When you get TNT-HD make sure you email TNT and ask them to stop stretching 4:3 content !! They even do this with some movies, it's enough to make you gag!!

-Ken

... as you e-mail comcast requesting HDNET and ESPN2...And Universal HD, I suppose.

Suggest that it might be really great if they got Food HD when it comes out in 2006. I know you boys are always talking about WAF, but for goodness sakes, Good Eats is to be enjoyed by EVERYONE... I mean, where else does someone cook in a cardboard box!

Got TNT HD in downtown Philly yesterday as well - channel 204

Still not here across the river in S. Jersey.

While reading this thread I decided to ask Comcast about ESPN2 HD and HDnet, this is their answer:

Thank you for taking the time to write us.

We appreciate that you have taken the time to send us your channel request. At this time we do not carry ESPN-2-HD. I have forwarded your comments to the marketing group responsible for planning future channel changes; channel requests such as this one are an important factor in our channel lineup decision-making process. Adding additional High Definition channels is a priority for us and we hope to have several new HD options available to you soon.

Comcast is dedicated to providing you with the cutting edge technology you demand, adding new HD channels to our lineup is a priority. There are several factors involved with expanding our high definition lineup:

We must negotiate a new contract to obtain the rights to carry a specific high definition broadcast, such as ESPN 2-HD or HD-Net -even if we already carry that network in standard format. We must factor in customer demand while still providing the best possible value to our customers (we have been able to launch all of our HD channels without increasing our rates). New HD launches require us to reallocate resources on our network and that often necessitates complicated hardware upgrades. Another factor is that currently we are still required to provide analog service over our network, that service makes less efficient use of available bandwidth.

We appreciate your channel requests, and we will continue to expand our High Definition offerings. We are unable to provide specific details regarding the launch of new HD channels, as the unpredictable nature of the negotiation process and the necessity to make network changes often makes a timeline difficult to determine. Please check your statement inserts, our website and your Interactive Program guide for updates.



This is the same lame canned response they give on all new channel requests.

Sounds like the same answer Comcast always gives.

This is the same lame canned response they give on all new channel requests.

Now that that's been established, who do we email for a real response?

Now that that's been established, who do we email for a real response?
I don't think getting a real response is necessary. I read that they keep a tally of HD channel requests, and it affects their channel selection, and that is all that counts. :)

TNT-HD has been added in lower Bucks County as of Nov. 1st, on CH 204. There has been some talk about it recently on the thread for Philadelphia in the local HDTV forum. For now everyone on the PA side of the river has it, but NJ does not have it yet, we are guessing it will be a couple more weeks.

Also said they were getting rid of the west coast feeds of Encore,Startz,Cinemax, etc but I still get them.

I don't think getting a real response is necessary. I read that they keep a tally of HD channel requests, and it affects their channel selection, and that is all that counts. :)

In that case, I'm sending an email every week.

And it will be exactly the same every week. :)

I was told that the West coast feeds will be gone on December 1st. So hopefully that have the room to add TNT-HD soon after that.

It is my educated guess, that the next HD channel will be Universal HD and in time for the Winter Olympics in February. My contacts at Comcast have been tightlipped about this as I do not think they like seeing stuff disclosed here but reading the tea leaves leads me to this conclusion.

Comcast in Detroit just added WDWB-DT, the local WB affiliate, just in time for home game broadcasts of the Detroit Pistons in HDTV.

This brings us to 15 dedicated HDTV channels, including 3 of the 4 premium movie channels, 6 of the 7 major broadcast HD networks, along with special event HDTV NBA HD, NHL on OLN, and The NFL Network Game of the Week.

In that case, I'm sending an email every week.

And it will be exactly the same every week. :)
I bet they keep track of which e-mail address requests a channel. I hope you have a few addresses. :D

Regardless, e-mailing them more than a few times probably won't help. :(

It seems like whenever Comcast does add a new channel[HD or not]i never get a message about it coming on my cable box.....it just shows up[unannounced]......so i'm glad to see any info posted here.

It is my educated guess, that the next HD channel will be Universal HD and in time for the Winter Olympics in February. My contacts at Comcast have been tightlipped about this as I do not think they like seeing stuff disclosed here but reading the tea leaves leads me to this conclusion.

But probably not in time here in jersey :rolleyes:

Probably not in the SF bay area either. Curious what UHD looks like from somewhere other than DirecTV.

So why exactly is HDNet not on Comcast and there is no talk about bringing it to Comcast?

I recently moved from a TWC area where I had the INHD's, TNT-HD, HDNet, HDNetMovies, etc to a comcast area where I get the INHD's, but I also want HDNet/HDNetMovies.

Comcast's too cheap to pay to get HDNET.

Comcast's too cheap to pay to get HDNET.

...or their spin is that HDNet and the InHD channels have very similar programming, and HDNet wouldn't add value to the HD lineup. So yeah, it's money.

I've sent several emails to the powers that be at Comcast, all with the "thanks for your input" response. Not the canned response, but the response from management.

From what I can tell HDNet has a completely different flavor from INHD. And it has a news program and more original programming. I'd love to have it on Comcast. Guess I'll have to wait for FIOS.

Comcast an HDNet are talking but I do not think that the talks really get anywhere as Comcast will not pay what HDNet wants. I get it on D* and it would be a great addition to Comcast's lineup and I have told them many times. It is just not high up enough on their focus group demand list.

Guide the focus groups here, where they'll obviously get feedback on HD from Comcast customers! I'd also like HDNet, but I doubt it'd happen. I guess ESPN2HD would be next for me, and then possibly some VOOM channels or future channels.

Focus groups for HDNET are useless. Most people don't know anything about it since there is no SD equivalent that they can relate to. I'm afraid it will be years before HDNET shows up on Comcast. Very sad. Oh well, let's get ESPN2HD and UniversalHD at least and then worry about the 'gem' of HD networks.

Rich N.

And then we can work on:

National Geographic
HGTV
Food
Wealth TV
Rave
Equator
Gallery
Animania
Rush
Ultra
Guy TV
Majestic
Monsters
HD News
Sleuth
MHD
“FOX HD”
Outdoor Channel 2

And by then there will be even more channels, and we will never catch up. :(

How often does Comcast throw us a new HD channel? I've just jumped into HD with my new TV delivered last Saturday. I'm loving it of course, but there aren't enough HD channels. Half of PBS "HD" shows look "HD." ESPN doesn't run everything in HD. Obviously the major networks in HD only have a few shows nightly in HD (I think network shows are awful anyways, I go HBO). I'd have to say Discovery and the INHD channels are the most consistent. I'd love ESPN2 and Comedy Central in HD. I'm curious as to what HDNet is because people here seem to like it.

I signed up with Comcast in June of 2004. Since then three new channels have been added: Discovery HD, WB-HD (KTLA) and TNT-HD. It's not often enough in my book either but it's better than no HD. :)

I just record a bunch of stuff in HD and watch that when nothing else is on.

How often does Comcast throw us a new HD channel? I've just jumped into HD with my new TV delivered last Saturday. I'm loving it of course, but there aren't enough HD channels. Half of PBS "HD" shows look "HD." ESPN doesn't run everything in HD. Obviously the major networks in HD only have a few shows nightly in HD (I think network shows are awful anyways, I go HBO). I'd have to say Discovery and the INHD channels are the most consistent. I'd love ESPN2 and Comedy Central in HD. I'm curious as to what HDNet is because people here seem to like it.

But the thing you are not looking at is who else has more HD, except for E* with the looping Voom channels no other provider has more HD unless you hve more then one cable provider in your area.

Comcast has Cinemax and Starz in HD, D* and E* does not.
D* and E* have the HD-Nets, Comcast does not but does have the InHD channels which D* and E* do not have.
Comcast has TNT-HD, so does E* but not D*.
D* has Universal and ESPN 2, Comcast and E* do not.
D* down converts a lot, E* does a little, Comcast does not.
Where you live, you might get your local sports in HD, on D* and E* you don't.

You mention "Comedy Central in HD", there is no such channel.

No TNT-HD here yet (S. Jersey).

Here in the Portland OR area, I'd *really* like to at least get Fox-Sports NW-HD (Sonics, Mariners in HD), and ESPN2. The Baseball Playoffs were painful...the teams that I wanted to see were invariable not in HD. Fox would play one on FX, is there even FX-HD??? I'd like to see stuff like The Shield in HD...ah well :)

The other big hope is that KOIN and Comcast can stop sword-measuring and get KOIN HD on. It seems dumb for me to get an OTA antenna just for CBS.

Oh...BIG THING...there were some news articles recently that sales of HD capable TV sets are going to BOOM this Christmas and early next year. We need to include that in our messages to Comcast et al. I'm sure they are aware, but it's better than their sorry line of "hardly anyone has HD TV's...such a small percentage of our customers..." etc.

SV

It's not often enough in my book either but it's better than no HD. :)

I've used that expression a lot in my life and I'm starting to despise it. Obviously it's better then nothing, but then again knowing full well what is out there and not getting properly serviced leaves a lot to be desired. I feel sometimes we lay off pressuring of companies because "we could only be so lucky as to have a little bit of it."

Being aggressive and making sure companies know what you want has to be done to get their butts moving and making decisions quicker about costs and supplying us with more channels.

Being aggressive and making sure companies know what you want has to be done to get their butts moving and making decisions quicker about costs and supplying us with more channels.

I can't understand why the networks are dragging their feet --- what new shows in HD have we had in the past year: Letterman, SNL & GMA. The possibilities are endless with daytime programming.

If money is the only issue with HDNet on Comcast, then maybe HDNet is the one to blame. Even if it is carried on Comcast close to free will be a good exposure, once the foot is in, they can start renegotiate contract.

I don't know how many commercials HDNet runs these days, DiscoveryHD has quite a few going and with their exposure I guess ad revenue is starting to show.

Well, I heard something a bit disconcerting in a conversation with a Comcast employee last week. "It's not as much about bandwidth these days, bandwidth/shmandwidth as it is about compression." Please tell me we're not going to start seeing bit-starved HD on Comcast systems in order to increase quantity of HD channels.

Well, I heard something a bit disconcerting in a conversation with a Comcast employee last week. "It's not as much about bandwidth these days, bandwidth/shmandwidth as it is about compression." Please tell me we're not going to start seeing bit-starved HD on Comcast systems in order to increase quantity of HD channels.

And yet compression is not an issue if you bother to shift the majority of the analog tier to digital. 1MHz per SD channel vs. 6MHz per analog channel frees up a lot of bandwidth. Two HD channels without extra compression sounds like a much better use of 6MHz than a snowy, wavy analog channel.

Sure, the NCTA agreed to simulcast the analog channels and digital channels for all over air broadcasters until at least 2014 (see NCTA's Letter on Multicast Must-carry (http://www.ncta.com/pdf_files/NCTA_multicasting_Frist.pdf)). Nonetheless, this adds up to what, 25 channels at most in an exceptional market like LA? 6MHz for analog plus 3MHz for full HD passthrough without additional compression times 25 channels is only 225MHz.

That still leaves an aweful lot of bandwidth in a modern 750MHz or 860MHz plant. Keep in mind that there's no statutory reason that the rest of the channels couldn't clock in at 3MHz for HD and 1MHz for SD. There's just no reason to sacrifice HD quality while wasting inordinate amounts of bandwidth on the analog tier. Even if granny doesn't want a set top box, she would need one to switch from cable to satellite. Cable companies need to move substantially more channels off the analog tier. Otherwise they will not be able to compete with fibre offerings from Verizon and SBC.

Jim

...or their spin is that HDNet and the InHD channels have very similar programming, and HDNet wouldn't add value to the HD lineup. So yeah, it's money.


What really ticks me off about that is that on Time Warner, they have BOTH InHD and HDNet networks! Time Warner doesn't see HDNet as not adding value.

I think it's pathetic that I move from the Kansas City area back to the San Francisco Bay Area, and now I have LESS HD via cable!

Something is wrong here.

I've used that expression a lot in my life and I'm starting to despise it. Obviously it's better then nothing, but then again knowing full well what is out there and not getting properly serviced leaves a lot to be desired. I feel sometimes we lay off pressuring of companies because "we could only be so lucky as to have a little bit of it."

Being aggressive and making sure companies know what you want has to be done to get their butts moving and making decisions quicker about costs and supplying us with more channels.

Good point. But I do that all day long at work. When I get home I just want to watch what's on and not stress about one more thing. There is enough stress for me at work and with the kids.

I can't understand why the networks are dragging their feet --- what new shows in HD have we had in the past year: Letterman, SNL & GMA.

And Conan O'Brien. And American Idol. Also Will and Grace at the end of last December. Plus Nascar and Notre Dame football.

What really ticks me off about that is that on Time Warner, they have BOTH InHD and HDNet networks! Time Warner doesn't see HDNet as not adding value.

Probably because they have an HD tier. At this point I wouldn't mind an HD tier IF it meant more channels, and IF NO SD DIGITAL PACKAGE IS REQUIRED. But it's probably too late for that.

I can't understand why the networks are dragging their feet --- what new shows in HD have we had in the past year: Letterman, SNL & GMA. The possibilities are endless with daytime programming.

In addition to those mentioned by Marcus, virtually all of the UPN prime time schedule, and close to 20 hours more of prime time programming a week this season from the other networks.

Plus, by the end of the season, ESPN (and ESPN2) will have broadcast almost three times as many NCAA football games in HD as in 2004 (including 24 Bowl games -- an increase of 21 from 2004); and the plans for ESPN college basketball this year call for close to four times as many games in HD.

Despite all that, in many ways I agree with your point. As I wrote in the "Hot Off The Press" thread last night, broadcasters had better get on the HD bandwagon, before the networks continue to figure out new ways to distribute their programs (like the VOD deals with Comcast, DirecTV and iPod in the last few days alone).

Only by seriously promoting HD (and forgetting about their asinine plans for mandatory SD multi-casting) will broadcasters have a prayer of at least staying even with the technological advances which threaten to swamp them.

Daytime, local news and syndication would be good places for stations to continue the HD expansion.

When NewsCorp writes off a billion dollars because its TV stations have lost that much value, (as it did on Thursday), you know broadcasters had better come up with something -- fast -- to stem the tide.

And Conan O'Brien. And American Idol. Also Will and Grace at the end of last December. Plus Nascar and Notre Dame football.

And this impresses you? We've had HD for how many years? Hundreds of channels, and among them a total of 3 hours of HD between 11pm and 8pm the following day (GMA and 1 soap opera). 3 1/2 hours total on the weekends (GMA & SNL) excluding sports.

Let's all look forward to 2006, when we've been promised "The Today Show". Maybe if we're lucky we'll get even ANOTHER show in HD in 2007!

jimboG said it all,my thoughts exactly.they have to put many of the analog channels in the digital tier,the people who refuse to rent a box probably watch 3 to 4 channels,and those are local!leaving 25 analog channels would give plenty of hd room for at least the next 4 years.

And this impresses you? We've had HD for how many years? Hundreds of channels, and among them a total of 3 hours of HD between 11pm and 8pm the following day (GMA and 1 soap opera). 2 1/2 hours total on the weekends (GMA & SNL) excluding sports.

Let's all look forward to 2006, when we've been promised "The Today Show". Maybe if we're lucky we'll get even ANOTHER show in HD in 2007!

I don't know if it "impresses" me or not. I was just pointing out some things that were left out, and I was only talking about the broadcast networks, not "hundreds" of channels.

From an article about Universal HD:

"But there is one significant holdout among the operators: Comcast Corp., which has more than 1 million HDTV subscribers. The sticking point for Comcast is the 70- cent to 75- cent subscriber fee that most large operators are shelling out for the channel, according to sources close to the situation."

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6285415.html?display=Special+Report

From an article about Universal HD:

"But there is one significant holdout among the operators: Comcast Corp., which has more than 1 million HDTV subscribers. The sticking point for Comcast is the 70- cent to 75- cent subscriber fee that most large operators are shelling out for the channel, according to sources close to the situation."

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6285415.html?display=Special+Report

Marcus: Thanks for the link.

So while we continue to wait for ESPN2HD, we now lose hope for UHD and certainly for HDNET, who wants even more per subscriber. That is really bad news.

While we do save money by not having an HD Tier, we also must counter that with the loss of new HD channels.

Am I over-reacting? I really thought prospects were good for UHD and ESPN2HD at least on the horizon.

Rats.

Rich N.

Count me as a Comcast customer who would gladly pay more to get more. Might even stop me from moving to Dish once I move into a place where I can get access to the satellite.

I think Comcast doesn't understand the HD mindset. It is to optimize availability, not price. Most of their other customer bases want to optimize price. So it is different. I'm sure that if they went into negotiations with a plan that included a $1 a month increase in DVR lease cost as an offset for higher HD channel aquisition costs they could, without unduly upsetting the HD-DVR community, bring these channels to us. (Pretty weird, isn't it, many of us calling for price increases!). Maybe I'm just being simplistic.

Oh well, maybe it will all turn out OK, but meanwhile, ESPN2HD continues to show more events each week and we barely see it with the poor analog SD version.

Rich N.

I think Comcast doesn't understand the HD mindset. It is to optimize availability, not price. Most of their other customer bases want to optimize price. So it is different. I'm sure that if they went into negotiations with a plan that included a $1 a month increase in DVR lease cost as an offset for higher HD channel aquisition costs they could, without unduly upsetting the HD-DVR community, bring these channels to us. (Pretty weird, isn't it, many of us calling for price increases!). Maybe I'm just being simplistic.

Oh well, maybe it will all turn out OK, but meanwhile, ESPN2HD continues to show more events each week and we barely see it with the poor analog SD version.

Rich N.
The primary Comcast strategic business policy is to provide premium services and command premium subscriber dollars. This is why they have bumped Internet speeds from 3 to 4 to 6Mbps, this is why they are offering unlimited calling on VOIP for $40 a month, etc.

At the same time, they also don't want to pay additional costs for HD channels already carried in analog, or charge customers for just an HD package.

Worse case, I expect once the analog channels are eliminated, we'll see a lot more HD from Comcast.

In effect, there is an HD tier, it is called Digital Classic, which has channels I would otherwise not watch. :)

I actually opted for Digital Plus, because I like a few of those channels. But, if there were an HD tier, I would just get that instead.

I think Comcast doesn't understand the HD mindset. It is to optimize availability, not price. Most of their other customer bases want to optimize price. So it is different. I'm sure that if they went into negotiations with a plan that included a $1 a month increase in DVR lease cost as an offset for higher HD channel aquisition costs they could, without unduly upsetting the HD-DVR community, bring these channels to us. (Pretty weird, isn't it, many of us calling for price increases!). Maybe I'm just being simplistic.

My guess is that they're protecting themselves from the point down the road where it's all HD.

I posted this in our local Chicago Comcast thread. I wouldn't read too much into it but who knows :)

"I was listening to the news on WLS (890 AM in Chicago) today and they mentioned that Comcast is raising prices by 4% in January. The reason is supposedly to offset the cost of some investments and addition of new HD programming."

I posted this in our local Chicago Comcast thread. I wouldn't read too much into it but who knows :)

"I was listening to the news on WLS (890 AM in Chicago) today and they mentioned that Comcast is raising prices by 4% in January. The reason is supposedly to offset the cost of some investments and addition of new HD programming."

Comcast ALWAYS raises their price in January. It's as sure as death and taxes!

An increase of 4% will be viewed by some in the industry as giving the customer a break.

It's about 6 percent here in Sacramento, and there have been exactly NO HDTV channel additions in at least a year. CBS was added around a year ago, but that was it. Not even the usual "See, we are worth the price increase, here's a new channel to show you." Seems like that was ESPN or Discovery 2 years ago, and nothing last year, and appears nothing this year.

7% in San Francisco and nothing has been added in over a year. 7% is a hell of an increase.

Comcast better add more HD channels next year or this rate increase will be seen as a money grab not a necassary thing imho.

Comcast better add more HD channels next year or this rate increase will be seen as a money grab not a necassary thing imho.

They did add LimeTV, Logo, Sprout, and a few other channels. Oh, that's right, Comcast own's a stake in them, so of course they are adding those to the lineups. No room for any more HD channels, but plenty of room to add wasted SD channels.

I know they cant add every channel te day it comes out. But, this is getting old. Come on comcast get us some more HD please.

Comcast will be in big trouble once Verizon's FIOS get rolling. I'm getting the internet service installed this week - 15 mbps downloads and 2 mpbs uploads for $29.99 per month for the first year. This will not be affected by other's using the service on my street. Currently, Comcast gives me 6 mbps downloads and 0.6 mbps uploads IF no one else on the street is using the service (i.e., I never get 6/0.6), at about $45 per month. I will switch to Verizon's TV service next year - competitive pricing and almost unlimited bandwidth and a stated desire to offer as many HD channels as they can - and I believe they will deliver.

Comcast will be in big trouble once Verizon's FIOS get rolling.
Comcast has nothing to worry about from FIOS for many, many years down the road. Less than 5% of the nation is close to having FIOS. It will probably be close to 10 yrs before FIOS has the penetration cable already has.

nhey and keenan: Here is an in-depth article from today's New York Times looking at the whole telco-cable (and satellite) battle.

Calling Out the Cable Guy

By Lorne Manley and Ken Belson The New York Times November 27, 2005

Terry Denson and Dan York are not exactly boldface names in entertainment industry circles, but perhaps they should be. After all, nearly $30 billion and the future of two Baby Bells hang in part on whether these two refugees from the television programming world find success in their new jobs.

Mr. Denson, who works for Verizon Communications, and Mr. York, his counterpart at AT&T, are playing starring roles in their companies' risky forays into the TV business. In the latest twist in an accelerating technological free-for-all, the Baby Bells are trying to shore up their flagging fortunes by muscling their way into what was until just a decade ago the bailiwick of cable companies. Rarely competitors in the past, cable operators and telephone companies are now scrambling to be the one-stop shop that will gladly accept your monthly payments to watch television, use the phone and have high-speed Internet access.

Executives at both Verizon and AT&T, which last week officially changed its name from SBC, hope that the extensive selection of channels, whiz-bang features and low pricing of their video offerings will sway television viewers around the country to switch. Although cable and satellite have spent billions upgrading their delivery systems to accommodate a future in which all forms of entertainment are digital and perhaps interactive, the Baby Bells contend that bandwidth is destiny.

When they're done spending their billions, the phone companies say, they will surpass their rivals. They promise a seemingly infinite number of channels, many in crisp high definition, and plenty of interactive tie-ins, like the ability to check e-mail messages or screen incoming telephone calls on the TV set.

But as the Baby Bells know better than most, talk is cheap and the challenge is daunting. The capital expenditures are staggering. Holding little leverage with the content creators, they also end up paying more for programming than cable companies and satellite operators, who already hold the accounts of 92 million consumers and are rapidly making inroads into the telephone companies' own business of phone service.

What's more, the Baby Bells aren't expected to reach consumers in meaningful numbers anytime soon. Verizon began its Fios service in its first town, Keller, Tex., only two months ago, and AT&T will not roll out a service until later this year or next year. That means that the cable operators will have had years to solidify their relationships with customers for all their television and telecommunications needs.

"It's awfully difficult to see how a late entrant operating at a dramatic cost disadvantage and employing a strategy of charging less for more has any shot at earning acceptable returns," said Craig E. Moffett, a cable and satellite analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.

The phone companies, of course, cannot be discounted. The newly combined AT&T, with $90 billion in revenue, and Verizon, with $71 billion, dwarf the biggest cable operator, Comcast, with $20 billion. The phone giants have about 50 million local phone lines each and their service representatives communicate with many customers each day, offering prime opportunities to sweet-talk them into buying their television services.

The Baby Bells are not strangers to television, either, but that history is one that they would just as soon forget. During the mid-1990's, when the cable companies had the playing field to themselves, telephone companies formed two groups that tried - and failed - to establish TV programming services. Bell Atlantic, Nynex and Pacific Telesis, whose names have mostly been lost to the industry's mania for mergers, worked on Tele-TV, but that consortium's reliance on wireless technology proved its undoing. The other group, called Americast and made up of Ameritech, BellSouth and SBC, never got off the ground.

But the Baby Bells could be forgiven for acting distracted. The landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated the industry and allowed the Baby Bells to jump into the long-distance phone market, offered what seemed like a far cheaper and potentially more lucrative alternative to taking on the cable industry.

Things haven't worked out so swimmingly, however. Nearly 10 years later, the core business of the Baby Bells - renting phone lines - is under attack as never before, shrinking by an average of 4 percent each year over the last three years. Nearly 13 million people are forgoing land lines, relying entirely on cellphones instead, according to CTIA, a wireless-industry trade group. While the erosion has been minimized by the ownership stakes that Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth have in Verizon Wireless and Cingular, the cable companies and small independent concerns like Vonage and SunRocket are picking off thousands of customers a day with their Internet-based phone lines.

In just two years, the cable industry alone has persuaded about two million households or businesses to forsake the phone company. Cablevision has signed up more than 600,000 customers. Time Warner Cable is nearing one million accounts. And Comcast, the country's largest cable operator, with 21.5 million customers, has finally turned its marketing machine on the phone business, meaning that the pace of defections is likely to quicken.

The Baby Bells "see their land-line business as an ice cube melting in the sun right now, so they need to become a purveyor of content," said Todd Dagres, a partner at Spark Capital, a venture firm focused on media and technology.

The formidable task of acquiring that content and taking on the cable operators and satellite companies has fallen to Mr. Denson and Mr. York. The two men share more than a job description. Mr. Denson, 39, and Mr. York, 42, have both worked in midlevel positions on two sides of the television business equation - for the programmers and the cable companies.

Mr. Denson, vice president for video programming and content marketing and strategy at Verizon, toiled at ABC and MTV Networks before moving to Insight Communications, the country's ninth-largest cable operator. Mr. York, executive vice president for programming at AT&T, spent 13 years at HBO and then switched to In Demand, a venture of three cable companies that carries pay-per-view movies and subscription sports packages. They both took their new gigs for similar reasons, attracted by the opportunity to create something new on a large, blank canvas.

And both came into the negotiating process with the upper hand firmly held by the folks across the bargaining table. Content providers like the Walt Disney Company, Viacom and Time Warner charge a per-subscriber fee for their cable networks and demand carriage of some of their smaller cable channels in return for the right to carry the broadcast networks. Few television viewers will scurry to sign up with Verizon or AT&T because they prefer those companies' network architecture.

The prime responsibility of Mr. Denson and Mr. York - buying content at a reasonable price - will be a determining factor, at least until newfangled features like the ability to choose multiple camera angles for a sporting event or to view digital photos become reality.

Facing entrenched competitors, the telephone companies can ill afford not to match or surpass what cable and satellite offer. That imperative has led many analysts covering this converging world to estimate that the content providers will be able to wrest a hefty premium - as much as 25 percent - from Verizon and AT&T, meaning that profitability for the Baby Bells' television services may be years, perhaps decades, away.

Mr. Denson and Mr. York cautioned against accepting too readily the conventional wisdom. "Obviously, we're not negotiating Comcast rates," Mr. Denson said. But those estimates, he said, were off the mark.

Besides, they say, Verizon and AT&T are not entirely lacking in the clout department themselves. "We're not a mom-and-pop start-up cable system," Mr. York said. "We are one of the largest communications companies in the world and partners with some of the content providers already."

Indeed, Verizon and AT&T control the two biggest cellphone companies in the country in Verizon Wireless and Cingular, and content providers searching for new outlets are frantically striking deals with wireless companies to carry their programming. And the two phone giants just happen to be among the biggest advertisers on the media conglomerates' cavalcade of broadcast and cable networks. Annoy them too much, and they could take a chunk of their advertising elsewhere. Companies like Disney, Viacom and NBC Universal, a unit of General Electric and Vivendi Universal, know better - most of the time - than to push too hard and jeopardize a gushing revenue source.

"Don't assume they're paying a big premium," said Sean R. H. Bratches, executive vice president for sales and marketing at ESPN and ABC Sports, both of which are divisions of Disney. Mr. Bratches was the lead negotiator for the parent company's recent deal with Verizon.

Another motive keeps Disney, Viacom and other content providers from exacting too many pounds of flesh. "We are enamored of the fact there will be more gatekeepers in the marketplace," Mr. Bratches said. The more fragmented the industry offering television service, content providers say, the harder it will be for the biggest players, like Comcast, to push back against the annual increases in programming fees that content companies desire and demand.

But the programmers are certainly reaping benefits. For example, all of the cable channels of Disney and Viacom - including relative newcomers like ESPNU, an all-college sports network, and MTV Desi, a music-video-centric channel for South-Asian Americans - reside on Verizon's extended basic tier rather than on a more limited, more expensive digital tier. Disney and Viacom do not have similar deals with any cable operator or satellite provider.

The benefits for the content companies are substantial. They are paid a per-subscriber fee for a lot more people. And getting their newer channels in front of more viewers often translates into higher ratings and more advertising revenue.

Verison will even be a partner on promotions, as it was recently for ESPNU in Keller, Tex.: during a Friday night football game, the company was a co-sponsor of a halftime kicking contest, complete with Randy White, the former Dallas Cowboys star. Disney has also created a whole new revenue stream by persuading Verizon to pay a fee for each of its 4.8 million high-speed Internet subscribers to receive Disney's selection of proprietary broadband Web sites, including ESPN 360.

While Verizon lacks the leverage of cable and satellite companies with their millions of subscribers, it hopes to wow consumers with extra channels and diverse programming. Cable operators have regularly struggled with the capacity constraints of their systems, forced to limit the number of channels so they can deliver innovations like video-on-demand and high-definition channels. "We don't have to make that trade-off or compromise," said Mr. Denson, because Verizon's network is more advanced.

That explains why Verizon and AT&T have agreed to carry on their extended basic tiers truly niche networks like the Soundtrack Channel, a four-year-old offering devoted to - yes - movie soundtracks, with a healthy dollop of entertainment news and features. "Because they are new to the marketplace themselves, their appetite for channels like ours - that will help differentiate their offerings - is far greater," said William Lee, the channel's chief executive.

But just how much prospective customers care about receiving hordes of niche channels - like the Gospel Music Channel and Blackbelt TV - remains unclear.

"There's also too much of a good thing," said Joseph Laszlo, an analyst at Jupiter Research. "If Verizon added the Lint and Dust Channel, they would just end up with a program guide that is difficult to navigate."

The Baby Bells are under no illusions that smaller channels will persuade people to jettison their current providers. "Are we going to get two, three, four percentage points because we have the Black Family Channel?" said Mr. Denson, referring to gains in market share. "No, we're not."

But they will do everything they can to reinforce a message of serving the customer's needs in all aspects, including service, something that the cable industry has struggled with for decades.

In Keller, Tex., about 30 minutes north of Fort Worth, Verizon is doing just that. With its new fiber lines, Verizon can sell multiple phone lines and broadband connections that are six or more times as fast as the cable company's. Verizon's lowest-priced television service charges $39.95 a month for 180 channels. The most similar offering from Charter Communications, the local cable company, provides 260 channels for $52.99.

"The first thing that got me was price. When you're a dad, that's what it's all about," said Tony Rodges, a Keller resident who switched to Verizon's Fios service from Charter. "But then the little things kick in, like the picture, the sound, the channels."

MR. Rodges also marveled at the eagerness of the Verizon technician. "The guy jumped through hoops" for the installation, he said. "I didn't feel he was going to leave me hanging like the cable guys."

Verizon's decision to run fiber-optic cable all the way to customers' homes is a calculated - and expensive - risk, and a counterpoint to AT&T's television strategy. Verizon will spend an estimated $22 billion through 2010 burying high-capacity cables, according to Sanford C. Bernstein research. But that substantial investment gives Verizon the flexibility to add data-hungry high-definition programs, faster broadband speeds and other features that customers like Mr. Rodges are already enjoying. Though costly, these fiber connections are seen by Verizon as the only way to reliably leapfrog the competition. By the end of 2006, the company expects to make these fiber-based services available to six million homes in its territory, including Fairfax, Va., and Huntington Beach, Calif.

By contrast, AT&T is installing fiber cables only to within 3,000 feet of homes and using compression technology to make sure that television, phone and broadband signals can travel the rest of the way over older and narrower wire already in the ground. That will save billions of dollars in construction costs and help AT&T start selling television faster. Sanford C. Bernstein estimates that AT&T will spend more than $7 billion through 2010; the company has said that it will spend about $4 billion through 2008.

But there are hiccups. The software that Microsoft is installing for AT&T has rarely been deployed on such a large scale. And while AT&T says that it will start selling television this year or early in 2006, only one market - the company's home base in San Antonio - is expected to get the service initially. AT&T hopes to make its television service available to 18 million homes by the first half of 2008.

As the Bells rumble into action, cable companies are aggressively selling discounted bundles of television, broadband and phone services. They are also offering many of the services that the Bells expect to provide. Comcast, for instance, now gives away nearly 3,800 hours of on-demand movies and programs to some subscribers. Time Warner Cable and others offer a raft of free interactive features like video games and home shopping and are leasing powerful digital video recorders.

That will not only generate more revenue but will also make it harder for Verizon and AT&T to lure away cable customers. According to Jonathan Schildkraut, an industry analyst at Jefferies & Company, customers who buy at least two products from one company are half as likely to switch carriers than if they had just one.

Mr. Rodges, for example, is already hooked on Verizon's bundle of services, and he is unlikely to switch back. But he is one of the few who have the option of buying television from a Baby Bell.

Brian L. Roberts, the chairman of Comcast, is careful not to count out the phone companies, with their millions of customers, billions of dollars in cash and long history of fighting back. He also knows that the cable industry unwisely laughed off satellite companies when they entered the television market a decade ago. Now, he must wrestle with the likes of DirecTV, which is part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

Even so, Mr. Roberts figures that the Bells have too many hurdles - financial, technical and cultural - to make a serious dent in his business. "I don't understand their economic model; I don't understand how that pays off," he told investors recently. "It didn't work when Bell Atlantic did it. It didn't work when Tele-TV did it. And it didn't get cheaper to do in 2005 and 2006."

How the Baby Bells will fare may be subject to debate, but one outcome can be reliably predicted, said Nicole Browning, president of affiliate sales and marketing for MTV Networks and BET. "It means more choice and more recourse," she said, "when you're not satisfied with what you're getting."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/business/yourmoney/27cable.html?pagewanted=print

Comcast better add more HD channels next year or this rate increase will be seen as a money grab not a necassary thing imho.

And your point is? They've been "grabbing" more money each January ever since day 1.

Good article on FIOS. Essentially by sometime in 2006 there will be maybe 3 communities up and running. As much as I would like to see Comcast face some competition from somewhere other than satellite, FIOS is just not going to be a factor for quite a few(5-10) years.

My point is we need more value for the more $$$ we'll soon be paying.

My point is we need more value for the more $$$ we'll soon be paying.

What we need, would like to have, and get are entirely different things. As I said, they increase their rates every January, no matter what.

Comcast ALWAYS raises their price in January. It's as sure as death and taxes!

Not here they don't....they raise them in April. :D

Good Article.

I can remember where, but recently I read an article about FIOS and the author was advocating that local governments should take over and run a bundle of 2 to 4 trunk fiber lines and remove all cooper and cable. Each trunk would then be leased to various companies giving the consumer multiple choices. The article did acknowledge that this is a far fetched idea, but indicated that the economics might not be that inconceivable for long term usage. However, one of the ideas within the article called for the elimination of Satellite dishes, instead giving the satellite companies the option to lease one of the trunks.

On a side note, the article also talked about a Cell Phone and Landline bundle where each person would get a cell phone number and each house would get a Landline over the FIOS. When someone called the cell number, the system would search for a cell phone on the network, and if none existed, would ring the landline instead. With each person having a different number the landline would ring a different tone for each cell number.

Not here they don't....they raise them in April. :D

Consider yourself lucky --- you get an extra 3 months at the old price!

Comcast will be in big trouble once Verizon's FIOS get rolling. I'm getting the internet service installed this week - 15 mbps downloads and 2 mpbs uploads for $29.99 per month for the first year. This will not be affected by other's using the service on my street. Currently, Comcast gives me 6 mbps downloads and 0.6 mbps uploads IF no one else on the street is using the service (i.e., I never get 6/0.6), at about $45 per month. I will switch to Verizon's TV service next year - competitive pricing and almost unlimited bandwidth and a stated desire to offer as many HD channels as they can - and I believe they will deliver.

try actually using your 15Mbs download speed, see how fast you get disconnected for bandwidth abuse...

try actually using your 15Mbs download speed, see how fast you get disconnected for bandwidth abuse...

Is this actually known to happen on Verizon FIOS? On Comcast I can keep a sustained rate of close to 6 mbps for hours at a time with no obvious problems.

- Tom

Any word on how the negotiations are going with Espn2HD/UHD?

Any word on how the negotiations are going with Espn2HD/UHD?

I sent in my monthly email yesterday inquiring about ESPN2-HD and received the typical canned response that "At this time, Comcast is not planning on broadcasting the ESPN2 HD channel." What's actually going on behind the scenes is anyone's guess.

Hmm..two weeks and no update/news/new rumors. Meanwhile, E* announces ESPN2HD and 5 more VOOM channels in January, as well as HD LiL (evidently needing another dish, I'm not familiar with satellites).

Rich N.

Hmm..two weeks and no update/news/new rumors.

See this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=611628&page=1&pp=30

Marcus, thanks.

Rich N.

Looking at that answere they gave it could be read as "we're talking to dozens of stations and finalizing aggreements which may not pan out in the end.... we will be adding stations (not mentioning dozens when saing they are adding stations) soon."

So they may be "finalizing discussions" with dozens of stations but that doesn't mean we're getting dozens of stations. I think Like most of you I'll believe it when I see it. But of course if I don't see it before FIOS TV shows up then some lucky comcast rep will be saying "And whats the reason for your leaving comcast sir?"

I'm really getting annoyed with Comcast. Come on! At least pick up UHD already. It's been long enough.

I just talked to Comcast Corporate office today. They have no plans to add ANY new HD channels through the end of February. I wish everyone to call this number: 215-665-1700 and make your feelings known!!!!!

It'd be nice to have UniversalHD for the Winter Olympics since NBC will be airing almost all their HD hockey games on that channel.

It'd be nice to have UniversalHD for the Winter Olympics since NBC will be airing almost all their HD hockey games on that channel.
Agreed. This is almost enough to make me leave Comcast.

It'd be nice to have UniversalHD for the Winter Olympics since NBC will be airing almost all their HD hockey games on that channel.

I hoped the same for the NBA on TNT-HD last year and still our market does not have the channel. Chances are that we might get the the UHD channel after the China Olympics. :D

It's been a while since Comcast added an HD channel here in SJ. Seems like wondering what could be "next" is an excercise in frustration. I'd love to see UHD added, but anything at all would be welcome. I think the bandwidth issues are the holdup. Sad to think all those home shopping and cropped movie networks are preventing HD expansion.

Eventually they'll figure it out, especially if they start losing affluent subscribers to Satellite. But it's hard to complain. I remember well the days before cable, when ten OTA channels seemed like a lot.

It looks like Comcast will be carrying the Universal HD Olympics coverage on one of the INHD channels. There is no bandwidth available to carry Universal HD at this time but the Olympics coverage was thought of as important enough to strike this kind of deal. Hopefully Universal HD will be added in the next couple of months.

It looks like Comcast will be carrying the Universal HD Olympics coverage on one of the INHD channels. There is no bandwidth available to carry Universal HD at this time but the Olympics coverage was thought of as important enough to strike this kind of deal. Hopefully Universal HD will be added in the next couple of months.
That's great news. Thanks, JWhip.

Mickey

I know we have room in Baltimore because we have a special events channel that hasn't been used in months. I wonder if whatever deal they made will allow them to add UHD 24/7 by next Friday.

No it will not.

It looks like Comcast will be carrying the Universal HD Olympics coverage on one of the INHD channels. There is no bandwidth available to carry Universal HD at this time but the Olympics coverage was thought of as important enough to strike this kind of deal. Hopefully Universal HD will be added in the next couple of months.

JWhip,

That's really good info. Will all Comcast areas be doing this?

Also, is Comcast doing anything to free up bandwidth in the next couple of months to add it as a regular channel or what?

channel 170 on our guide here in nashville(universal hd)

channel 170 on our guide here in nashville(universal hd)

On Comcast?

Yes I also have it showing up here in Franklin/Nashville on Comcast. I'm starting to see some guide data filtering in all the way up through the Olympics, but the channel itself is still black screen.

I do not have the particulars other than the Olympics will be shown in HD on INHD2. It may be that Universal HD will be added as a full time channel on systems with the bandwidth to do do and shown on INHD2 in systems that do not. There, the Olympics coverage should be available on all Comcast systems, one way or the other, provided they at least get INHD2. Universal HD should be added in the Philly market within the next couple of months full time. Hopefully it will look a lot better than it does on D*.

No it will not.


I do not have the particulars other than the Olympics will be shown in HD on INHD2. It may be that Universal HD will be added as a full time channel on systems with the bandwidth to do do and shown on INHD2 in systems that do not. There, the Olympics coverage should be available on all Comcast systems, one way or the other, provided they at least get INHD2. Universal HD should be added in the Philly market within the next couple of months full time. Hopefully it will look a lot better than it does on D*.

Guess you misunderstood my question.

I do not believe they have the bandwidth in Baltimore-Washington. Maybe they do. You will know soon.

What is being done to free up bandwidth and for what reason are we the only people with west coast channels

STW2323- Which dept in corporate did you speak to Marketing, Programming etc.?

I do not believe they have the bandwidth in Baltimore-Washington. Maybe they do. You will know soon.

JWhip, do the people you talk to have any info on the bandwidth situation in the Boston area?

JWHIP -

The Trenton NJ Comcast office recently started offering the Motorola 3415 STB.
Does this mean we now have the bandwidth to add more HD stations soon?

I an confirm that Comcast and Universal have in fact reached a deal. I had heard that a couple of weeks ago but didn't ewant to post it here until I confirmed it. The deal permits Comcast to carry Universal HD but does not mandate it. It depends on region by region. IN short, it is TNT-HD all over again. The Philly market DOES NOT have bandwidth to carry it at this time. It is thought that the Olympics coverge was most important, so that will preempt INHD2 programming on our system. Nashville has the bandwidth as I am sure other areas do as well. I do not believe any system in SE Pa or any part of NJ will carry the channel full time for awhile. I do not know how long. Frankly, I get it on D* and do not think you are really missing anything as I almost never watch it. However, I realize that others will disagree with that asessment.

I created a seperate thread for Comcast adding Universal:

Universal HD coming to Comcast! (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=639557)

Frankly, I get it on D* and do not think you are really missing anything as I almost never watch it. However, I realize that others will disagree with that asessment.

I'm excited for it just for Olympic hockey!!

I'm excited for it just for Olympic hockey!!

Me too! this is great news for me.

Hey JWHIP can you give me any info regarding Comcast here in Denver if we will be receiving anything new in HD or if we have the bandwith available?

The Trenton NJ Comcast office recently started offering the Motorola 3415 STB.
Does this mean we now have the bandwidth to add more HD stations soon?I've never heard of a Motorola 3415. What's so special about it that it should add bandwidth?

He probably means a 3416, same as the 64xx series only it has no analog tuner which means his area has ADS.

I've never heard of a Motorola 3415. What's so special about it that it should add bandwidth?

Comcast is rolling out Motorola 3412s here in Minneapolis/St. Paul. It's a digital-only HD DVR (no analog tuner). It can be used in Comcast systems that are simulcasting the analog channels digitally. The 3412 is 120GB.

I don't think there is a 3415 - but there is a 3416 (160GB) and a 3432 (320GB). I haven't heard of Comcast deploying anything other than the 3412.

Battlestar Galactica In Hd Woohooo !!!

What is most upsetting that it has been at least a year that Comcast has known that they needed to upgrade their system and free up bandwidth and they still have not done so. If this was my company I would be looking for a new CTO. Apparently they have gotten so big that they cannot get this done. This is IBM all over again!

Is there any way to find out if Comcast in Grand Rapids, MI will had UHD? I'm not sure if we have free bandwidth or not, but I'd guess that we do since we don't have CBS, WB or UPN HD.

They are probably just saving up to buy some other huge corporation.

I doubt it considering some of their recent layoffs and corporate reorganization.

Is there any way to find out if Comcast in Grand Rapids, MI will had UHD? I'm not sure if we have free bandwidth or not, but I'd guess that we do since we don't have CBS, WB or UPN HD.
Really?! That stinks.

But...that brings up the fact that WB and UPN are merging. That should open up some bandwidth. Anyone know the timeframe for that?

Really?! That stinks.

But...that brings up the fact that WB and UPN are merging. That should open up some bandwidth. Anyone know the timeframe for that?

I think the article said everything would be finalized before next season (sometime in June?).

I doubt it considering some of their recent layoffs and corporate reorganization.
It looks like the upgrade process is slowing down as well, from the 4th QTR report,

Upgrade capital in 2005 declined $637 million or 70.7% to $265 million.
The decline in capital expenditures was due primarily to a $119 million or 72.5% decline in plant upgrade spending in the fourth quarter of 2005.

Of course the above doesn't mean that low bandwidth areas haven't already been budgeted for upgrade, but it looks like the massive spending on upgrading the system is on the downslope.

I recommend anyone who is interested to read the whole report,

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=811813&highlight=
Comcast - Press Room - Press Release

What is most upsetting that it has been at least a year that Comcast has known that they needed to upgrade their system and free up bandwidth and they still have not done so. If this was my company I would be looking for a new CTO. Apparently they have gotten so big that they cannot get this done. This is IBM all over again!

The only way I see them freeing up bandwidth at this point is to move 3-5 analogs to the digital tier and open up room for 6-10 HD channels. I can't see how it would make sense for them to increase bandwidth for systems that don't have any to spare at this point since their big initiative is to get every analog simulcasted in digital. Once they can start moving analogs to the digital tier they'd end up with more bandwidth than they'd ever need.

As much as I hate to say it I don't think I'll be seeing any new HD on system (750mhz) for many months.

Frankly, I get it on D* and do not think you are really missing anything as I almost never watch it. However, I realize that others will disagree with that asessment.

Amen Whip. I understand why people that want to see a lot of the Olympics in HD have been clamoring for UHD, but otherwise this channel should be near the bottom of anybody's priority list. I recently dumped D*, but when I had it, I was dumbfounded by UHD. The programming was brutal, unless you like constant repeats of The District and Karen Sisco. Every three weeks or so they'd throw on a good movie or two, but that was about it. I liked it much better when it was the Bravo-HD channel, or whatever its old name was. I couldn't believe that D* was using its precious bandwidth and actually making me pay for a channel that I watched with the frequency of EWTN. Since switching back to Comcast I haven't once found myself longing for UHD again. I'm sure I'll tune in during the Olympics, but I'm hoping Comcast gives me TNT, ESPN2 and just about anything else before sticking me with UHD.

Amen Whip. I understand why people that want to see a lot of the Olympics in HD have been clamoring for UHD, but otherwise this channel should be near the bottom of anybody's priority list. I recently dumped D*, but when I had it, I was dumbfounded by UHD. The programming was brutal, unless you like constant repeats of The District and Karen Sisco. Every three weeks or so they'd throw on a good movie or two, but that was about it. I liked it much better when it was the Bravo-HD channel, or whatever its old name was. I couldn't believe that D* was using its precious bandwidth and actually making me pay for a channel that I watched with the frequency of EWTN. Since switching back to Comcast I haven't once found myself longing for UHD again. I'm sure I'll tune in during the Olympics, but I'm hoping Comcast gives me TNT, ESPN2 and just about anything else before sticking me with UHD.Then again, there are those of us who care little for sports and music videos, and since there is no chance of seeing HDNet in the near future, UHD is the only other channel of its sort with a variety of TV shows and movies.

I rarely watch TNT-HD with their stretch-o-vision and cropping.

Comcast is rolling out Motorola 3412s here in Minneapolis/St. Paul. It's a digital-only HD DVR (no analog tuner). It can be used in Comcast systems that are simulcasting the analog channels digitally. The 3412 is 120GB.

I don't think there is a 3415 - but there is a 3416 (160GB) and a 3432 (320GB). I haven't heard of Comcast deploying anything other than the 3412.


My mistake - I meant the 3412.

What does it mean to the amount of available bandwidth that they are simulcasting analog channels digitally?? Does it mean they will be getting rid of the analog channels??

I have the 3412 also. I'd prefer a larger hard drive but at least all my channels are digital and take up less space (except the HD channels of course).

Comcast will have to deploy out a whole lot of digital boxes before dumping analog.

I'd prefer a larger hard drive but at least all my channels are digital and take up less space (except the HD channels of course).

Actually they take up MORE space because there is now an analog and digital version of each (2-99).

Actually they take up MORE space because there is now an analog and digital version of each (2-99).

I was talking about recording space on the hard drive.

Amen Whip. I understand why people that want to see a lot of the Olympics in HD have been clamoring for UHD, but otherwise this channel should be near the bottom of anybody's priority list. I recently dumped D*, but when I had it, I was dumbfounded by UHD. The programming was brutal, unless you like constant repeats of The District and Karen Sisco. Every three weeks or so they'd throw on a good movie or two, but that was about it. I liked it much better when it was the Bravo-HD channel, or whatever its old name was. I couldn't believe that D* was using its precious bandwidth and actually making me pay for a channel that I watched with the frequency of EWTN. Since switching back to Comcast I haven't once found myself longing for UHD again. I'm sure I'll tune in during the Olympics, but I'm hoping Comcast gives me TNT, ESPN2 and just about anything else before sticking me with UHD.

I couldn't disagree with you more. UHD means Battlestar and just more HD in general. You think UHD is bad with repeats. Try INHD or INHD2. Even DiscoveryHD is bad about repeats. Hell, I would still love to see TNT-HD to get Wanted. I have serious doubts that UHD will make to Denver any time soon, though.

Hell, I would still love to see TNT-HD to get Wanted. I have serious doubts that UHD will make to Denver any time soon, though.

Too late, Wanted has been cancelled. :D

I liked it much better when it was the Bravo-HD channel, or whatever its old name was.
Agreed, I liked it better when it was Bravo-HD, now it's basically just a wasteland where NBC/Uni dumps it's canceled shows, with an occasional HD simulcast of the Olympics and tennis. It does have BG, but only after it's aired 6-9 mos earlier on SciFi.

After Moving from San Diego with Time Warner Cable, the local comcast cell (They feel like HDTV Terrorists) only offers about 10 HD channels, thats if I subscribe to HBO and Showtime. They only offer ABC, FOX, PBS, InHD InHD2, ESPN, TNT, Discovery. They have NBC-HD but none of their CSRs are aware of it because they havent updated their Channel line ups or CSR Propaganda training in a while. I miss HDNet, and would love Universal HD for Olympics. I would love for them to offer CBS-HD. I Have Zero faith they will add CW come fall.

I think Comcast is phasing OUT HD programming. The other Cable Co in ABQ here isnt any better having CBS but no NBC. I would be surprised if Comcrap adds any new HD channels.

Wheres my Dish Network Representative?

I couldn't disagree with you more. UHD means Battlestar and just more HD in general. You think UHD is bad with repeats. Try INHD or INHD2. Even DiscoveryHD is bad about repeats. Hell, I would still love to see TNT-HD to get Wanted. I have serious doubts that UHD will make to Denver any time soon, though.

Cool people call it "Battlestar". :)

After Moving from San Diego with Time Warner Cable, the local comcast cell (They feel like HDTV Terrorists) only offers about 10 HD channels, thats if I subscribe to HBO and Showtime. They only offer ABC, FOX, PBS, InHD InHD2, ESPN, TNT, Discovery. They have NBC-HD but none of their CSRs are aware of it because they havent updated their Channel line ups or CSR Propaganda training in a while. I miss HDNet, and would love Universal HD for Olympics. I would love for them to offer CBS-HD. I Have Zero faith they will add CW come fall.

I think Comcast is phasing OUT HD programming. The other Cable Co in ABQ here isnt any better having CBS but no NBC. I would be surprised if Comcrap adds any new HD channels.

Wheres my Dish Network Representative?

Boston has ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,WB AND UPN which means CW,PBS,TNT,ESPN,Hdnet (well not yet),INHD1 and 2,Local Bruins,Celtics and REd Sox games in HD, and you don't need extedned basic to get digital cable. Around $25 mo or so gets you all that HD programming :>

Too late, Wanted has been cancelled. :D
Ouch. I was figuring that it would be. Just read the official notice. Yep, cooked. Bummer!

Cool people call it "Battlestar". :)
Ultrakewl people call it BG, but I didn't want to confuse anyone :rolleyes:

Cool people call it "Battlestar". :)

See, I'd have thought that cool people don't watch it.

JUST KIDDING, I swear. I don't want a legion of Sci-Fi geeks attacking me. Just my attempt at humor at other people's expense. It's what I do. No offense. :)

As another poster said about the repeats on INHD (1&2), Discovery HD, I agree with him/her, but the difference is I'm not paying extra for those stations anymore, UHD included. And UHD is the dumping grounds for bad/cancelled NBC shows. Shouldn't be long before "The Book of Daniel" shows up there.

I an confirm that Comcast and Universal have in fact reached a deal. I had heard that a couple of weeks ago but didn't ewant to post it here until I confirmed it. The deal permits Comcast to carry Universal HD but does not mandate it. It depends on region by region. IN short, it is TNT-HD all over again. The Philly market DOES NOT have bandwidth to carry it at this time. It is thought that the Olympics coverge was most important, so that will preempt INHD2 programming on our system. Nashville has the bandwidth as I am sure other areas do as well. I do not believe any system in SE Pa or any part of NJ will carry the channel full time for awhile. I do not know how long. Frankly, I get it on D* and do not think you are really missing anything as I almost never watch it. However, I realize that others will disagree with that asessment.


Universal-HD is supposed to be the second NBC network channel to carry the Olympics in HD. For that reason alone I'd like to have it. I'd also like TNT-HD for the NBA games, not to mention some of their in-house made programs (example: The Closer).

What would be nice is if we had more of a cafeteria-style approach to packages. I figure I watch maybe 40 channels consistently. It would be nice to take only the channels I want and, if I wanted to watch another one, say for a day here and there, be able to order it for the day through OnDemand. There should be no reason why they can't do it technically.

INHD-1 sank to a new low the other day. They showed a HIGH SCHOOL basketball game from somewhere in Kansas. It was in HD, of course.

What in the *&!# are they thinking?

They don't do that on HDNet.

And Comcast can do better when it comes to filling out their HD channel lineup. I'd take a test pattern in HD over a high school basketball game from *&$# Kansas!

INHD-1 sank to a new low the other day. They showed a HIGH SCHOOL basketball game from somewhere in Kansas. It was in HD, of course.

What in the *&!# are they thinking?

They don't do that on HDNet.

And Comcast can do better when it comes to filling out their HD channel lineup. I'd take a test pattern in HD over a high school basketball game from *&$# Kansas!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/customavatars/avatar7558623_1.gif

You have something against Kansas? ;)

INHD-1 sank to a new low the other day. They showed a HIGH SCHOOL basketball game from somewhere in Kansas. It was in HD, of course.

What in the *&!# are they thinking?

They don't do that on HDNet.

And Comcast can do better when it comes to filling out their HD channel lineup. I'd take a test pattern in HD over a high school basketball game from *&$# Kansas!

INHD1 has become a sports channel (I like sports, so that's good) but they don't have enough major sports to justify it (oops, I forgot competitive eating...).

INHD2 has everything else. Unfortunately, everything else is almost nothing first-run. How many times have they shown the same IMAX movies? PBSHD is far superior to INHD and that is very sad. But we do watch Forensic Factor and other shows and have enjoyed many programs there. They just don't make a financial effort to provide sufficient programming to rival HDNET.

It is incredible that Comcast thinks INHD1&2 are competitive with HDNET/Movies.

Similarly, I guess we'll never get NGHD because of its similarity to DiscoveryHD.

Perhaps in Baltimore we'll be getting UHD before the Olympics since our area is very good at getting new channels on-line.

Rich N.

INHD1 has become a sports channel (I like sports, so that's good) but they don't have enough major sports to justify it (oops, I forgot competitive eating...).

Perhaps in Baltimore we'll be getting UHD before the Olympics since our area is very good at getting new channels on-line.

Rich N.

Might as well call it OLN and simulcast it in analog. It already has OLN hockey.

JWhip said Baltimore may not have enough bandwidth for UHD. We'll see. It's an 860MHz system, every digital channel is 256 QAM, and all but two PPV channels have been dropped. Plus HD Special Events hasn't been used in months.

And then there's the pamphlet Comcast sent me that says more HD channels coming soon, for whatever that's worth. (Nothing?)

See, I'd have thought that cool people don't watch it.

JUST KIDDING, I swear. I don't want a legion of Sci-Fi geeks attacking me. Just my attempt at humor at other people's expense. It's what I do. No offense. :)

As another poster said about the repeats on INHD (1&2), Discovery HD, I agree with him/her, but the difference is I'm not paying extra for those stations anymore, UHD included. And UHD is the dumping grounds for bad/cancelled NBC shows. Shouldn't be long before "The Book of Daniel" shows up there.

What's wrong with a little sci-fi?!?!??! No offense taken. Honestly though, Comcast could pump out Home and Garden in HD and would be happy that we are actually getting a NEW HD channel!

The Book of Daniel didn't last long, now did it? WOW...

I'm still hoping that a SLEW of new HD will come along so I can watch Food Network in HD.

A girl can dream, right?

Why hasn't this been moved into the appropriate forum?

Why hasn't this been moved into the appropriate forum?

This is the HD Programming forum. Where else should it be?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=45

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=45

Which locality are you suggesting this should be restricted to?

All I can tell you is that when a Cablevision thread was started, it was moved to that particular forum. Don't shoot the messenger...

All I can tell you is that when a Cablevision thread was started, it was moved to that particular forum. Don't shoot the messenger...

Not shooting the messenger, just didn't understand the POV. I don't know what happened with the Cablevision thread, but this Comcast thread is spanning the country, so I'm pretty sure it can't be confined to any specific local thread.

raidbuck, until the case with Comcast and INHD and HD Net, Comcast does not have a large financial stake in Discovery HD vs. National Geographic HD.

raidbuck, until the case with Comcast and INHD and HD Net, Comcast does not have a large financial stake in Discovery HD vs. National Geographic HD.

Thanks, JWhip, maybe my pessimism was unwarranted. Any chance we could get it in 2007? We might as well start beating the drum now.

Although I would love HDNET, there is only so much TV I can watch and if Comcast gets UHD in service and adds ESPN2HD and then NGCHD I think my needs would be met (famous semi-last words). I really do wish INHD would show more new programming though.

Rich N.

So do I Rich!

I think Comcast is phasing OUT HD programming.Keep thinking.

All I can tell you is that when a Cablevision thread was started, it was moved to that particular forum.Cavlevision has a small regional footprint. Comcast is national. Got it?

Would love to see Comcast add the NFL Network HD channel, along with Real Madrid TV in English. I'm a huge football fan and I would love to see the NFL Network HD channel added, as they will be airing Live games on Thursdays and Saturdays next season.
As for Real Madrid Television, the club has been in negotiations with around 70 cable and satellite providers from at least 50 countries worldwide. One would hope to assume that Comcast would be in on those talks. Real Madrid would like to have their in-house cable channel available in the basic tier programming packages on the various cable and satellite providers' systems.

Would love to see Comcast add the NFL Network HD channel, along with Real Madrid TV in English. I'm a huge football fan and I would love to see the NFL Network HD channel added, as they will be airing Live games on Thursdays and Saturdays next season.
As for Real Madrid Television, the club has been in negotiations with around 70 cable and satellite providers from at least 50 countries worldwide. One would hope to assume that Comcast would be in on those talks. Real Madrid would like to have their in-house cable channel available in the basic tier programming packages on the various cable and satellite providers' systems.

Comcast has shown the NFL Network HD game of the week since it started 2 years ago so I think that we will see those games, on INHD if nothing else. We'll see next fall.

Rich N.

Rich thanks. Ya hopefully Comcast will show those games on INHD + INHD 2 if they're not going to pick up NFL Network HD. I still hope they do, considering Verizon and DirecTV are providing it.
For those who might be interested, apparantly Real Madrid has indeed been in disucssions with U.S. cable and satellite providers in the U.S. in trying to secure carriage deals for Real Madrid Televison. Here is an article I found over at Big Soccer. Its a great read. The network is available in both English and Spanish.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/yourmoney/madrid07.php

Cant stand comcast, now they are showing NBA on INHD instead of the NHL. They are showing the OLNHD game on tape delay at midnight. This is like the 2nd week in a row they have done this. Why did you pay for the NHL then? Who says there is not enough sports programming. As it is we already have YESHD and MSG HD sharing INHD2. This means Yankees, Nets, Rangers, Knicks, Devils, Islander all sharing 1 channel. Who nknow what will happens with the Mets channels when baseball start in the spring also.

INHD2 is showing hockey game stars 2 predators 1 end of the 2nd.

Cant stand comcast, now they are showing NBA on INHD instead of the NHL. They are showing the OLNHD game on tape delay at midnight. This is like the 2nd week in a row they have done this. Why did you pay for the NHL then? Who says there is not enough sports programming. As it is we already have YESHD and MSG HD sharing INHD2. This means Yankees, Nets, Rangers, Knicks, Devils, Islander all sharing 1 channel. Who nknow what will happens with the Mets channels when baseball start in the spring also.

That is INHD doing that NOT Comcast.

The Mets will have their own dedicated HD channel which they are partnering with Comcast which should be available by beginning of Baseball season. Comcast is currently building the studio.

Why does the INHSE channel exist? In the short time that I've had Comcast's HD package, I've never seen any actual programming on it. Just an all-white screen with the INHD logo at the top center. Seems like a big waste IMO.

Why does the INHSE channel exist? In the short time that I've had Comcast's HD package, I've never seen any actual programming on it. Just an all-white screen with the INHD logo at the top center. Seems like a big waste IMO.

I think it depends on the area. But in my area they showed the NFLHD network programming. It was not on 24/7 on though. They may use this channel for the Winter Olympics

I think it depends on the area. But in my area they showed the NFLHD network programming. It was not on 24/7 on though. They may use this channel for the Winter Olympics
They also show the Kings games (CSN-Sacramento) on that channel in our area.

I get the Kings on channel INHD, only I get on HSE in NFLHD and when actor gets a star, other than that its a waste of bandwidth.

Universal-HD just showed up here (South Jersey) on channel 208.

Universal-HD just showed up here (South Jersey) on channel 208.

Yeah but is it permanent is the big question

Yeah but is it permanent is the big question
Negotiations are not complete, but Comcast did get special permission to show UNI-HD for the Olympics. So given that, I would guess it would be available full-time relatively soon.

Reminds me of last year when I got FOX (Sinclair-owned station) just for the Super Bowl and Daytona 500, and then it was added permanently a few weeks later.

UHD is on Comcast of ALexandria VA on 227, taking the place of INHD2

STW2323- Which dept in corporate did you speak to Marketing, Programming etc.?

At that time, I spoke with programming. I did just get a call from Comcast today letting me know that they are adding UHD at least for the Olympics here in Chicago. I hope that is a sign of good things to come from them!!

Channel 208 here in Pembroke Pines, FL(SW Broward county)

Comcast here in South New Jersey added 208 UNHD. It's on the air!

846 in Boston for UHD.

Nothing here in Ocean County, NJ. :(

242 in Panama City. Calling it NBCU in the guide.

As of last night nothing in Central NJ.

UHD is showing on channel 208 in the philly suburbs via comcast. I am in Montgomery County

UHD is on 250 in Harford County, MD north of Baltimore. INHD1&2 still on. HD ON DEMAND moved from 250 to 247.

Hopefully we'll keep it after the Olympics and then get ESPN2HD before baseball. (I'd really like it before March madness, I'll bet the 2HD will have tournament games).

Rich N.

As of last night nothing in Central NJ.
UHD has replaced INHD2 in central Jersey. The guide has gone to "to be announced" for all of channel 207.

Nothing here in Ocean County, NJ. :(

I went back 45 mins later and it was on 208. :)

Just got UHD. Thank God it didn't replace INHD2 or anything. It is it's own station.

Universal-HD is now available in Central Pa. on channel 208.

Universal-HD is now available in Central Pa. on channel 208.It's also a new channel.

The next HD channel here in Detroit is UHD on 208. Only problem is that I am not at all impressed so far with the programming. Hope it improves.

no universal hd in las cruces, new mexico and inhd2 is still inhd2

UHD is up on my system in Pittsburgh.

YES! Knight Rider in HD!!! :rolleyes:

UHD has replaced INHD2 in central Jersey. The guide has gone to "to be announced" for all of channel 207.

Same in North NJ. Just glad INHD2 is coming back. UHD programming is terrible. With the library of NBC, Sci-Fi, USA, and Universal-MCA at hand....THIS is what they come up with????

uhd did show up here today but on the inhd2 channel. I miss my inhd2!

Knight Rider looked like an upconvert not real HD imho

Knight Rider looked like an upconvert not real HD imho

but a well made upconvert.

Looks HD to me, though it's on the soft side.

Knight Rider looked like an upconvert not real HD imho

Same with Quantum Leap

Well, ^^^, then I consider myself very fortunate that Comcast will dump this crap after the Olympics.

Comcast has already switched back to INHD to show the Islanders game. They've bumped the Olympics after only 1 day. Way to go....

Comcast has already switched back to INHD to show the Islanders game. They've bumped the Olympics after only 1 day. Way to go....

Here in Denver they will continue to preempt the UHD programming to show Nuggets games in HD (Avs too if they played during the Olympics). But other than that it's UHD through the Olympics. It may be the same way in other markets as well.

But about the UHD programming, I can't agree more with the general sentiment. Choosing to air pre HD television shows on an HD channel in 16:9 format is an act of sheer idiocy on the part of the UHD programming department. You put chimps in a board room they could come up with something better. And of the movie selection, the best movies movies they show are 12 Monkeys and The Frighteners. They show Jaws 2 but not Jaws 1? At least they have Battlestar Galactica, even if it is a couple of months behind.

Comcast has already switched back to INHD to show the Islanders game. They've bumped the Olympics after only 1 day. Way to go....

maybe they think the programming on UHD is not so great as well?

:p

Comcast has already switched back to INHD to show the Islanders game. They've bumped the Olympics after only 1 day. Way to go....
I'm just 60 miles north of you in Essex County and Ch.207 still has Universal.No switch to NHL hockey on Comcast here.

Same with Quantum Leap

Not just upconveted but it looks like they zoomed in, to make it full screen.

Well, ^^^, then I consider myself very fortunate that Comcast will dump this crap after the Olympics.

I think we should all be wanting EVERY HD channel available, when it's available. The move is to HD (albeit very slowly). It isn't helping that the #1 cable system isn't carrying a lot of the channels that are available.

myself, I rather have UHD then INHD2, and if comcast brings INHD2 back after the olympic, then they should replace HSE with UHD, since there is never anything worth watching on it

Not just upconveted but it looks like they zoomed in, to make it full screen.

This is the thing I can't get over. Is there anyone who would buy an HDTV who would want to watch this?

This is the thing I can't get over. Is there anyone who would buy an HDTV who would want to watch this?

No. Knight Rider and Quantum Leap all day long is total crap. Let's hope for an improvement in programming on this channel in the future. I havn't had the channel long enough to know what's on, but apparently there are some specials and original series: http://www.universalhd.com/

This is the thing I can't get over. Is there anyone who would buy an HDTV who would want to watch this?

NO, not if all the programs look like knight rider and Q-leap, but L&O & medical Invest. looks great, very clear and true 16:9

No. Knight Rider and Quantum Leap all day long is total crap. Let's hope for an improvement in programming on this channel in the future. I havn't had the channel long enough to know what's on, but apparently there are some specials and original series: http://www.universalhd.com/

I'm recording Battlestar Galactica tonight just to see how it looks in HD. That's one show I'm excited to see on this new channel. I'm not really into the Olympics.

I'm recording Battlestar Galactica tonight just to see how it looks in HD. That's one show I'm excited to see on this new channel. I'm not really into the Olympics.Tommorow night (Sunday).

Tommorow night (Sunday).

Oops. Yeah that's right. thanks. :)

NO, not if all the programs look like knight rider and Q-leap, but L&O & medical Invest. looks great, very clear and true 16:9

Exactly, the L&O and MI episodes were shot, I would assume, after HDTV went on the market, so they would be composed for the 16:9 frame. No problems there. I'm not sure what they are doing with the older shows, but I guess if there were 35mm prints available they should be able to make a good HD transfer (most shows are shot on 35mm, but I don't know if they would actually make 35mm prints of episodes, considering they like). But there's no getting around fitting them into a 16:9 frame besides cropping the image. It's ridiculous. I'd love to know what the hell they were thinking. It seems to me they must not have much respect for the intelligence of the audience.

I believe HD channel addition is not the big issue on the table currently

I believe the precise decision is currently on hold as COMCAST certainly is aware that the SATs are starting to dumb their signals down with HD lite, thus COMCAST will hold its cards until it sees how the SATs will play out their hand

COMCAST could add a huge amount of HD subscribers right now simply by making it clear they are running (simply stated) "real HD" and SATs are moving to HD lite. Since COMCAST'S major competitors are backing down quality, then Comcast has far less incentive to add more HD channels - as a mere emphasis on qualitative differences over quantitative differences over SAT - would win them new subscribers

One has to wonder why COMCAST is holding back going after SATs with this type of "COMCAST HD is real/SATs are Lite" campaign, and the only reason I can surmise is that COMCAST must themselves still be considering a move to HD Lite

Alternatively, it could be that COMCAST is letting the the SATs dig their HD Lite hole must deeper, and they will eventually launch a vicious anti HD Lite counterattack when the time arrives

Many people have waited 20 yrs for for HD TVs and broadcasts to arrive, nd waited patiently as the Japanese NHK analog system was knocked out with the promise of the down the road digital HD

And now we have one major segment of the industry, the Satellites dumbing down HD quality on many "HD" channels. There could a large number of HD viewers very upset when they understand what has is or has been done, and COMCAST if they chose -can exploit that w/o adding a single new channel

I just wish some real competition like Verizon FiOS would get to my locale.

...It seems to me they must not have much respect for the intelligence of the audience.

These shows themselves speak to the intelligence of the audience.

UHD is being broadcast through INHD2 channel 175 here in Chicago. :(

is anyone get any of Olympic on UHD?

Comcast gave us UHD for the Olympic, but I yet seen any event broadcasted.
NBC is doing all the broadcasting

is anyone get any of Olympic on UHD?

:confused:

UHD is on a dedicated Comcast channel here and the program guide shows several olympic events during the week, including HOCKEY!

the rest of the UHD lineup is utter garbage like Night Rider and Jaws 3 ad nauseum :(

is anyone get any of Olympic on UHD?

Comcast gave us UHD for the Olympic, but I yet seen any event broadcasted.
NBC is doing all the broadcastingHD Olympics schedule:

http://www.hdsportsguide.com/olympics.php

This morning and afternoon was Women's Ice Hockey, as will be tomorrow afternoon and night.

myself, I rather have UHD then INHD2, and if comcast brings INHD2 back after the olympic, then they should replace HSE with UHD, since there is never anything worth watching on itIn Dallas we have both INHDs and UHD.Girls hockey was on earlier today from Torino.Looked great(for GIRLS hockey).
Have not heard of any plans to drop ANY HD channels here.

Exactly, the L&O and MI episodes were shot, I would assume, after HDTV went on the market, so they would be composed for the 16:9 frame. No problems there. I'm not sure what they are doing with the older shows, but I guess if there were 35mm prints available they should be able to make a good HD transfer (most shows are shot on 35mm, but I don't know if they would actually make 35mm prints of episodes, considering they like). But there's no getting around fitting them into a 16:9 frame besides cropping the image. It's ridiculous. I'd love to know what the hell they were thinking. It seems to me they must not have much respect for the intelligence of the audience.

But isn't this similar to movies shot at 2.35:1 and then shown on the HD movie channels at 16:9? Something's getting cropped there too.

But isn't this similar to movies shot at 2.35:1 and then shown on the HD movie channels at 16:9? Something's getting cropped there too.

I don't support that either. 2.35:1 movies should be shown at it's original aspect ratio. At the same time, cropping off a smaller 4:3 image is a bit more troublesome than cropping a wide 2.35:1 to 16:9. Also, it seems taking off the tops and bottoms of the frame may wreak more havoc in the composition. But either way, I support OAR all the way. Black bars on the top and bottom or sides.

Comcast just started encrypting Discovery HD Theater where I live. It had been unencrypted, along with TNT, probably since launch. [Is this] A sign of things to come?

Comcast just started encrypting Discovery HD Theater where I live. It had been unencrypted, along with TNT, probably since launch. [Is this] A sign of things to come?
They did this in the SF bay area about 4 mos ago. Apparently all digital channels other than locals are to be encrypted per corporate mandate. Makes sense, although we were told that anyone who was receiving those channels in the clear would be "grandfathered" in, meaning they would still be able to use QAM tuners to receive them, naturally, that didn't happen.

For anyone in central Jersey:
Comcast, while trying to convince a friend of mine to keep his HD sevice, told him that they are adding 3 new channels in March. They would, of course, not tell him which channels they were, but it's something.

For anyone in central Jersey:
Comcast, while trying to convince a friend of mine to keep his HD sevice, told him that they are adding 3 new channels in March. They would, of course, not tell him which channels they were, but it's something.

If this came from a CSR, it's nothing.

Alternatively, it could be that COMCAST is letting the the SATs dig their HD Lite hole must deeper, and they will eventually launch a vicious anti HD Lite counterattack when the time arrives

Let's all pray that this happens. Not because I want to see the DBS companies down but becuse this will probably change the tide in favor of better HD pic quality across the board

If this came from a CSR, it's nothing.


Not necessarily. The METS and Comcast have partnered to create a new sports channel for the NY area to bradcast Mets games this year. Currently Comcast is building the studio to be ready for sometime in March but before openning day.

Let's all pray that this happens. Not because I want to see the DBS companies down but becuse this will probably change the tide in favor of better HD pic quality across the board

i agree, look at the campaign they had against dsl. i actually didn't care to pay double for a faster broadband, but i liked how they said, we charge more because we have a much higher quality product.


for hdtv, i care much much more about quality. lets hope comcast picks on hd-lite in the same manner.

For anyone in central Jersey:
Comcast, while trying to convince a friend of mine to keep his HD sevice, told him that they are adding 3 new channels in March. They would, of course, not tell him which channels they were, but it's something.

Your friend should get that in writing. Not to sound negitive, but I don't think they have the bandwith.

March 16th will be the launch date of SportsNet NY, according to their web site(unfortunatelly, I have yet to post 5 messages in this forum, therefore I cannot post the web site here).

The problem is that, in addition to the HD feed, this channel, like Yes, will be made available in Analog, too, and that stinks, considering the chronical lack of bandwidth problems in Comcast NJ systems, so I really do not have any hopes of 2 other HD channels being added in March.

Your friend should get that in writing. Not to sound negitive, but I don't think they have the bandwith.


Not having the bandwidth I'm not 100% convinced. Here they removed all premium movie west coast feeds (10 digital channels I think) removed the analog HBO and Showtime channels and a number of PPV channels. So they do have room but just do not want to use it for a channel that shows HD some of the time.

I'm cannot recall what the ratios are:

How many digital channels = 1 HD channel

How many analog channels = 1 HD channel

Not having the bandwidth I'm not 100% convinced. Here they removed all premium movie west coast feeds (10 digital channels I think) removed the analog HBO and Showtime channels and a number of PPV channels. So they do have room but just do not want to use it for a channel that shows HD some of the time.

I'm cannot recall what the ratios are:

How many digital channels = 1 HD channel

How many analog channels = 1 HD channel

The reason I figured they don't have the bandwith is because in areas where they had the bandwith Comcast added a channel for UHD for the Olympics, but here they removed INHD2 to put in UHD. Because Comcast has partial ownship in INHD they would not pull the channel unless they had to.

I hope your right and the reason for this is that someone at the East Windsor head end doesn't know what they are doing.

I would guess the digital SD to HD is probibly about 4:1 but I'm not sure.

I really hope they keep it. Battlestar Galactica looks AMAZING in high-def!

The quality of the Olympics broadcasts on UHD thus far are better overall vs. NBC-HD. The NBC feed kept dropping out, and the half-pipe competition looked like a poorly upconverted 480i image.

I'm cannot recall what the ratios are:

How many digital channels = 1 HD channel

How many analog channels = 1 HD channel
Roughly 10-12 digital channels will fit in the space used by one HD channel. One 6Mhz analog slot can be used for 2 HD channels when converted to 256QAM.

Any chance we'll see the Voom suite of HD channels?

There's always a chance, but the probability of Voom on Comcast would be extremely low, at least for the near future.

Roughly 10-12 digital channels will fit in the space used by one HD channel. One 6Mhz analog slot can be used for 2 HD channels when converted to 256QAM.

One SD chan = ~1-2mbit/sec
One HD chan = ~10-20mbit/sec

One SD chan = ~1-2mbit/sec
One HD chan = ~10-20mbit/sec
Yes, but that's not what he asked.

Comcast just started encrypting Discovery HD Theater where I live. It had been unencrypted, along with TNT, probably since launch. [Is this] A sign of things to come?


That may explain why COMCAST is challenging the SATs on the HD Lite issue, because that may be the beginning

I've got some nice open south facing property for a 10 ft C-band dish -just in case

One 6Mhz analog slot can be used for 2 HD channels when converted to 256QAM.

Dang if all Comcast analogs were shut down Comcast would have lots of bandwidth for HD. Just in my area we have about ~70 Analogs in the lineup. Since we have most locals already that would give them room for about 140 HD extra channels. Let's just hope they muse most of that BW for HD and not for SD . What about MPEG4 in Comcast? If they change would that also give them more room?

Dang if all Comcast analogs were shut down Comcast would have lots of bandwidth for HD. Just in my area we have about ~70 Analogs in the lineup. Since we have most locals already that would give them room for about 140 HD extra channels. Let's just hope they muse most of that BW for HD and not for SD . What about MPEG4 in Comcast? If they change would that also give them more room?
Yes MPEG4 would give them more room but I think analog to digital conversion is the route they are currently taking, digital conversion of just the 35 Expanded Basic channels alone would give them room for over 60 HD channels, including room for the Expanded Basic channels.

On our system, excluding the music channels, we still have more analog than digital channels.

I thought the ratio for HD using 256 QAM was more like three HD channels in a 6MHZ slot.
HD uses between 13Mbps and 19.2Mbps per channel and if you use the correct sampling techniques you may be able to squeeze three or two with a few non-HD channels.

I thought the ratio for HD using 256 QAM was more like three HD channels in a 6MHZ slot.
HD uses between 13Mbps and 19.2Mbps per channel and if you use the correct sampling techniques you may be able to squeeze three or two with a few non-HD channels.
Yes, with rate-shaping you can get more than two HD channels in a 38.8Mbps 256QAM 6Mhz slice of frequency, but Comcast to date, has provided the full ATSC standard of 19.4Mbps to all of it's HD channels, whether or not the channel is running at that bandwidth or not, which means, no more than 2 HD channels per 6Mhz slice of spectrum. I'm sure in the future that may happen, in fact I think some Time/Warner systems are doing it but what happens if you have say 3 stations in one 256 QAM slot and one of them starts to put through a signal up to it's 19Mbps limit, the other two signals and the 19Mbps signal will all suffer. With sampling techniques, as you mentioned, it may not be noticeable, but I'm fairly certain Comcast's policy so far is to send the signal "untouched"(other than QAM conversion). Once they start to rate-shape and use other compression technologies, the dark realm of HD-Lite starts to raise it's ugly head.

For example, if FOX continues to run at 15Mbps and another multicasting station is providing no more than 12-14Mbps that would leave almost 9Mbps to put some SD channels in the same slot. To the best of my knowledge, Comcast is not doing this, yet. That's not to say they won't in the future.

Reclaiming analog channel spectrum for use with digital channels seems to be the way they are currently headed.

I really hope they keep it. Battlestar Galactica looks AMAZING in high-def!

The quality of the Olympics broadcasts on UHD thus far are better overall vs. NBC-HD. The NBC feed kept dropping out, and the half-pipe competition looked like a poorly upconverted 480i image.


Indeed it's amazing, but I was disappointed that the episodes weren't current. I thought that UHD was broadcasting the new episodes. Still, looked great, but not what I expected.

Dang if all Comcast analogs were shut down Comcast would have lots of bandwidth for HD.Eventually, that's the plan.

I am theorizing that COMCAST is in effect setting up a trap to let competitors get comfortable with HD lite or some dumbed down variation - and THEN when the HD television critical mass finally hits - COMCAST goes on an all out lets say something like " HIGH DEFINITION AS IT WAS INTENDED" or "HD W/O THE LITE" a marketing campaign I believe could bring a wave of new subscribers because it will be the actual TRUTH and not easily refutable by certain competitors

As KenH noted, Comcast's plan is to eventually go all digital and turn off all the analog feeds. They do not do so now due to the cost of supplying cable boxes to all analog only subscribers and the fact that they do not want to anger the analog subscribers with cable ready sets who do not want a box. Once that is done there will be enough bandwidth for gobs of HD channels.

Why doesn't Comcast replace/convert all the analog channels with digital?
and would think that Comcast could get rid of some or all the so called "digital music" channels.

As KenH noted, Comcast's plan is to eventually go all digital and turn off all the analog feeds. They do not do so now due to the cost of supplying cable boxes to all analog only subscribers and the fact that they do not want to anger the analog subscribers with cable ready sets who do not want a box. Once that is done there will be enough bandwidth for gobs of HD channels.

Did I not read that Comcast will have a under $100.00 ( cost to Comcast ) Digital Box that they are planing to give ( lease ) to all the analog customers, then they can hurry up the switch over to all digital.

Why doesn't Comcast replace/convert all the analog channels with digital?
and would think that Comcast could get rid of some or all the so called "digital music" channels.

To just decide to convert all analog channels right now would likely cause a huge churn for Comcast. There are a large majority of Comcast customers who are analog only, and any sudden attempt to force a change would: 1) cause a huge number of service calls, which would create a large backlog and annoyed customers due to service problems (remember, with digital, an actual signal test will need to be done, and some wire upgrades will be likely for a lot of customers; and 2) cause a lot of people to switch just because that is the last straw with Comcast. Some people just don't want to mess with their cable service which works well for them, and they don't see any need to upgrade.

The music channels, in total, likely only use the bandwidth of 2-3 SD channels at the most. They are a very small user of space.

I think that Comcast should start moving some channels, maybe once a month, over to the digital side. Not a digital tier, just to digital only. Start with some of the lesser viewed, less important channels, say Style, Food, and such, and gradually force users to get a box. Advertise "just call us and we'll get you a digital box", and gradually move those folks over.

Of course, the HDTV fan in me says, move Lifetime, Nick, and ESPN to digital, and that would pretty much assure a quick transition. They would lose a huge number of customers, also.

To just decide to convert all analog channels right now would likely cause a huge churn for Comcast. There are a large majority of Comcast customers who are analog only, and any sudden attempt to force a change would: 1) cause a huge number of service calls, which would create a large backlog and annoyed customers due to service problems (remember, with digital, an actual signal test will need to be done, and some wire upgrades will be likely for a lot of customers; and 2) cause a lot of people to switch just because that is the last straw with Comcast. Some people just don't want to mess with their cable service which works well for them, and they don't see any need to upgrade.

The music channels, in total, likely only use the bandwidth of 2-3 SD channels at the most. They are a very small user of space.

I think that Comcast should start moving some channels, maybe once a month, over to the digital side. Not a digital tier, just to digital only. Start with some of the lesser viewed, less important channels, say Style, Food, and such, and gradually force users to get a box. Advertise "just call us and we'll get you a digital box", and gradually move those folks over.

Of course, the HDTV fan in me says, move Lifetime, Nick, and ESPN to digital, and that would pretty much assure a quick transition. They would lose a huge number of customers, also.Hi,you really are a nightowl. :DComcast is going to ADS (all digital simulcast)in a lot of markets,will definitely be an improvement.Problem is Time Warner is buying a good many of the Comcast markets(DFW metroplex for one).So,Comcast is dragging their feet a little so as not to spend the dough.

Why doesn't Comcast replace/convert all the analog channels with digital?Because most all of their customers would lose all of their channels.



and would think that Comcast could get rid of some or all the so called "digital music" channels.Why? They use very little bandwidth.

To just decide to convert all analog channels right now would likely cause a huge churn for Comcast. There are a large majority of Comcast customers who are analog only, and any sudden attempt to force a change would: 1) cause a huge number of service calls, which would create a large backlog and annoyed customers due to service problems (remember, with digital, an actual signal test will need to be done, and some wire upgrades will be likely for a lot of customers; and 2) cause a lot of people to switch just because that is the last straw with Comcast. Some people just don't want to mess with their cable service which works well for them, and they don't see any need to upgrade.

I think that Comcast should start moving some channels, maybe once a month, over to the digital side. Not a digital tier, just to digital only.

Note, that if they decide to switch to satellite, they will need boxes at every TV anyway, although, they could reduce their monthly bill, that is why I agree with your assessment. At least with Cable, there is the current/future option of going CableCard TV or DCA TV; something that Satellite can't match. But, many people aren't even aware of CableCard. :(

Here, they added Encore Movie Plex as an 'Enhanced' channel (meaning Digital, as opposed to 'Expanded' meaning Analog) great choice of tier names :rolleyes: ;) This was referenced in a postcard they sent, without saying what or how to get Enhanced service; I guess they hope people will call.

When we get our next prices/services card in March, effective April, I expect to see Enhanced service info. in print.

In Comcast ADS areas, I wonder which of these is the case?:

1. Requires new subs to have all boxes and/or CCs.
2. Offers Digital STBs by default, and only varies by request
3. Presents the customer with both options and hopes they take at least one box, for example.

Note, that if they decide to switch to satellite, they will need boxes at every TV anyway, although, they could reduce their monthly bill, that is why I agree with your assessment. At least with Cable, there is the current/future option of going CableCard TV or DCA TV; something that Satellite can't match. But, many people aren't even aware of CableCard. :(

Here, they added Encore Movie Plex as an 'Enhanced' channel (meaning Digital, as opposed to 'Expanded' meaning Analog) great choice of tier names :rolleyes: ;) This was referenced in a postcard they sent, without saying what or how to get Enhanced service; I guess they hope people will call.

When we get our next prices/services card in March, effective April, I expect to see Enhanced service info. in print.

In Comcast ADS areas, I wonder which of these is the case?:

1. Requires new subs to have all boxes and/or CCs.
2. Offers Digital STBs by default, and only varies by request
3. Presents the customer with both options and hopes they take at least one box, for example.

Boston is generally an ADS area. Movieplex is offer to anyone with STANDARD service and a box. I currently have digital platinum with premiere pack and basic so I do not get it
Besides with Digital plus what do you need it for?

As for what is happening,it is sort of business as ususal. Many folks with just analog continue to get just analog.

BTW I see ESPN2as the next HD channel for Comcast,along with full time coverage of the local RSN (in Boston)

well, there are alot of dupicate channels either analog/digital or digital/digital
I don't new 4 MTVs, 3 OLN, and I love sports but I don't need 10 espn channel
and for HBO, Showtime, Cimemax, Starz and encore since I live in the west coast, I don't need the east coast feed.
theres about 40+ channels comcast could get rid of.

Because most all of their customers would lose all of their channels.


What is their plan then to meet the Feb. 2009 deadline? If I understand this right, by then most people would need new televisions or a cable box.

What is their plan then to meet the Feb. 2009 deadline? If I understand this right, by then most people would need new televisions or a cable box.
They will use a box like the Motorola DCT700 or something similar. This box is already being used in Calaveras County, CA

http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/
DCT700 All-Digital Set-top

Well, I'll be happy to see analog go, not only because it will free up more bandwidth, but some of those analog feeds look generally crappy anyways. I assume channels like Cartoon Network are available digitally right off the Sat?

What is their plan then to meet the Feb. 2009 deadline? If I understand this right, by then most people would need new televisions or a cable box.The analog cutoff does not directly effect cablecos.

In some areas, Comcast will gradually reduce analog channels, while adding digital cable and HD. Customers wanting the no longer available analog channles will have to get an STB or CableCARD tuner. The programming tier known as Limited Basic (10-15 channels) will remain in analog for quite some time, with analog versions of local DTV and a few select national channels.

I assume channels like Cartoon Network are available digitally right off the Sat?

I would assume the opposite: That in most cases, Comcast (or any other provider) will reduce the resolution and bitrate, just like they do today with their digital SD channels, in the interest of more channels to sell, or more services to sell.

Why do you assume the that won't be the case?