changes can be long because it has to initiate each channel change from the CO.
I wonder if that concept would really save on bandwidth when you have a large amount of customers using HD channels. Just like when I used to use VOD a while back and I would get breakups during the weekends when using even SD VOD. Now if you multiply that by a ten fold or more and add HD, I have my doubts.

I wonder if that concept would really save on bandwidth when you have a large amount of customers using HD channels. Just like when I used to use VOD a while back and I would get breakups during the weekends when using even SD VOD. Now if you multiply that by a ten fold or more and add HD, I have my doubts.

It all depends on how the bandwidth is allocated and what kind of buffering/error correction is put in place. Right now the Comcast network has hundreds of Mbits of bandwidth available -- even the 550 areas. If they moved to switch broadcasting, theoretically they would only need about 40Mbits per dual tuner DVR to handle 2 HD streams at the full bit rate. Even if you had 3 per house, that doesn't even put a dent in Comcast's total bandwidth. You could have hundreds of HD channels and it wouldn't matter because you would only need enough room for those channels you would actually want to watch at a given time. I know I'm over-simplifying some of this and I'm sure switched broadcasting has its problems. But it shows there are options out there...

Well AT&T hasn't rolled this out widely yet right? It's only in some parts of San Antonio?

The CEO said by this time, we'd have voice, data, video and wireless from them for like $100.

I think MS overpromised AT&T on their IPTV. Some of the rumors were that they'd shoot for 720p streams at 5 Mbps. Craptastic.

Plus, the AT&T systems is like switched video where only the requested signal is sent down the line whereas cable sends everything down the line. Of course, cable is also moving toward SW as well. I think Verizon is sending all the signals with their fiber currently.
Is it switched video in the sense that everyone gets their own individual stream or in the sense that it is still broadcast, but only channels that actually have people tuning in will get broadcast?

If the former, I don't see why it would be more bandwidth efficient. If the latter, then it really depends how large an area a node serves. If you serve a large enough # of homes, then probably there is someone watching every channel at any time during the day. If the leaf nodes serve fewer homes, then theoretically they could use less bandwidth since only the popular channels are being broadcast.

Is it switched video in the sense that everyone gets their own individual stream or in the sense that it is still broadcast, but only channels that actually have people tuning in will get broadcast?

If the former, I don't see why it would be more bandwidth efficient. If the latter, then it really depends how large an area a node serves. If you serve a large enough # of homes, then probably there is someone watching every channel at any time during the day. If the leaf nodes serve fewer homes, then theoretically they could use less bandwidth since only the popular channels are being broadcast.

I think it's measured in terms of "switched groups", not necessarily per node. My above anyalais was a bit off becasue I spoke in terms of a "group" being a single home which is probably not realistic. There's a quick description from BigBand networks here: http://www.bigbandnet.com/products/sol_switch_broadcast.php. There's also a good article here that I believe Keenan posted a while back: http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA509144.html?industryid=43678

I was just referring to the fact that if Verizon or AT&T went head to head with Comcast in 550 MHz area based on a business plan that they can get many of the disgruntled 550 MHz Comcast customers, Comcast can inexpensively upgrade the systems to 750 MHz leaving Verizons with probably a pretty bad business plan. I was pointing out that prior to the SA ampliefiers, it would have probably cost over $200 per household, large service distruptions, and time consuming to get a cable system upgraded from 550 MH to 750 MHz.

I too would like the phone companies to start supplying video services to give me a choice and to get Comcast moving on providing better digital services. However, because of the large initial cost and current competition from cable companies, I would doubt that they will be significant players.

I would think that especially AT&T would be very hesitant to compete in video services since they already lost a lot of money when they upgraded cable systems in the late 90s and there wasn't any competition at that time.

I also do not know how phone companies provide video services.

Ok, that's much clearer to me and I think that is a good possibility but there's a big if in that, if Comcast thinks they can pull a profit out of the 550 MHz areas then they might do the upgrades. With the systems that you posted about, that makes it alot easier and less expensive to do those upgrades and if Comcast thinks that it might lose it's profitable analog customers :) then they will have no choice but to upgrade them or lose them to the Telco's. Competition could make this happen sooner than later.

Laters,
Mikef5

Is it switched video in the sense that everyone gets their own individual stream or in the sense that it is still broadcast, but only channels that actually have people tuning in will get broadcast?

If the former, I don't see why it would be more bandwidth efficient. If the latter, then it really depends how large an area a node serves. If you serve a large enough # of homes, then probably there is someone watching every channel at any time during the day. If the leaf nodes serve fewer homes, then theoretically they could use less bandwidth since only the popular channels are being broadcast.
I'm not sure if everything is pushed to the node or not. Something to keep in mind is that phone lines are dedicated lines all the way back to the switch, whereas cableTV is a pipe that everyone shares, that's why mterzich experienced problems when the pipe was being overused by his neighbors.

If the video is being sent from the switch, then I think the only problem would be latency issues due to higher bandwidth video loads over what a phone call uses and running fiber as close as possible to the home would overcome that.

I haven't looked at the tech recently, but I think the stream is selected at the switch.

What AT&T uses is called IPTV.

I think it's measured in terms of "switched groups", not necessarily per node. My above anyalais was a bit off becasue I spoke in terms of a "group" being a single home which is probably not realistic. There's a quick description from BigBand networks here: http://www.bigbandnet.com/products/sol_switch_broadcast.php. There's also a good article here that I believe Keenan posted a while back: http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA509144.html?industryid=43678
The article doesn't make it very clear how it is done. I'm not sure if it is just magic.

In my mind, it seems that the only way to do that would be to have hubs for groups with low cost optical and amplifiers within each group. In this case the main trunk would still need to carry the full bandwidth plus there would need to have more cable laid. Obviously this can't be the way they are doing it since that seems to be more expensive.

Ok, that's much clearer to me and I think that is a good possibility but there's a big if in that, if Comcast thinks they can pull a profit out of the 550 MHz areas then they might do the upgrades. With the systems that you posted about, that makes it alot easier and less expensive to do those upgrades and if Comcast thinks that it might lose it's profitable analog customers :) then they will have no choice but to upgrade them or lose them to the Telco's. Competition could make this happen sooner than later.

Laters,
Mikef5
In fact that may be cheaper than trying to reduce the analog channels. When you consider all the issues and costs of reducing analog channels (free STB, free installation, additional service calls, possible loss of customers,etc.) it may be a better short term business plan.

If you consider a city such as Milpitas with approximately 30,000 households, I would doubt that there is more than about 300 miles of cable. I would think that city could be upgraded for between $120,000-$200,000 by using the SA amplifiers.

I think it's measured in terms of "switched groups", not necessarily per node. My above anyalais was a bit off becasue I spoke in terms of a "group" being a single home which is probably not realistic. There's a quick description from BigBand networks here: http://www.bigbandnet.com/products/sol_switch_broadcast.php. There's also a good article here that I believe Keenan posted a while back: http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA509144.html?industryid=43678
I don't know if the cable companys or the Telco's have realized there's a decided advantage to switched video that could give them an edge when it comes to their bottom line. They could actually track what's being watched at any time frame and the number of people that are watching at that time because the customer has to actually request that that channel be sent to them. During contract negotiations they could show that the channel is not as popular as the provider might think it is and isn't worth the price that they are asking from the cable/telco's or that it is popular and agree it deserves it's asking price, but it would give them a way of justifying their expenditures. Plus you could do marketing based on that data sort of their own Nelson Ratings and then again it sounds kind of like George Orwell's " Big Brother" ;) . Me watching them and them watching me watching them...... OK, a little off target but it would give them hard data that could help in the bottom line.

Laters,
Mikef5

In fact that may be cheaper than trying to reduce the analog channels. When you consider all the issues and costs of reducing analog channels (free STB, free installation, additional service calls, possible loss of customers,etc.) it may be a better short term business plan.

If you consider a city such as Milpitas with approximately 30,000 households, I would doubt that there is more than about 300 miles of cable. I would think that city could be upgraded for between $120,000-$200,000 by using the SA amplifiers.
Mterzich,
You need to submit your resume to Comcast and start doing the upgrades now, the people of Milpitas would love you :p :D If it's really that cheap then I don't see what's the problem with Comcast not doing it with that equipment. The problem is, is there profit in it if they do the upgrades. Yes, you don't lose the digital people if you do the upgrades. Yes, you would make it harder for the Telco's to get started or even compete if you do the upgrades. Happy customers means content customers that are happy to stay where they are and won't look elsewhere.

Laters,
Mikef5

Add another zero to that number and it might be in the ballpark.

Pretty sure the digital cable boxes can also track and report back viewer usage.

Add another zero to that number and it might be in the ballpark.
Yah, your right. I dropped a zero. $1,200,000-$2,000,000 which comes out to about $40 to $67 per household or probably about $100-$150 per analog customer (assuming 70% of the households subscribe to cable TV and 50% of the subscribers are analog).

It appears that whether Comcast upgrades the 550 MHz systems or eliminates the analog channels, the cost per analog customer will be $100+.

I think Verizon should be a little cautious about competing in areas with 550 MHz systems. Until recently, cable system amplifier spacing had to be redone when upgrading from a 550 MHz system to a 750 MHz. Although new amplifiers were relatively inexpensive costing probably less than $40 per househould in a typical city, the repositioning of the amplifiers was difficult and expensive.

One manufacturer has been providing higher gain amplifiers for quite a while but those amplifiers have limited bandwidth increase from 550 MHz to 625 MHz or 750 MHz to 860 MHz.

http://cc.electramedia.com/site/CableServ_3/pdf//CableServ_Amplifier_Upgrades.pdf

However, now it appear that Scientific Atlanta now has amplifiers that can upgrade cable systems from 550 MHz to 750 MHz or even to 860 MHz without changing the spacing of the amplifiers.

http://www.scatmag.com/technical/upgrade%20with%20gain.pdf#search=%22%22550%20MHz%22%2C%20%22 750%20MHZ%22%2C%20upgrade%2C%20cost%22

So there appears to be hope for 550 MHz cable system customers.
There's more than hope, there's "Dish".Comcasts bread and butter is analog and VOD, primarily SD. When Dish started offering their current deal for HD lovers why would anyone who wants HD stay with Comcast? I don't care what any provider might get, I'm going with the one that has the most now. Comcast should be moved to a "bad analog/SD" provider thread. Every other provider is totally digital and better. Stop with the maybes and just let me know when they are better than Dish and I'll switch back. If there wasn't an alternative I'd care but since there is, who cares? Do I sound like I'm pushing Dish? You bet, lets support a company that cares about us HD lovers. If Comcast wants to do something, why don't they sue the FCC for being the only provider who has to carry analog. That they don't says something to me.

Comcasts bread and butter is analog and VOD, primarily SD.
Analog is an albatross not the bread and butter.
When Dish started offering their current deal for HD lovers why would anyone who wants HD stay with Comcast?
Some people cannot install a dish, others don't want a dish, others had bad experiences with SAT, others don't want to sign a 1 year contract, and others subscribe to cable as well as SAT because they want certain content that cable provides.
Every other provider is totally digital and better.
I don't know of any cable provider in the US that is totally digital. The only provider that I know that has better HD content is Dish and minimally a few small cable providers.
Do I sound like I'm pushing Dish? You bet, lets support a company that cares about us HD lovers.
Good Luck.

I'm in Sunnyvale, a 550 MHz area. I just added a second HDTV this past weekend and installed the HD box (6200) myself. (My cousin used to work for Comcast and installed the first one.) I noticed that, before I called in to have a hit sent to the box, that I was able to tune to channels above 500 that are not part of Sunnyvale's channel line up. Of course, all of them said "This channel will be available shortly", or something like that, even the premium channels that I DO subscribe to. My question is this: Do the boxes themselves come pre-programmed to receive all channels for the local and surrounding areas? And then the "Hit" tells the box what channels should be received? Why, prior to the hit, was I able to tune to channels like 704 and 719 when they aren't available in Sunnyvale. I thought, for one nanosecond, that by some miracle, Sunnyvale was upgraded overnight. LOL

I'm in Sunnyvale, a 550 MHz area. I just added a second HDTV this past weekend and installed the HD box (6200) myself. (My cousin used to work for Comcast and installed the first one.) I noticed that, before I called in to have a hit sent to the box, that I was able to tune to channels above 500 that are not part of Sunnyvale's channel line up. Of course, all of them said "This channel will be available shortly", or something like that, even the premium channels that I DO subscribe to. My question is this: Do the boxes themselves come pre-programmed to receive all channels for the local and surrounding areas? And then the "Hit" tells the box what channels should be received? Why, prior to the hit, was I able to tune to channels like 704 and 719 when they aren't available in Sunnyvale. I thought, for one nanosecond, that by some miracle, Sunnyvale was upgraded overnight. LOL
Yes, the boxes come preprogrammed and I was told recently by an installer that even cablecards come preprogrammed.

Analog is an albatross not the bread and butter.
Albatross for bandwidth usage but cash cow for the business.

Albatross for bandwidth usage but cash cow for the business.
I don't understand why you would say that. Analog customers comprise about 50% of cable customers but only about 25% of the revenue and take between 60% - 85% of the bandwidth. That is like saying fat customers at a buffet resturant is its cash cow because they eat there more often.

The margin on that 25% is phenomenal. What percentage of CSR minutes and housecalls do you suppose those customers represent, hmm?

I live in Saratoga and have a question regarding QAM access. I looked through the forum and couldn't find the answer.

To my understanding, Comcast is required to provided unencrypted QAM access to the 702-709 channels, regardless of subscribing to the HDTV package. Is this correct? If so, is there any documention that supports this?

With my MDP130, I was able to receive the 9.1-9.5 (PSIP mapped) channel until recently? I have rescanned for the channels and still not luck. Do I have the right to contact Comcast and complain about not receiving the QAM stations?

Thanks,
Warren

The margin on that 25% is phenomenal. What percentage of CSR minutes and housecalls do you suppose those customers represent, hmm?
I respectfully have to disagree. Although they do use less CSR resources and housecalls, they are not paying their share of capital expenditures, management, sales, marketing, and admistration. So if a build out cost $1,000 per household and the cable company has 80% of those as customers, the average expenditure cost per customer is $1,250. It would take the average analog customer (including interest) about 4 years to pay off those expenditures where as the digital customer would pay it off in just a little more than 1 year.

Since management, sales, marketing, and adminstration personel usually comprise more than 50% of the total personel, that expense should also be equally divided.

If the cable provider never did the build out, he wouldn't need as many resources but I would doubt that they would currently have more than 25% of the current customers and would have been in bankruptsy long ago.

I don't understand why you would say that. Analog customers comprise about 50% of cable customers but only about 25% of the revenue and take between 60% - 85% of the bandwidth. That is like saying fat customers at a buffet resturant is its cash cow because they eat there more often.
Where did you see that 25% of revenue number?

IIRC, Comcast's ARPU is about $76 and with most folks purchasing Standard Cable over just Limited, and analog only subs being 50% of the total sub base, those subs are generating huge amounts of cash, with little to no maintenance as TPeterson noted. IOW, a money machine.

I live in Saratoga and have a question regarding QAM access. I looked through the forum and couldn't find the answer.

To my understanding, Comcast is required to provided unencrypted QAM access to the 702-709 channels, regardless of subscribing to the HDTV package. Is this correct? If so, is there any documention that supports this?

With my MDP130, I was able to receive the 9.1-9.5 (PSIP mapped) channel until recently? I have rescanned for the channels and still not luck. Do I have the right to contact Comcast and complain about not receiving the QAM stations?

Thanks,
Warren
Although the rumor is going arounf, I don't believe there is any law on that. However, most areas lost KQED on channel 9. I think that was an accident by the Systems Administrator. In my system it is currently at channel 117 unencrypted.

I respectfully have to disagree. Although they do use less CSR resources and housecalls, they are not paying their share of capital expenditures, management, sales, marketing, and admistration. So if a build out cost $1,000 per household and the cable company has 80% of those as customers, the average expenditure cost per customer is $1,250. It would take the average analog customer (including interest) about 4 years to pay off those expenditures where as the digital customer would pay it off in just a little more than 1 year.

Since management, sales, marketing, and adminstration personel usually comprise more than 50% of the total personel, that expense should also be equally divided.

If the cable provider never did the build out, he wouldn't need as many resources but I would doubt that they would currently have more than 25% of the current customers and would have been in bankruptsy long ago.
You're forgetting that cable has already completed over 97% of their buildout, in fact that percentage was reached a few years ago. There will likely be little to no expansion at the street level anymore, other than MDUs and new home construction(which is much cheaper to do than rolling out in existing areas).

In essence, there are no "new" customers to be added. There's a finite amount of potential customers out there. This is why cable and sat are constantly trying to beat each other up over subs, they're trading back in forth instead of getting "virgin" customers. This is also why cable has moved into telco and internet, it's a fresh pool of customers to take from the telcos.

You're forgetting that cable has already completed over 97% of their buildout, in fact that percentage was reached a few years ago. There will likely be little to no expansion at the street level anymore, other than MDUs and new home construction(which is much cheaper to do than rolling out in existing areas).

In essence, there are no "new" customers to be added. There's a finite amount of potential customers out there. This is why cable and sat are constantly trying to beat each other up over subs, they're trading back in forth instead of getting "virgin" customers. This is also why cable has moved into telco and internet, it's a fresh pool of customers to take from the telcos.
The build out may have been completed several years ago but much of the debt still remains on the books and interest is being paid every year. Eventually that debt has to be paid off or decreased. You just can't write it off. Even if the debt was already paid off, you can not just say it doesn't matter (that is not good business pratices just the same as you may have your house paid off so you can rent it for $500 per month).

Where did you see that 25% of revenue number?

IIRC, Comcast's ARPU is about $76 and with most folks purchasing Standard Cable over just Limited, and analog only subs being 50% of the total sub base, those subs are generating huge amounts of cash, with little to no maintenance as TPeterson noted. IOW, a money machine.
I may be slightly off with 25% and maybe it goes as high as 33% but it just cannot be too high. If it gets too high, then the average non analog customer will have an average bill that would be through the roof. Also I believe the $76 ARPU is slightly low.

A couple of notes, the analog subs virtually paid for all the digital buildouts, and, Comcast, the last time I looked, had about $2 billion in liquid cash. This is one of the reasons they went after Disney and one of the reasons they actually own the MGM library along with Sony. Comcast is very,very healthy financially.

A couple of notes, the analog subs virtually paid for all the digital buildouts, and, Comcast, the last time I looked, had about $2 billion in liquid cash. This is one of the reasons they went after Disney and one of the reasons they actually own the MGM library along with Sony. Comcast is very,very healthy financially.
$2b in cash sounds nice but how about a debt/equity ratio of .60 which comes out to about $20b in debt if my calculations are correct.

I live in Saratoga and have a question regarding QAM access. I looked through the forum and couldn't find the answer.

To my understanding, Comcast is required to provided unencrypted QAM access to the 702-709 channels, regardless of subscribing to the HDTV package. Is this correct? If so, is there any documention that supports this?

With my MDP130, I was able to receive the 9.1-9.5 (PSIP mapped) channel until recently? I have rescanned for the channels and still not luck. Do I have the right to contact Comcast and complain about not receiving the QAM stations?

Thanks,
WarrenThe FCC regs are fairly clear (to a non lawyer) that "local" OTA retransmissions cannot be encrypted. Evidently, Comcast et al. are generally interpreting them to say that analog and DTV signals that are not changed from their OTA form (e.g., not converted from analog to digital) should not be encrypted but they may or may not encrypt siganals that they've converted from analog to digital form.

Regardless of all that, in the Bay Area Comcast is providing the OTA DTV stations that they carry in clear QAM--although they're spotty about the PSIP data. KQED's channel alignment changed recently when KQED changed its transmissions, so you may need to rescan your MyHD channels to find them again.

$2b in cash sounds nice but how about a debt/equity ratio of .60 which comes out to about $20b in debt if my calculations are correct.
Okay, let's put it this way, the analog subs are keeping the lights on. Obviously, Comcast would prefer everyone to be digital, but with 50% of their sub base still analog only, and most likely 100% of them not even having a digital TV, and most likely that same 100% not wanting any boxes to deal with, analog is not going to go away anytime soon. Plus, these subs are extremely low maintenance/low cost, just plug the cable from the wall to the TV. Getting these subs to go with a box is not going to be easy, especially if it will cost them money, and if Comcast covers the cost, that's a huge unrecoverable outlay.

You can take to the bank that Comcast will still be providing analog cable beyond the OTA analog cutoff date.

Okay, let's put it this way, the analog subs are keeping the lights on. Obviously, Comcast would prefer everyone to be digital, but with 50% of their sub base still analog only, and most likely 100% of them not even having a digital TV, and most likely that same 100% not wanting any boxes to deal with, analog is not going to go away anytime soon. Plus, these subs are extremely low maintenance/low cost, just plug the cable from the wall to the TV. Getting these subs to go with a box is not going to be easy, especially if it will cost them money, and if Comcast covers the cost, that's a huge unrecoverable outlay.

You can take to the bank that Comcast will still be providing analog cable beyond the OTA analog cutoff date.
I agree with most of what you are saying. As you stated, analog is a problem (to me an albatross) in that no matter what they do, it is not cost effective. However, something has to be done eventually or they will lose a major amount of new business and probably lose some existing digital customers. When they perform that upgrade and how they go about it is anyones guess.

Although I was approximately correct about the $20b in debt, I sort of miscalculated it since Comcast uses some wierd accounting.

Total equity equals $103b which major items include $19b in property, plants, and equipment, $14b in goodwill, and $54b in intangibles.

Total debt equals $62b which major items include $22b in long term debt (much in 7% paper) and $27b in deferred income tax.

If you take out some wierd accounting (goodwill, intangibles, and deferred income tax), the debt/equity still comes out to about .60 with a debt of about $20b.

I may be slightly off with 25% and maybe it goes as high as 33% but it just cannot be too high. If it gets too high, then the average non analog customer will have an average bill that would be through the roof. Also I believe the $76 ARPU is slightly low.
According to the Comcast bill, for digital classic, $50 is for analog (limited + expanded basic), $10 is for digital. I think it is important for us to understand how #s are reported (and I'm not saying I understand them) before extrapolating conclusions.

I don't understand why you would say that. Analog customers comprise about 50% of cable customers but only about 25% of the revenue and take between 60% - 85% of the bandwidth. That is like saying fat customers at a buffet resturant is its cash cow because they eat there more often.
Unfortunately by that thinking, HD is the most unprofitable portion of Comcast business. $5/STB additional revenue but 6 to 1 bandwidth usage ratio (HD/SD digita)l and 1 to 2 ratio (analog SD/HD).

Do I really believe HD accounts for so little revenue? Absolutely not, but the #s just aren't broken out that way (at least not with anything I've seen)

For example it would be useful to know if analog was dropped, how many analog only and also analog+digital customers would be lost.

Similarly, it would be useful to know if HD was dropped, how many customers would be lost.

*At this point in time*, I suspect Comcast would lose a lot more customers if they dropped analog vs dropping HD, and I'm not suggesting they drop HD at all.

I still believe as I mentioned earlier that analog is an albatross in terms of bandwidth usage but a cash cow from a business standpoint. The ratio will of course change over time.

*At this point in time*, I suspect Comcast would lose a lot more customers if they dropped analog vs dropping HD, and I'm not suggesting they drop HD at all.

I still believe as I mentioned earlier that analog is an albatross in terms of bandwidth usage but a cash cow from a business standpoint. The ratio will of course change over time.

i suspect your comments are dead on since i know of countless people (friends/family) stick with analog cable because they don't have to deal with boxes and can have several TVs in the house without paying for a box for each.

if Comcast required digital _and_ only offered digital packages starting at $50, then i would be leaving too and heading over to sat.

i'm probably in a minority, but i only stick with comcast because i can get HD on the cheap. i splurge and pay $10 for the digital classic, but would be perfectly happy with just limited basic + HD for under $20/month. i don't watch much TV, but when iwatch it is typically network TV and i want a quality picture.

Anyone trying to prove their point (including me) can use fiqures that help them prove their case but the simple fact is that Comcast will in the near future have to make some hard decisions to either upgrade 550 MHz systems, move analog customers to digital, or both. How they go about those tasks, no one knows. If they do not, they will be eaten alive by SAT and phone companies. If Comcast delays too long, they may loose so many customers that it would be impossible to get them back causing them to go into bankruptsy.

If they move analog customers (assuming 50% of the base) to digital, that would be approximately 10,000,000 customers and assuming a cost of $100-$150 per customers that will come out to being a $1b-$1.5b expenditure. If they upgrade the 550 MHz systems (assuming 15% of the total) and assuming a cost of $50-$80 per customer (and assuming 80% of the households servered are using cable), that will be 3,000,000 customers at a cost of $150,000,000-$240,000,000 if the upgrades are performed using the new SA amplifiers (probably around $200-$350 per customer if a rebuild is done).

The above figures of moving analog customers to digital may be optimist since Comcast may provide multiple STBs and much more service to analog customers than would be required to digital customers. Also the upgrade numbers that I am using are based on only a board replacement whereas this would require a complete box change (power supply, enclosure, and board along with the cost of replacing the box).

Anyone trying to prove their point (including me) can use fiqures that help them prove their case but the simple fact is that Comcast will in the near future have to make some hard decisions to either upgrade 550 MHz systems, move analog customers to digital, or both. How they go about those tasks, no one knows. If they do not, they will be eaten alive by SAT and phone companies. If Comcast delays too long, they may loose so many customers that it would be impossible to get them back causing them to go into bankruptsy.

There are other factors at play. I believe as contracts come up for renewal, Comcast will have the opportunity to slowly migrate analog channels to digital and that will free up bandwidth. Sure it is a band-aid, but many folks don't care how it is implemented as long as they have the same lineup.

2nd factor is that not everybody has the same thirst level for HD channel selection. There are plenty of people who are more than overjoyed they can just plug their new TV into the wall and receive HD locals. You simply can not beat the value equation of $0 extra month for such gorgeous HD PQ. In fact the unencrypted HD locals for no extra $$$ is a big reason some people are staying with or switching to Comcast. There are also plenty of people who's HD recording skew 80% HD locals (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) and 20% other HD. They may not be overjoyed that "other HD" category isn't very deep, but it also doesn't affect them as much based on what they watch. There are other sources of HD taking hold like HD-DVD and BluRay. Netflix + HD-DVD is a good supplement for lack of HD depth. After all there is only so much time in the day to watch TV.

Finally I think you will (or do) agree that the urgency for some solution for the 550 inequity is different than the overall urgency for Comcast (which includes 750/860 areas), so talks of bankruptcy are somewhat premature. Besides, bankruptcy isn't always a bad thing. It is for the lenders and stockholders but it also trims down the debt. It isn't like a company such as Comcast is ever going to disappear and even after reorg, the people at the top will get their compensation packages.

There are other factors at play. I believe as contracts come up for renewal, Comcast will have the opportunity to slowly migrate analog channels to digital and that will free up bandwidth. Sure it is a band-aid, but many folks don't care how it is implemented as long as they have the same lineup.

2nd factor is that not everybody has the same thirst level for HD channel selection. There are plenty of people who are more than overjoyed they can just plug their new TV into the wall and receive HD locals. In fact the enencrypted HD locals for no extra $$$ is a big reason they are staying with or switching to Comcast. There are also plenty of people who's HD recording skew 80% HD locals (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) and 20% other HD. They may not be overjoyed that "other HD" category isn't very deep, but it also doesn't affect them as much based on what they watch. There are other sources of HD taking hold like HD-DVD and BluRay. Netflix + HD-DVD is a good supplement for lack of HD depth. After all there is only so much time in the day to watch TV.

Finally I think you will agree that the urgency for some solution for the 550 inequity is different than the overall urgency for Comcast (which includes 750/860 areas).
I agree with part of what you are saying but when it rains it pours. Yes getting the issue of the 550 MHz systems solved is of the greatest importance. Today, if Comcast eliminated HD completely, they would probably only lose 10% of their customers (bad but not disasterous). However, Comcast can not get behind the ball on these issues. In two years, I expect that there will be 100 or more HD channels available. If the systems can only accomidate 40 HD channels with all the other services planed, this could be a major disaster (losing up to 25% of its base and those customers are contributing disportionally to the revenue) for Comcast if someone like Dish was offering all 100. Not only would that be a disaster but the following 2 years would be worst since it usually takes at least that long to implement these plans.

Wondering which customers are the bread and butter of the company is no longer the issue but the issue is a mater of survival.

However, Comcast can not get behind the ball on these issues. In two years, I expect that there will be 100 or more HD channels available. If the systems can only accomidate 40 HD channels with all the other services planed, this could be a major disaster (losing up to 25% of its base and those customers are contributing disportionally to the revenue) for Comcast if someone like Dish was offering all 100. Not only would that be a disaster but the following 2 years would be worst since it usually takes at least that long to implement these plans.
100 HD channels, but how many are really going to have content lots of people care about. Crap content is crap no matter whether it is in HD or SD. Well we have way over 100 SD channels right now, but realistically I only watch maybe 10 of them regularly and 20 of them regular + sporadically. I seriously think you could move 40 of the analog channels to digital and the vilified analog users mostly wouldn't care, as long as they weren't the popular ones. The content guys are the people that would care.

mpg2 vs mpg4 (bandwidth efficiency) may be as much an issue as raw bandwidth expansion if your channel predictions come true *and* the content is deemed must have by the bulk of the customers.

100 HD channels, but how many are really going to have content lots of people care about. Crap content is crap no matter whether it is in HD or SD. Well we have way over 100 SD channels right now, but realistically I only watch maybe 10 of them regularly and 20 of them regular + sporadically. I seriously think you could move 40 of the analog channels to digital and the vilified analog users mostly wouldn't care, as long as they weren't the popular ones. The content guys are the people that would care.

mpg2 vs mpg4 (bandwidth efficiency) may be as much an issue as raw bandwidth expansion if your channel predictions come true *and* the content is deemed must have by the bulk of the customers.
Comcast is currently loosing customers to Dish due to the Voom channels and those are all pretty bad. I agree though that too damage would not be done if Comcast termporarily offered only the channels that many people (not necessarily me) watch such as many of the current analog channels (cable news, Comedy Central, Cartoon, Disney, USA, Life, etc.). However, there have been people that have moved to other providers even for SD channels since a certain channel was not provided by their provider (eg. sports).

anyone else experiencing drop outs in video tonight watching Studio 60 on NBC?

anyone else experiencing drop outs in video tonight watching Studio 60 on NBC?

Yup, was just going to post it.

Anyone see it on Direct TV or OTA as well?

started during the last few minutes if heroes, then was during studio 60. now the tonight show is on and it's the same :(
it's done this before, but not in the past few weeks.

On NBC, the screen was going blank via STB, QAM tuner, and OTA so I expect it is an encoder failure at KNTV. It was doing that a couple months ago but not as often. I'll send KNTV an e-mail.

It's the same OTA as it was on cable, something is screwed up with KNTV and has been for awhile. I don't know what the problem is , but the only thing that looks good on KNTV is the video and live stuff stuff, the film-based primetime stuff looks like crap, soft and blurry-some sort of frame/time issue, and the black screens and pixelation.

It does seem like a encoder problem. KNBC- LA did not exhibit the problems I saw on KNTV tonight.

P.S. Voom has some good stuff, Equator, World Cinema, FilmFest, just those 3 are worth the price of admission for me.

P.S. Voom has some good stuff, Equator, World Cinema, FilmFest, just those 3 are worth the price of admission for me.
I have never seen the Voom channels but was only commenting on what I thought. That is one of the problems that I was pointing out about trying to pick and choose channels. Everybody seems to have a different tastes and opinions about what they like.

I have never seen the Voom channels but was only commenting on what I thought. That is one of the problems that I was pointing out about trying to pick and choose channels. Everybody seems to have a different tastes and opinions about what they like.
Well yeah it's a problem if you want it to be unanimous :) However I'm comfortable saying you can pick 25-35 HD channels from a 100 channel HD lineup and satisfy 90% of the customers to the point they won't defect. It's easy enough for Comcast to figure out which channels most people care about by looking at the channels recorded on the PVRs out there. I guarantee there will be clear spikes for certain channels making them obvious must have choices. My 25-35 # is based on what I feel Comcast could easily move from analog to digital to free up bandwidth. This is assuming no upgrade of 550. If they upgrade 550 obviously the #s would be greater.

A channel lineup designed to prevent you from defecting is different than a channel lineup designed to attract new customers. The former needs to hold the fort until upgrades (or some long term solution can be put in place), whether that be switched, upgraded 550, mpg4, etc. or some combination.

HEY, how about letting us working folk know how the A's are looking so far??

They should look really good right now. 2-0 :)

Well yeah it's a problem if you want it to be unanimous :) However I'm comfortable saying you can pick 25-35 HD channels from a 100 channel HD lineup and satisfy 90% of the customers to the point they won't defect. It's easy enough for Comcast to figure out which channels most people care about by looking at the channels recorded on the PVRs out there. I guarantee there will be clear spikes for certain channels making them obvious must have choices. My 25-35 # is based on what I feel Comcast could easily move from analog to digital to free up bandwidth. This is assuming no upgrade of 550. If they upgrade 550 obviously the #s would be greater.

A channel lineup designed to prevent you from defecting is different than a channel lineup designed to attract new customers. The former needs to hold the fort until upgrades (or some long term solution can be put in place), whether that be switched, upgraded 550, mpg4, etc. or some combination.
I suspect that channels such as UPN and WB have already been hurt in the ratings since they are not carried in HD on SAT and not all areas on cable.

IMO MPEG4 is still several years away from being a viable option. In the UK, Sky had to increase the bandwidth of HD channels from 13 mb/s to 19.5 mb/s recently to reduce serious macroblocking problems. Even at 19.5 mb/s there is still macroblocking on movies but much reduced.

Off the point, I also think that many of the OTA channels (excluding the foreign language channels) will have to become HD within 5 years or they will be history. Their viewship is currently so low that I can't see anyone watching them in SD in 5 years.

anyone else experiencing drop outs in video tonight watching Studio 60 on NBC?
Same here in Alameda. It basically ruined Studio 60 for me.

They should look really good right now. 2-0 :)

They needed one more run but they did it! 3-2 final. Let's go Oakland!!

Same here in Alameda. It basically ruined Studio 60 for me.
Me too. Was almost unwatchable toward the end. I hope KNTV fixes this problem. :eek:

Me too. Was almost unwatchable toward the end. I hope KNTV fixes this problem. :eek:

yeah, i gave up and went to channel 3 at around 10:30 because it was too hard to watch.

I hope someone posts soon that 9.1 (KQED HD) is back via QAM. I called and left a message for the head end manager for San Carlos area.

The silence is deafening...

My picture on the non-HD KTVU channel 2 is unwatchable ... continuous stuttering & freezing. Anybody else with this problem?

IMO MPEG4 is still several years away from being a viable option. In the UK, Sky had to increase the bandwidth of HD channels from 13 mb/s to 19.5 mb/s recently to reduce serious macroblocking problems. Even at 19.5 mb/s there is still macroblocking on movies but much reduced.
So what's the hangup, for HD-DVD, VC1 (mpg4 with some msft optimizations) seems to be doing real well at 20Mbps and they feel they can go down toe 12-15Mbps with no degradation. They may have already gone that low with the combo discs, I don't remember the #s. You almost never hear about macroblock complaints with HD-DVD. Is it a problem with (re)encoding by the broadcaster?

I suspect that channels such as UPN and WB have already been hurt in the ratings since they are not carried in HD on SAT and not all areas on cable.
I'm sure KBWB was hurt far more by losing their WB content, with the formation of CW, than they were by not being carried in HD.

I'm sure KBWB was hurt far more by losing their WB content, with the formation of CW, than they were by not being carried in HD.
That is how much I know about what has happened since CW was created. I totally never watch either one anymore since they are not in HD. So what is currently going on with CW? Is there only one network now with all its programming on that network?

So what's the hangup, for HD-DVD, VC1 (mpg4 with some msft optimizations) seems to be doing real well at 20Mbps and they feel they can go down toe 12-15Mbps with no degradation. They may have already gone that low with the combo discs, I don't remember the #s. You almost never hear about macroblock complaints with HD-DVD. Is it a problem with (re)encoding by the broadcaster?
MPEG4 software encoders have been around for many years but first generation MPEG4 hardware encoders just came on the market last year which is a lot less time than 10+ years to perfect MPEG2 hardware encoders. Hardware and software encoders are two different amimals. MPEG4 hardware encoders are currently performing very poorly and probably only at about 1/3 its potential.

Also hardware encoders (real time and single pass) can never perform quite as well as software encoders (multipass, hand tuned, and possibly allowing peak data bursts).

The MPEG4 hardware encoders are so bad in the UK that even very slow moving movies such as The Machinist (which I watched on SHOWTIME at 9.9 mb/s without problems) would regularly macroblock at 13 mb/s. Dish and DirecTV do not have a major problem with MPEG4 encoders because they get MPEG2 affiliate streams at 12-19 mb/s and the MPEG4 encoders only have to reduce the bit rate slightly if at all.

For lossless video, MPEG4 sofware encoders need about 26 mb/s, MPEG4 currently needs about 13 mb/s and VC-1 (according to Amir recently) can do it around 10 mb/s for most movies. Broadcast encoders seldom produce lossless video for shows (especially fast movine scenes). When I'm refering to lossless, I'm refering to something that cannot be perceived by the human eye even at close examination.

I hope someone posts soon that 9.1 (KQED HD) is back via QAM. I called and left a message for the head end manager for San Carlos area.
The silence is deafening...

Are you saying the channel is there but just the mapping is missing?

I am curious as to how this channel could be evading so many QAM tuners. My 6200 box shows 709 is in the clear. But my friend got a new TV and even that did not scan the channel. Unlike mine, his TV seems to list only clear digital channels. I could not find the channel easily on my QAM as well.. really exhaustive check takes much longer and I haven't done that yet.

I don't know how many people are really missing KQED-HD. My area has had it the entire time that RBurks has had troubles.

Maybe someone in those areas can use an STB to determine what frequency KQED is at and whether it is encrypted. A remote possibility is something changed that is causing certain QAM tuners trouble.

It is somewhat surprising it could be out so long and Comcast hasn't done anything about it. I'm sure there are at least a few people complaining.

Dish and DirecTV do not have a major problem with MPEG4 encoders because they get MPEG2 affiliate streams at 12-19 mb/s and the MPEG4 encoders only have to reduce the bit rate slightly if at all.
But if we are expecting 100 HD channels in 2 years isn't it natural to expect Comcast to get the MPEG2 affiliate streams the same way? Squeezing 3-5 HD channels into 6Mhz with lossless (as in imperceivable) is certainly better than 2-3 currently. Going with MPEG4 doesn't mean every channel needs to be MPEG4 as the chipsets can decode VC1, MPEG4, and MPEG2. The source channels causing issues can stay with MPEG2 and the sources which won't cause issues can go with MPEG4 or VC1.

I don't know how many people are really missing KQED-HD. My area has had it the entire time that RBurks has had troubles.

Maybe someone in those areas can use an STB to determine what frequency KQED is at and whether it is encrypted.

In 237/880 area (95134), it is 561 Mhz. STB says it is in the clear.

So I received a message today saying that we are going to have MHD (MTV HD) in October 31. They'll also add the Oxygen channel (SD I guess).

Message on STB says MHD will be available from Oct 31st with HD service. This should be MTV HD right? I haven't tuned to MTV in months and months... nothing could be too bad in HD :)

Hey, what does M stand for in MTV? I checked the guide and one program that might have anything to do with music is at 6 am : 'MTV Video wakeup'. It could still be some reality show about some one waking up at 6 am and complaining about it.

Hey, what does M stand for in MTV? I checked the guide and one program that might have anything to do with music is at 6 am : 'MTV Video wakeup'. It could still be some reality show about some one waking up at 6 am and complaining about it.


:D Got the same message here in Moraga.

new HD channels w/o taking anything away!!

The only message here was they are removing 5 digital channels. No reason given.
Nothing about MTV..

Hey, what does M stand for in MTV? I checked the guide and one program that might have anything to do with music is at 6 am : 'MTV Video wakeup'. It could still be some reality show about some one waking up at 6 am and complaining about it.

MHD is not a simulcast of MTV. it draws musical programming (ie concerts and some music videos) from MTV, VH1 and CMT, IIRC. so yes there should be actual music on this channel!

But if we are expecting 100 HD channels in 2 years isn't it natural to expect Comcast to get the MPEG2 affiliate streams the same way? Squeezing 3-5 HD channels into 6Mhz with lossless (as in imperceivable) is certainly better than 2-3 currently. Going with MPEG4 doesn't mean every channel needs to be MPEG4 as the chipsets can decode VC1, MPEG4, and MPEG2. The source channels causing issues can stay with MPEG2 and the sources which won't cause issues can go with MPEG4 or VC1.

Wouldn't MPEG4 violate cableCARD agreement? None of the digital TVs have MPEG4.

But if we are expecting 100 HD channels in 2 years isn't it natural to expect Comcast to get the MPEG2 affiliate streams the same way? Squeezing 3-5 HD channels into 6Mhz with lossless (as in imperceivable) is certainly better than 2-3 currently. Going with MPEG4 doesn't mean every channel needs to be MPEG4 as the chipsets can decode VC1, MPEG4, and MPEG2. The source channels causing issues can stay with MPEG2 and the sources which won't cause issues can go with MPEG4 or VC1.
I agree but MPEG4 hardware encoders currently are not working even as well as MPEG2 encoders. Also when encoding the basic rule of thumb is that you should have a 2:1 or greater input to output size to keep PQ high (slight softness when less and even this does not always currently hold true for even Comcast).

A bigger issue is the cost. All current STBs would need to be replaced since they do not have MPEG4 decoders. With approximately 10,000,000 customers currently with STBs or DVRs that would run about $2.5b or more. Also Comcast would need to purchase decoders/encoders for all MPEG4 HD channels (I think 1 per channel for each area) whereas now they many times don't even use decoders/encoders but just place the stream on the system with a STAT-MUX if even that.

I expect the cost to implement MPEG4 would be beyond the cost of upgrading all systems to 860 MHz plus eliminating analog completely.

I don't know how many people are really missing KQED-HD. My area has had it the entire time that RBurks has had troubles.

Maybe someone in those areas can use an STB to determine what frequency KQED is at and whether it is encrypted. A remote possibility is something changed that is causing certain QAM tuners trouble.

It is somewhat surprising it could be out so long and Comcast hasn't done anything about it. I'm sure there are at least a few people complaining.RBurks' profile says he's in San Carlos. KQED-HD and ENCORE (9.1 and 9.2) here are in the clear on rf 117, where they've been since Comcast turned on HD service in our area. WORLD, LIFE, and KIDS have moved to another rf channel but I haven't yet bothered to find them.

Wouldn't MPEG4 violate cableCARD agreement? None of the digital TVs have MPEG4.
I expect by 2009 cable companies would probably start to be treated more like phone or SAT companies (less regulation) which don't have analog or cable card rules. SAT companies currently change extra (about $5) for local HD channels. Europe which abandoned analog and the MPEG2 requirement for cable companies about 10 years ago requires all customers to have STBs. Has the US now become the biggest socialist country when it comes to cable companies?

In 237/880 area (95134), it is 561 Mhz. STB says it is in the clear.
561MHz should be channel 80.x

A bigger issue is the cost. All current STBs would need to be replaced since they do not have MPEG4 decoders. With approximately 10,000,000 customers currently with STBs or DVRs that would run about $2.5b or more.
This is only if one is considering a drastic conversion to MPEG4. The more sane scenario is if one decides MPEG4 is in the future, you start including MPEG4 decoding capabilities in the current STBs as a slow seeding process. All the STBs have a defined lifetime after which they are considered no value on the books. As time progresses and old STBs are retired, they get replaced with new MPEG4 capable STBs. At some point enough of the units will be out there that the remaining can just be swapped out for much less cost.

This is how network hardware is rolled out. The 100 Mbps NICs were being seeded way before the switches and routers are prevalent. Same with 802.11g.

Finally Congress figured out this is what needed to be done with OTA also and they require all TVs to include ATSC tuners years before the cutoff. The previous method of let the buyer choose just wasn't working.

This is only if one is considering a drastic conversion to MPEG4. The more sane scenario is if one decides MPEG4 is in the future, you start including MPEG4 decoding capabilities in the current STBs as a slow seeding process. All the STBs have a defined lifetime after which they are considered no value on the books. As time progresses and old STBs are retired, they get replaced with new MPEG4 capable STBs. At some point enough of the units will be out there that the remaining can just be swapped out for much less cost.

That only works if you have enough bandwidth on the cable system to support HD channels in MPEG4 and MPEG2 at the same time and that is the whole issue in that they are having a problem supporting what they presently have. Maybe when analog disappears and all systems are upgraded to 860 MHz, that may be a viable solution but by than, they'll probably have other services that overload the systems.

I suppose Comcast could try to upgrade one system at a time but then they would probably have to double the feeds (I suspect there is a centralized location in an area the generates the correct bit rate for all systems and feeds that to those systems). They could also do a complete area at one time but trying to get 500,000-1,000,000 customers upgraded with a new STB in a reasonable time would not seem possible.

new HD channels w/o taking anything away!!

You are referring to MTV HD, correct?

Considering they recently added and then more recently dropped Universal - HD (are we EVER going to get this channel permanently?), I'd hardly say MHD is a new HD channel w/o taking anything away.

You are referring to MTV HD, correct?

Considering they recently added and then more recently dropped Universal - HD (are we EVER going to get this channel permanently?), I'd hardly say MHD is a new HD channel w/o taking anything away.

lets count:

before addition of ESPN2 this summer, my system had:
702 - KTVU
703 - KNTV
704 - KRON
705 - KPIX
707 - KGO
709 - PBS
719 - INHD
720 - INHD2
722 - DISC
723 - ESPN
725 (count as .5 of a channel as it is HDSE)
730 - HBO
732 - CINE
734 - STARZ
736 - SHO
total: 14.5 HD channels

now after we get MHD my system will have
702 - KTVU
703 - KNTV
704 - KRON
705 - KPIX
707 - KGO
709 - PBS
719 - INHD
720 - FSNBA (subtract .5 of a channel since we lost INHD2)
722 - DISC
723 - ESPN
724 - ESPN2
725 - NFL (count as .5 of a channel)
726 - TNT
TBD - MHD
730 - HBO
732 - CINE
734 - STARZ
736 - SHO
total: 17 HD channels

~2.5 channels added in 2006. you forget UHD was just a temporary placeholder for TNT.

and if you count the loss of INHD2 as a loss of one entire channel, then MHD and ESPN2 will end up being the ONLY channels added without taking anything away!

Is there any schedule data/info eg when FSBAHD (720) shows anything, besides the "Rainbow Communications" screensaver?
My TivoS3 still thinks it's INHD2, and lists all those shows, despite the channel name being correct... don't think the 6412 ever really showed any schedule data either... Tivo needs to fix the KQED-DT schedule info now too, since it's 24hrs, no longer off-air in the morning.

I asked local office about it and they didn't know, they said just got office emails when sports events were going to happen... I was wondering about some shows on ch40 SD version, couldn't tell if would be HD.
They weren't sure about MHD yet, guess had read the messages on STB :) Didn't have UHD on the schedule yet either. They seemed to think Foster City was getting ADS now though, since they'd been handing out some 3412s? Some confusion over that...

Is there any schedule data/info eg when FSBAHD (720) shows anything, besides the "Rainbow Communications" screensaver?


http://www.fsnbayarea.com/FSNHD.jsp

scroll down to HD schedules, only those 5 events (giants, a's, sharks, warriors or college football) will trigger 720 to come alive. obviously giants and a's are not gonna be on FSNBA until next year so there is just sharks, warriors and college football are in HD until april 07. everything else in the entire universe of FSN (except other market's local teams) is not in HD yet. so no, you can't watch "the best damn sports show period" on 720.

RBurks' profile says he's in San Carlos. KQED-HD and ENCORE (9.1 and 9.2) here are in the clear on rf 117, where they've been since Comcast turned on HD service in our area. WORLD, LIFE, and KIDS have moved to another rf channel but I haven't yet bothered to find them.

I am using a Sony SXRD XBR1 QAM tuner, which I believe is considered to be a pretty reliable QAM tuner. It even adjusts dynamically after you have done a complete rescan to pick up new PSIP'd channels.

And for 11 months KQED in HD was on 9.1. Now it is gone.

I rescanned the cable input last week (hour plus) and got no 9.x and no 117, let alone 117.x.

I am curious because you say KQED-HD comes in on 117, but that would not be a HD channel (needs a .x)

Received an e-mail replay from KNTV on the blank screen problems that occured Monday evening and was occuring a couple months ago.

First of all thanks for bringing this to our attention. Seems our IRD which our HD signal passes through was having problems. We replaced it with a loaner sent to us. I hope tuesday evenings broadcast was much better. Thanks for watching KNTV

IRD: Integrated Receiver Decoder

I am using a Sony SXRD XBR1 QAM tuner, which I believe is considered to be a pretty reliable QAM tuner. It even adjusts dynamically after you have done a complete rescan to pick up new PSIP'd channels.

And for 11 months KQED in HD was on 9.1. Now it is gone.

I rescanned the cable input last week (hour plus) and got no 9.x and no 117, let alone 117.x.

I am curious because you say KQED-HD comes in on 117, but that would not be a HD channel (needs a .x)
On my 750 MHz cable system in Fremont, KQED HD is on 117.2, KQED Encore is 117.3, and I am not sure what is one 117.4, 1175, and 117.6 and none of them are PSIPed.

Do you know what size of a cable system is in San Carlos? Usually the physical channel numbers are the same for all or most systems of the same size in the area. However, sometimes the local Systems Administrator accidently causes a problem. This occurred about a month ago in Fremont only where CBS HD disappeared completely from the system for 4 days.

You can usually determine your cable size but checking the maximum channel number. If it is less than 88 your are on a 550 MHz system, 89-118 your are on a 750 MHz system, or above 118 you are on a 860 MHz system.

* * * Then many of us found out that we were grandfathered for some reason and would have to pay extra to get TNT-HD (in my case $2.31 per month). Today while changing channels, I noticed that TNT-HD is now being received without paying the extra amount. I guess Comcast just wanted to annoy us.

I, too, am now getting TNT-HD even though I have an AT&T package and was earlier told that my package didn't qualify for TNT-HD.

- Phil

My Series 3 TiVo had a message today saying that my channel lineup had been updated to add ESPN2 and TNT-HD and a couple of other SD channels. :p

Looks cool in the guide lineup anyhow. :D

now after we get MHD my system will have
702 - KTVU
703 - KNTV
704 - KRON
705 - KPIX
707 - KGO
709 - PBS
719 - INHD
720 - FSNBA (subtract .5 of a channel since we lost INHD2)
722 - DISC
723 - ESPN
724 - ESPN2
725 - NFL (count as .5 of a channel)
726 - TNT
TBD - MHD
730 - HBO
732 - CINE
734 - STARZ
736 - SHO
total: 17 HD channels
Unconscionable, we have only 10 of those channels up here.

My Series 3 TiVo had a message today saying that my channel lineup had been updated to add ESPN2 and TNT-HD and a couple of other SD channels. :p

Looks cool in the guide lineup anyhow. :D
Do you think it will occur on your 550 MHz system?

http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/05-FOX-L.gif

wow why does the NFL hate us? i want to see this game!! I DON'T WANT TO SEE NINERS RAIDERS.

don't be smart@$$ and tell me to get sunday ticket. i won't ever get D*

That only works if you have enough bandwidth on the cable system to support HD channels in MPEG4 and MPEG2 at the same time and that is the whole issue in that they are having a problem supporting what they presently have. Maybe when analog disappears and all systems are upgraded to 860 MHz, that may be a viable solution but by than, they'll probably have other services that overload the systems.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about MPEG4 and MPEG2 simulcast so there is no need for bandwidth to simultaneously send MPEG4 and MPEG2.

What I'm saying is if MPEG4 is in the future, they should equip the STBs from now on with MPEG4 decode capability. Though unused for now, this will seed the markets with MPEG4-capable STBs. Once you reach around 80% of the customers with MPEG4 capable STBs, then you inform the remaining 20% that within 6 months you need to trade in your STBs because after that, many channels will be converted to MPEG4 and your old box cannot watch them.

Your #s were suggesting a rapid migration to MPEG4. I'm suggesting a more gradual approach that would take retired STBs out of the picture and replace them with MPEG4-capable STBs. In this way, Comcast can prepare for the future where the hardware encoders are more capable. The decoders appear to be perfectly capable right now, which is why it is plausable to seed the markets.

That is how much I know about what has happened since CW was created. I totally never watch either one anymore since they are not in HD. So what is currently going on with CW? Is there only one network now with all its programming on that network?

Well, both are/were in HD OTA. Though much of The CW is in HD, I think only the 'reality' shows are in SD: Top Model and wrestling, otherwise all the dramas (except 7th Heaven), and the sitcoms are in HD. Usually it's the 'eye candy' factor for many of these shows, but, certainly there is the geek/coolness factor for some shows: Veronica Mars (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=708662), and Smallville (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=730195). So, currently that's the reason why I still have a couple of antennas in my Condo...for OTA. Also KBWB was very stingy on bandwidth, so lots of macro-blocking until very recently, and even then it was problematic. So, the CW is a bit of an upgrade.
Oh, and for when the stupid Giant's games preempt the Fox prime-time schedule, and they're 'sidecast' on KICU digital (in HD).

Do you think it will occur on your 550 MHz system?
Not this month...... Maybe next month.... Next month is my birthday, so if I wish real hard maybe....... :p :D
I've got to stop eating those mushrooms ;)

Nice going A's...... :)


Laters,
Mikef5

Oh, and for when the stupid Giant's games preempt the Fox prime-time schedule, and they're 'sidecast' on KICU digital (in HD).
That doesn't seem to accomplish very much since they would be prempting CW network HD series programs. Then how do people that want to watch the CW shows get to see them?

And for 11 months KQED in HD was on 9.1. Now it is gone.

I rescanned the cable input last week (hour plus) and got no 9.x and no 117, let alone 117.x.

I am curious because you say KQED-HD comes in on 117, but that would not be a HD channel (needs a .x)
Well my area hasn't had 9.1 at all for the last 11 months, but we have had KQED-HD that entire time at 117.2

When Terry says 117, I'm sure he means 117.x. 117 is just shorthand. There aren't any analog channels up that high so there is no ambiguity.

So regardless of what your scan says, what happens when you press 117.2 on the remote to manually select that channel? How about 117.1?

I don't know if Terry was just confirming the location of KQED-HD or whether he was also confirming he still receives KQED-HD. If the latter, then unless San Carlos is split into multiple headends, it sounds like this is a problem specific to your setup.

sorry, I couldn't read through the entire 400+ pages...

I'm running my basic cable to my hdtv with qam tuner and I get all of the major networks except that Fox during primetime is blacked out...

is there anyway to get Fox hd during primetime?

What I'm saying is if MPEG4 is in the future, they should equip the STBs from now on with MPEG4 decode capability.The new Panasonic OCAP boxes do have MPEG-4 capability.

- Talk

I am using a Sony SXRD XBR1 QAM tuner, which I believe is considered to be a pretty reliable QAM tuner. It even adjusts dynamically after you have done a complete rescan to pick up new PSIP'd channels.

And for 11 months KQED in HD was on 9.1. Now it is gone.

I rescanned the cable input last week (hour plus) and got no 9.x and no 117, let alone 117.x.

I am curious because you say KQED-HD comes in on 117, but that would not be a HD channel (needs a .x)KQED-HD is not "on" 9.1. OTA, it's on rf 30 subchannel 1 and on our 860-MHz cable it's on rf 117 subchannel 2. In both cases, it's supposed to have a PSIP data stream that identifies it as virtual channel "9.1". That PSIP is what's now missing on the cable. However, the HD streams from KGO (7.x) that KQED-HD and ENCORE share rf117 with do still have their PSIP data and I suspect that's what's messing up your tuner--i.e., it doesn't recognize PSIP-less subchannels mixed in with those having a proper PSIP.

My guess is that Comcast hasn't figured out how to split the PSIP properly, now that they're carrying WORLD, LIFE, and KIDS on a difffernt channel (or not at all), so they're not sending any PSIP for the KQED subs.

I don't know if Terry was just confirming the location of KQED-HD or whether he was also confirming he still receives KQED-HD. If the latter, then unless San Carlos is split into multiple headends, it sounds like this is a problem specific to your setup.The latter.

RBurks: Try Hubert's suggestion of keying in "117.2" directly and see if you don't get KQED-HD that way.