Time Warner Cable HDTV [Text View] - Page 3

gparris

11-05-06, 01:23 PM

INHD2 is history as of 01/01/07

"In Demand may try to put a magic spell on its HD networks.

The supplier of pay-per-view and on-demand programming decided to merge its two HD channels, INHD and INHD2, into one Jan. 1, president Rob Jacobson said. That would, he added, create a best-of HD service.

Some cable operators already dropped INHD2, which shows some exclusive IMAX movies and concert events that will shift over to INHD.

What will the new channel be called? That will be announced “sometime next year,” Jacobson said. But there’s a “pretty good likelihood” that INHD will be renamed Mojo. That’s the name given to blocks of original HD programming that currently run from 9 p.m.-midnight Wednesdays and Sundays, featuring such shows as Wall Street Warriors, Dr. Danger, After Hours with Daniel and London Live.

In Demand is looking at adding a third night of original shows and possibly a fourth of Mojo before it changes the name of the service itself, Jacobson said."

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6388356.html?display=Breaking+News

that free's up a slot for another HD channel.
I wonder what each TWC division will do?

Our TWC 2007 billing notices arrived in a pamphet form (not the actual billing), so all the DigiPics (our packages are called that) in our region go up $2 and nothing else I can see outside of Encore (50 cents)...but nothing added, either.
The HD package (that HDXtra thing, perhaps) is still the same price, but has only one INHD listed, yet TWC has "17 HD Channels!" on the header - I only count 15 including FOX Sports Net HD (almost never on).
So it will be interesting to see if we get a ESPN2HD addition or some more premium HD movie channel additons like you New York subs got.
They are, as usual, tight-lipped about it all when I can and even ask my local-forum TWC member about it.

DSperber

11-05-06, 03:49 PM

My service was Adelphia until recently. The name has changed to TWC but the service is the same. I've tried to find out if and when changes are going to be made but I haven't been able to.Try starting here (http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/channellineups.html).

Wickerman1972

11-05-06, 04:23 PM

Try starting here (http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/channellineups.html).

Thanks, but I've already looked at that before and all it tells me is what I have now, not what will be coming in the future.

Wickerman1972

11-05-06, 04:37 PM

I took a look at some of the areas around me and they had more HD channels than I do. To say that pisses me off is an understatement.:(

DSperber

11-05-06, 04:56 PM

Thanks, but I've already looked at that before and all it tells me is what I have now, not what will be coming in the future.I don't know where you live so I can't duplicate your experience.

But for me, in Southern California, when I go to that SoCal link (on the page I pointed you to originally) I get a new page that specifically is titled "Channel Realignment Schedule". I then click on the big red "Click here for channel lineups" button.

That gives me a page with big "Before Sept 18" and "After Sept 18" buttons.

If you click on the "Before Sept 18" button it then tells you what, for my area, I currently have and what I will have after the "channel lineup changeover date" as shown on the matrix... IF I DO NOTHING, AND DO NOT CALL TWC FOR ANY CHANGES TO MY CURRENT [Comcast] SERVICE. The idea behind this "Before Sept 18" chart is to provide information to subscribers now under TWC who want to go forward with "legacy" programming and pricing, who DON'T want to buy into TWC's new "tier" packaging and pricing (and, as well, where you'll find new HD channels offered in the HD Plus Tier).

On the other hand, if you click on the "After Sept 18" button then it tells you what, for my area, will be available to me after the changeover date IF I DO CALL TWC AND ASK THEM TO SCRAP MY OLD LEGACY PACKAGE/PRICING and instead GO TO NEW TWC PACKAGING!

This will allow you to opt in or out of various program/channel groups, including getting the new HD Plus Tier which would otherwise not be offered if you do nothing but stay with your old "legacy" arrangement.

Again, I don't know where you live so I can't take the tour for you. But that's how it works in the Southern California dialog path. I suspect yours will be similar... if you push the "AFTER SEPT 18" button instead.

It's really the text and description on their web page which is at fault here, since it misleads all current subscribers to go into the path which reveals the "legacy" story, if you do nothing. But if you choose the "AFTER SEPT 18" path (for truly new subscribers to TWC, or for old Adelphia/Comcast subscribers who want to agree to TWC tier/price offerings), you will see what you genuinely will be offered... if only you're willing to call them and pay for it.

Wickerman1972

11-05-06, 05:04 PM

Wickerman1972

11-05-06, 05:17 PM

If TWC would just add Fox, CBS, DiscoveryHD, National Geographic HD, CinemaxHD, And ESPN2HD I'd be reasonably satisfied. Hell, at least give me all the damned broadcast networks for God's sake! I live too far away from any broadcast towers so I can't pull them in with an antennae. It is really annoying that despite having HD cable I can't watch NFL football on Sundays in HD!

ENDContra

11-05-06, 05:47 PM

I think consolidating the INHD channels is a good idea for them. They didn't have enough compelling content for 2 channels. I sure hope TWC will replace it with something good. I'd be happy with ESPN2-HD or National Geographic HD, although I've been told that they have no plans to add NGCHD.
I agree somewhat, but Im curious what will happen when NBATV and Versus both have HD games on the same night...Id hate to see one lose out to the other and either be tape delayed or not aired at all. There were also Eastern Conference Finals games on OLN last year that were moved to inHD2 because of the MLB package...will regular season baseball take precendent over playoff hockey? Also inHD2 is where all of the FSN college football games show up (and hopefully basketball games too) as well as some Hurricanes games (in the Raleigh market of course) How will this playout with only one inHD channel?

DSperber

11-05-06, 05:53 PM

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the options you're talking about. On that first page I choose North East Ohio, and on the page after that I choose Columbiana County. That is my area.

Yeah, I just checked your Southern California page. Mine doesn't have those options.I thought the whole channel lineup realignment was a national thing, but apparently not. Or maybe not yet, at this time.

Maybe they're focusing first on a semi-painless transition for the major LA area first, because they have two totally incompatible head-end infrastructures to deal with right now (Motorola for 62xx/6412/6416 and Moxi boxes) and Scientific Atlanta for SA32xx/42xx/8300 boxes) deriving from the consolidation of previous Adelphia, Comcast, and Time Warner into one giant TWC near-monopolistic system. Until the new OCAP-based software for the DVRs comes out in a year or so (which is capable of running in any box, on both of the previously incompatible infrastructures), the LA area is going to be a challenge for them and I guess they want to use this as a pilot project (hopefully successful).

Anyway, I did look at some other parts of the country (like yours) and you're right... there is not the same presentation as there is for us here in the LA area. Sorry... I thought the whole nation would look like my area. My mistake.

Best bet is to call your local TWC office and find out when, if at all, changes are coming in your area. If your local number is clueless, fight your way to some regional/corporate phone number and try to speak to someone really responsible.

HDTVFanAtic

11-05-06, 07:54 PM

Inundated

11-05-06, 08:39 PM

Anyway, I did look at some other parts of the country (like yours) and you're right... there is not the same presentation as there is for us here in the LA area. Sorry... I thought the whole nation would look like my area. My mistake.

We'll probably have to wait to get your scraps from L.A., like usual. :D Why, we just got electricity a few years ago...

I do notice that the TWC Northeast Ohio lineup PDFs for the ex-Adelphia/Comcast systems are apparently stored in the TWC NEO web space now. I don't know if that means anything, though...I think it was elsewhere (under TWCUSoon.com, which is still active) before.

I haven't heard anything on the channel realignment, though. We got a handful of new channels (and lost NFL Network) after TWC took over.

As far as the original "what replaces INHD2 on our system" question? The ex-Adelphia end of TWC already had ESPN2HD, which TWC kept. There are rumors that Universal HD is in the pipeline here in the near future, but those were rumors going on well before the INHD2 announcement.

DSperber

11-05-06, 10:44 PM

Remember that in Houston, the largest MSO in America and owned by TWC, somehow they figured out how to run both SA and Motorola at the same time. Its not out of the question that they could do the same in LA.Based on word of mouth in the local TWC-LA thread, it seems that they're only busy replacing Moxi boxes with 6416's at the moment (both compatible with the Motorola infrastructure)... for the old Adelphia subscribers.

And Comcast in LA was already Motorola (62xx/64xx).

So that leaves only their original TWC subscribers who are using SA8300 boxes, with no word that I've read about eliminating or replacing any of them with Motorola hardware. Nor has there been any hint of a cabling or head-end equipment change, which would be enormously expensive at this point... and is really no longer necessary with OCAP.

I think their cost-effective and practial solution will be over the next year, with a rollout of OCAP software into all the different vendor boxes that can run on either Moto or SA infrastructure. That way they don't have to replace people's hardware, nor do they have to invest in new infrastructure. Of course this is mostly rumor and speculation, but I believe it's underway with a target date of perhaps end of 2007.

Gary J

11-06-06, 07:42 AM

Pretty interesting stuff from today's Wall Street Journal -

"BroadLogic, a closely held company whose financial backers include the venture arm of cable operator Time Warner Inc., says its technology can free up bandwidth now taken up by the standard analog TV channels. Yet users who prefer the basic programming can keep watching it, without new set-top boxes or wiring.

The approach does require deploying small gateway devices containing the company's chips at each subscriber's home, likely in the basement or on an outside wall where cable-TV wiring enters the house. Programming is converted to digital form at central cable facilities called "headends," and sent over the network to the gateway devices. Those gadgets then push programming around the house in analog or digital form; each can deliver 80 analog channels, and up to 160 standard-definition digital channels or 50 high-definition channels, BroadLogic said.

"I've seen it work. It's pretty exciting," said Wayne Davis, who resigned in May as chief technology officer of cable operator Charter Communications Inc.

The obstacle is a potentially sizable upfront investment to buy and install the gateway devices. Each is expected to cost somewhere between the price of one and two conventional set-top boxes, which average around $120, BroadLogic says. To exploit the technology, cable operators would have to upgrade all homes in a service territory of 500 homes or so before shifting their transmission to an all-digital format, Mr. Davis said."

AndyHDTV

11-06-06, 12:08 PM

jacksonian

11-06-06, 12:55 PM

Sounds similar, but maybe more of a way to handle the analog/digital transition than anything else. But I'm not sure.

AtlantaHDFanatic

11-06-06, 04:23 PM

It isn't really the same thing as SDV at all.

SDV is a way to limit the number of downstream digital channels at a given time to allow for better spectrum efficiency. The channels with fewer average viewers would be placed on a switched channel. This way it only is transmitted downstream if a user is currently watching it. If another user starts watching the same channel, it just listens to the current stream. If a channel is not currently being transmitted, a request goes up to the headend, the new stream is sent down (assuming there is spectrum for it). As long as your traffic engineering principles are sound, it gives the appearance of all channels being available, really they aren't.

This product is meant to completely remove all current analog channels from being sent downstream. So all the channels can be sent all the time in digital format. The analog customers would get the same service as today, but a box, typically outside the home, would convert the digital versions of the "analog tier" channels to analog cable and send it into the home. So now no need for a set-top box on each television for cheaper analog service. This frees up a lot of spectrum for new services like HD channels. Until the number of digital channels fill the spectrum, which shouldn't happen for some time even with HD, SDV would not be needed if this product works as stated.

They both are meant to better utilize the resources of the cable plant. However, they are vastly different approaches to the goal. There should be nothing preventing the two from being used together if the BroadLogic chip allowed for real time channel mapping for the SDV channels.

holl_ands

11-06-06, 04:30 PM

Read the fol. posted on BroadLogic's website:
http://www.broadlogic.com/11062006press.htm
http://www.broadlogic.com/tpix.htm

Sounds like they are using a superfast processor in each subscriber's home (i.e. garage) to decode the new Digital Simulcast QAM channels, regenerating ALL of the Basic/Expanded analog channels.

This means that ALL analog channels could be made available for other purposes--e.g. dozens of HD channels. AND eliminates the need for a separate STB for every conventional TV in the house.

This would be a very big step forward.....

posg

11-06-06, 05:25 PM

VisionOn

11-06-06, 05:48 PM

Now we're talking !!! Way cool !!! Two questions. Does it actually work? When will it be affordable ?

third and most important question ... when will it reach beyond that one market in South Carolina that TWC uses to test everything with.

Announcing any new technology in connection with TWC is like NASA announcing they've spotted an asteroid heading for Earth. It's a huge and dramatic event ... but a million light years away from everyone else seeing it and might break up before it gets here anyway.

jacksonian

11-06-06, 09:16 PM

Definitely agree with the skepticism regarding anything new from TWC.

But I am VERY excited about the possibilities of this. Anything like this that could solve cables bandwidth issues would be HUGE in the fight to compete with satellite and FIOS.

bgooch

11-07-06, 09:38 AM

Can a headend-on-a-chip ease the coming cable crunch?

11/6/2006 1:16:19 PM, by Anders Bylund

Facing increased competition from phone networks armed with rolls of fiber networking cable, cable TV operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable need to squeeze more bandwidth out of their networks to stay ahead. Now a Silicon Valley startup is offering up a new way to do just that.

BroadLogic Network Technologies says that its TeraPix BL80000 video processor chip can digitally compress and uncompress 80 channels of standard-definition analog NTSC video into the bandwidth that about eight of those channels would normally use. The entire process would be invisible to users, and the saved bandwidth could be used for more on-demand channels, more or higher-quality digital voice streams, or faster data connections for the consumer's cable modem.

The "headend on a chip" currently costs $300 each in 1,000-chip order batches, and the cable operator would still need to build a package around it to install at their customers' curbs or doorsteps. That unit would also need about 20 watts of power, though the company says this can be delivered over the coaxial cable.

"The approach is unproven in the field," says (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6388434.html) consumer electronics analyst Michael Wolf of ABI Research. "Much of the cost saving and the actual real-world performance has yet to be proven in a scaled deployment." Depending on neighborhood demographics, it may indeed be cheaper for Comcast et al to hand out digital cable set-top boxes to each household instead, at $150 per box.

BroadLogic says it is working on setting up large-scale field trials for the second half of 2007 with commercial viability expected by 2008, but is tight-lipped about the identities of its partners. Perhaps some inside connections could come in handy—former Time Warner Cable senior VP of advanced engineering Mike Hayashi is a BroadLogic board member and Time Warner has invested millions in the company. As for technical chops, Sales and Marketing executive Jeff Huppertz led the development of Scientific-Atlanta's popular 8600 series of digital cable boxes, and the executive team is full of former leaders from Xerox, Zenith, Motorola, and National Semiconductor.

Pending the field tests, it's hard to say whether this product will amount to much of anything. Cable companies could grow their bandwidth palettes by rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 networks (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060808-7450.html) instead. That's a capital-intensive solution, but also the most future-proof one. The TeraPix BL80000 looks like a stopgap measure, an intermediate solution that will eventually need to be replaced again when the next wave of bandwidth-hungry services (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061006-7919.html) shows up. It may be a good idea in some markets, where wholesale network upgrades would be prohibitively expensive today (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060904-7658.html), but it's not a cure-all magic bullet.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061106-8158.html

Riverside_Guy

11-07-06, 10:17 AM

posg

11-07-06, 10:36 AM

toadfannc

11-16-06, 06:03 AM

http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?p=163708#post163708

This makes 12 NEW HD channels in the past 2 years for Comcast vs. ZERO for TWC. I bet those former Comcast customers that got switched to TWC in the Adelphia fall-out, are extremely happy to pay more and get (much) less HD channels.

da_burl

11-16-06, 01:40 PM

I just turned on my new set yesterday evening, and we now have HDNet and UHD here in DFW. Surprise, Surprise. Don't know how long it will last, but they are also in the clear on QAM, as well as INHD, but not ESPNHD.
I am pretty pumped about HDNet, that was about the only thing I missed from D* (once Sunday Ticket got so out of reach).

holl_ands

11-16-06, 05:16 PM

At first I thought this to be a device to deal with the analog to digital transition, but from the above post, it's purpose seems very different. From the text, one must conclude it's a :"install for each customer" type of device. As we all should know, this IS a real issue. I wonder if this could be deployed to nodes (in my system, it's fiber to a node, then conversion to cooper; each node accommodates about 500 customers and obviously this is all about urban areas as my node is 1/2 block away). Anyway, they are also talking 08 deployment, so nothing to get too excited about. By that time, we may have fully deployed SDV.

HOWEVER, a 8600 series SA box I find VERY curious. No such thing on their site, so it's probably a misprint and should be 8300. Sloppy stuff like that also gives pause as to everything else in the article...
Re "Jeff Huppertz led the development of Scientific-Atlanta's popular 8600 series of digital cable boxes":
http://www.sciatl.com/customers/Source/88d250.pdf
The 8600 series for which Jeff Huppertz reportedly led the development (past tense), was deployed in early 1990's, as described in the above spec sheet for the 8610.

==================================================
An ALL DIGITAL cable system would free up maybe 70-80 analog channels.
That's twice as many as are currently used for Digital. THAT'S HUGE!!!!

And there is nothing to prevent them from retaining the current "Basic" analog tier (about 20 channels), saving the cost of a converter for budget users.

These 50-80 freed up channels could then be used for other purposes, such as two or three HD channels per carrier, On-Demand/PPV including ala carte program downloading (aka IPTV), automatic software updates to HDTV's (under test in San Diego), data broadcasting (news, sports scores, theater skeds, stock prices, et.al.), much higher speed Internet connections and (my favorite) Video Phone service.

==================================================
Of course, for those homes NOT equipped with this new converter, Digital STBs (or CableCard HDTVs) would have access to these new digital channels.

Since some (or all) analog channels versions would no longer be available on the neighborhood cable feed, a Digital-to-Analog channel converter has to placed somewhere between the cable entry point and your TV's---could be the garage to feed multiple TVs.

Presumely this new converter would regenerate the analog channels (e.g. CH21-70+ or even CH2-70+), and COULD allow pass-thru of the higher digital channels.
However, it is not clear what would happen to the NEW digital channels in the CH2-70 positions if only some of your TV's had digital converters (or CableCard)....because the regenerated analog channels would replace them!!!!
They could be upconverted to higher digital channel positions (hmmm, may need better house wiring)....or they could use a Switched Digital Video (SDV) technique (making them incompatible with one-way CableCard)....or maybe they are deployed to individual TV's in "mixed" homes.....and condo/apts.

=================================================
PS: DOCSIS 3.0 doesn't magically push more bits per second. Channel Bonding can be used to LOGICALLY combine three 6 MHz QAM-256 channels (36 Mbps each) into a single 3 x 36 = 106 Mbps data stream. However, there is no net increase in data rate. Two to three HD channels can currently be carried in each QAM channel. With Channel Bonding, several more HD channels can be carried across the three channels due to increased efficiency in the Statistical Mutiplexer. Two or three HD channels is just too small a load to ensure that data bits can be "stolen" from channels with low activity in order to adequately cover bursty data rate requirements on other channels.

bgooch

11-17-06, 07:21 AM

High definition of greed at play in HDTV flap

(Excerpt) Time Warner (central Ohio) cable subscribers who actually like to benefit from their high definition televisions won’t have that chance Saturday during the biggest game ever between No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan.

.... Hoping to retain subscribers, Time Warner has given away HD antennas – more than 1,000 so far (at a cost of $20 each to the company).

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/features-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/15/20061115-G1-03.html

osu fan

11-17-06, 08:59 AM

From the article above:

(If you have a tuner for your HD set, you just need an antenna to pick up the signal, although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery.) :(

Go Bucks!

CCsoftball7

11-17-06, 09:16 AM

From the article above:

(If you have a tuner for your HD set, you just need an antenna to pick up the signal, although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery.) :(

Go Bucks!

WHAT??? OTA is far superior to cable.

Go Buckeyes or Wolverines...whoever gets ND to the BCS championship game (although they will probably get routed.) :)

da_burl

11-17-06, 10:11 AM

WHAT??? OTA is far superior to cable.

Go Buckeyes or Wolverines...whoever gets ND to the BCS championship game (although they will probably get routed.) :)

Actually in my opinion OTA is "the same" or "About the same with a little less bandwidth" than my OTA. Guess it depends on how your local cableco gets the stations in and how much they do to it when it gets there.
I get a great picture on the HD Locals here in DFW with TWC, but when I analyze the bandwidth, its still a little less than OTA. So I suspect they are doing a little multiplexing or I think I heard someone call it "bandwidth shaping". I really need to set up another head to head competition, haven't actually done that in a while.

Gary J

11-17-06, 10:27 AM

TWC South Carolina maintains they pass all HD exactly like they receive it.

CCsoftball7

11-17-06, 11:04 AM

From the article above:

(If you have a tuner for your HD set, you just need an antenna to pick up the signal, although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery.) :(

Go Bucks!

My reaction was more to the "although it might not be as high-quality as the cable delivery"...what utter nonsense.

Where do people think the cable companies get the broadcast? The more handling of a signal, the greater the likelihood of degradation.

archiguy

11-17-06, 11:19 AM

TWC South Carolina maintains they pass all HD exactly like they receive it.

Even if they're not doing any "rate shaping" (which I don't believe for a second), they're still doing some filtering, or it's done by the STB/DVR itself. Several AVS members have documented the inability of the SA8300 to resolve all 1920 lines of resolution; more like 1200-1300. If anyone in the SC area can do a resolution test pattern examination to verify just what it is, they should post it.

But the point is, there's likely no cable company (or satellite company for that matter) that's delivering full-bore HD resolutions of a caliber like a "raw" OTA broadcast.

DeathRay

11-17-06, 08:28 PM

Somebody posted this in a comcast thread...any truth to it?

Time Warner and Bright House added A&E-HD last week, but I don't think anyone cares cause we never made a post about it :D

Gary J

11-17-06, 08:46 PM

I've heard of compresssion and rate-shaping but I don't know what filtering is. If it is dropping line of resolution it seems that would distort the picture.

shawnhark

11-17-06, 08:48 PM

Brighthouse in the Tampa Bay did add A&E HD. It is officially a "preview" until it is permanently added 1/1/07.

I'm guessing this is our "replacement" when INHD2 goes dark on 1/1/07.

HDTVFanAtic

11-18-06, 05:04 AM

Even if they're not doing any "rate shaping" (which I don't believe for a second), they're still doing some filtering, or it's done by the STB/DVR itself. Several AVS members have documented the inability of the SA8300 to resolve all 1920 lines of resolution; more like 1200-1300. If anyone in the SC area can do a resolution test pattern examination to verify just what it is, they should post it.

But the point is, there's likely no cable company (or satellite company for that matter) that's delivering full-bore HD resolutions of a caliber like a "raw" OTA broadcast.

Well, first, only a handful of TVs will resolve 1920 lines - and most of those are your CRT Projectors.

Second, it appears the limitation is most likely in the SA STBs themselves - not the cable companies as cablecards seem to alleviate much of the lower resolution issues.

Riverside_Guy

11-18-06, 09:55 AM

Actually, the "1920" is the horizontal pixel resolution of a 1080i or 1080p signal. "Lines" would refer to the vertical resolution, i.e. 1080 in a 1080p set. Or in a "1080i" signal.

AND AFAIK, 1920 x 1080 sets are mostly LCDs right now.

Interesting about A&E, was that just blind speculation? Not that Id be unhappy about it, but in my system, InHD2 was part of a pay tier. That tier had ESPN HD. So my wild ass speculation would be ESPN2 HD. While I'd FAR prefer A&E, I'd guess the majority would go for ESPN2.

beatles6

11-18-06, 05:55 PM

Like they recently did with MSG HD it looks like TWCNYC has made YES HD a full time channel on 708. No longer will have to endure the many times when they forgot to turn the channel on for Nets and Yankee games.

kevinivey

11-18-06, 10:52 PM

rebkell

11-18-06, 11:47 PM

Complete garbage.

Could you clarify that statement, what are you saying is complete garbage?

HDTVFanAtic

11-19-06, 04:08 AM

Could you clarify that statement, what are you saying is complete garbage?

well, we know this statement is:

But the point is, there's likely no cable company (or satellite company for that matter) that's delivering full-bore HD resolutions of a caliber like a "raw" OTA broadcast.

kevinivey

11-19-06, 06:52 AM

Could you clarify that statement, what are you saying is complete garbage?

Everything he stated. He has no idea what TWC does in South Carolina. I am trying to figure out what exactly the purpose of this thread is. Information varies between system. Nothing appears to be nationally anymore.

rebkell

11-19-06, 10:01 AM

Everything he stated. He has no idea what TWC does in South Carolina. I am trying to figure out what exactly the purpose of this thread is. Information varies between system. Nothing appears to be nationally anymore.

Ok, that's what I figured, but just wanted to make sure, you could have been referring to the test pattern as complete garbage, that was the only reason I asked.

gparris

11-20-06, 10:33 PM

I think the reason for this thread is to counter the other thread "What's the next HD channel for Comcast?", but for TWC.
The Comcast thread has about four times the posts as this one, but wait, Comcast actually ADDs HD channels, plays nice with Sinclair stations (as I understand it) to get HD locals and so on.
Comcast also differs in its HD channel offerings from location to location, just as TWC does in HD channel lineups, but eventually, Comcast's HD channel additions do "add up" to more than what TWC has at any given location, at least more recently, IMO...maybe its just me.
So what news is there about HD on Time Warner Cable...there really isn't much...ever...but its worth keeping the thread alive...just in case TWC gets its "act together" and starts playing the Comcast role...adding HD channels!

HDTVFanAtic

11-20-06, 11:42 PM

I am trying to figure out what exactly the purpose of this thread is.

To give AndyHDTV a place to post his emails from Fred and viceversa - which amounts to no news, high hopes and great disappointment.

I would be more appropiate to label it rumors about TWC or things that I hate about TWC.

There is seldom ever any correct news about TWC in it.

VisionOn

11-21-06, 02:07 AM

To give AndyHDTV a place to post his emails from Fred and viceversa - which amounts to no news, high hopes and great disappointment.

because everyone is waiting for those one tiny markets to say "we got XXX in HD at last!" and that means at least TWC is actually adding something somewhere. Sure everyone else might never see it within their lifetime, but at least they know that somewhere that channel exists on TWC.

Like the new multiscreen iTV feature on TWC Hawaii. Sounds cool, and maybe one day the rest of us will see it. We can but hope. It's the only thing we have.

archiguy

11-21-06, 10:18 AM

Complete garbage.

Excuse me, but just what part of my post was, as you so nicely put it, "complete garbage"? There have been a number of posts by AVS gearheads such as John Mason and others who have documented that the resolutions delivered by the SA STB/DVR's are not full-bore HD. Search and ye shall find them. There is clearly filtering going on somewhere in the chain that softens the picture TWC customers get verses those who pull in their HD channels directly over the air. Are you truly ignorant of that issue?

CCsoftball7

11-21-06, 11:09 AM

Excuse me, but just what part of my post was, as you so nicely put it, "complete garbage"? There have been a number of posts by AVS gearheads such as John Mason and others who have documented that the resolutions delivered by the SA STB/DVR's are not full-bore HD. Search and ye shall find them. There is clearly filtering going on somewhere in the chain that softens the picture TWC customers get verses those who pull in their HD channels directly over the air. Are you truly ignorant of that issue?

I thought the same. However, it was discovered it was a limitation of the display device. Some ISF guys have confirmed it passes 1920X1080.

LL3HD

11-21-06, 11:39 AM

Some ISF guys have confirmed it passes 1920X1080.
I’m sure it does pass but not consistently.
Probably like Manning. Sometimes like Payton, most of the times like Eli. :rolleyes:

Gary J

11-21-06, 01:32 PM

Just as I thought. Complete utter nonsense Eli garbage.

DeathRay

11-21-06, 02:44 PM

Like the new multiscreen iTV feature on TWC Hawaii. Sounds cool, and maybe one day the rest of us will see it. We can but hope. It's the only thing we have.

oh boy, if Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii is the standard of what people are holding out for then the rest of the country has it bad!

i'll trade you the interactive pet adoption channel, the pizza hut ordering channel, and the multi-screen sport channel for all my locals in HD, DVR software that doesn't make me cry, and *any* new HD channel.

John Mason

11-21-06, 02:47 PM

To pin down whether various TWC headends pass OTA (or fiber-delivered) HDTV significantly unchanged, stations would have to broadcast HDNet's downlinked resolution-wedge test patterns just as headends cablecast them. Very few stations transmit HDNet. That would provide better comparisons, although there still would be variables such as different STBs.

Also, AFAIK, TWC headends pass along the formats, such as 1920X1080i, they receive. They don't reformat them to, say, 1280X1080, like DirecTV's Hd-Lite. Question is, though, how much effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) (resolvable detail), if any, is lost when OTA and other program sources are processed at headends?

Haven't counted, but quite a few AVSers around the country reported similar readings to what I got a few years back (and currently) with my 9"-gun CRT RPTV (Philips 64PH9905): <1300 resolvable lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5175424#post5175424) from NYC's TWC. A local ISFer at the time measured about the same (1280 resolvable lines) on a 1366X768 plasma. And this month another local member with a 1080p Ruby FP measured ~1335 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8865051#post8865051). Someone on a Calif. TWC system (see last link) indicates he measured ~1920 with his 1080p display, although so far haven't read similar reports. Strictly speaking, all these measurements apply just to the cable channel(s) HDNet is being delivered on.

TWC has admitted to rate shaping signals, although this likely varies between locations. Rate shaping involving requantization (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8011489&&#post8011489), which can take place 'on the fly' without decompressing/recompressing signals, does lessen higher frequencies/resolutions and lets those delivering HD squeeze in more programming (bandwidth 'saving'). STBs also seem to play a role limiting resolvable details; I've measured significant variations between various models and smaller differences between two cable companies (RCN vs. TWC). -- John

bgooch

11-21-06, 02:48 PM

Major Headaches Lie Ahead For Goodell and the NFL
The Business of Sport

By EVAN WEINER
November 20, 2006

Roger Goodell is learning quickly that running North America's most successful sports organization is not an easy job. The National Football League currently does not have deals in place with either Time Warner or Cablevision to carry the small schedule of regular season games that are scheduled to air on the NFL Network beginning on Thanksgiving night. The Jets and Giants believe the league should loan them $300 million — not $150 million — to help finance their proposed Meadowlands stadium. Goodell also has yet to address problems with revenue sharing between the high-revenue owners, including Washington's Daniel Snyder, Dallas's Jerry Jones, Houston's Robert McNair, New England's Robert Kraft, and Philadelphia's Jeffrey Lurie, and the low-revenue guys like Buffalo's Ralph Wilson and Cincinnati's Mike Brown.

Then there is the Los Angeles project. The former NFL Commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, failed to put a team in Los Angeles in 1999, and his plans to get the league back into the area, the country's second biggest market, by 2009 never materialized.

The NFL Network needs to reach a deal with Time Warner — which has a little more than a million subscribers in the New York City area — because of a complicated deal involving the Federal Communications Commission and the cable TV operator. In July, the FCC approved Time Warner's acquisition, with Comcast, of the assets of a bankrupt Adelphia Communications Corporation. Since it had been carried on Adelphia, the NFL Network was part of this deal.

On August 1, Time Warner announced plans to drop the NFL Network from its newly acquired Adelphia cable systems. The NFL petitioned the FCC in an attempt to keep the network on the old Adelphia systems. And on August 3, the FCC ordered Time Warner to live up to the terms of the previous Adelphia deal at least for a month — with the hope that the NFL and Time Warner could work out their differences. Instead, on September 15, Time Warner dropped the NFL Network from former Adelphia systems across the country.

While the NFL contends it is providing a worthwhile product, Time Warner complains the NFL is asking for too much money per subscriber to place the network on basic expanded cable.

The NFL did reach a deal to carry the network with the nation's third-largest cable system, Cox, but it will be available on a smaller, digital sports and information pay tier, and not basic expanded cable, which is not good news for Goodell and his owners. The nation's largest multiple systems operator, Comcast, has its own plans to move the NFL network to a sports tier in January. This doesn't please the NFL, which has filed suit against Comcast because it argues its deal with the Philadelphia-based MSO guaranteed the NFL Network would be part of a basic expanded package.

The CEO of Comcast, Brian Roberts, may be getting back at the NFL for failing to complete a deal that would have put those eight regular-season contests on his OLN (Versus) channel. The NFL and Comcast had a deal in place but the NFL backed out and decided to hold the games for its own network.

The NFL Network isn't Goodell's only problem. The new Giants-Jets Meadowlands stadium and development project could be stalled if the league doesn't free up some $300 million in loans to the Woody Johnson and Wellington Mara-Bob Tisch franchises. Just where that leaves the Meadowlands project is unknown, but the NFL has already backed out of stadium building in Los Angeles because the tab for getting the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum up to 21st-century standards could reach $1 billion.

The Los Angeles problem has been a major headache since Georgia Frontiere moved her Rams from Anaheim to St. Louis in 1995, and Al Davis left the L.A. Memorial Coliseum to return to Oakland the same year. Paul Tagliabue and his 31 owners virtually handed Los Angeles an expansion franchise that would start in 2002, but failed to convince local and state politicians to approve funding for a facility. Seven years later, the NFL still cannot get public funding in L.A., Pasadena, or Anaheim.

Meanwhile, San Francisco 49ers owner John York has announced he is exploring a move down Highway 101 to the South Bay area and Santa Clara. In 1997, San Francisco residents approved a spending package to build a new football facility at Candlestick Point, but nothing was ever done.

York's plans have not made Senator Feinstein very happy. A California democrat and a former mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein now sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and may introduce legislation that would require the NFL to sign off on any franchise relocation. The NFL actually has a rule on the book that requires threequarters of the owners to approve a move. The last time the NFL tried to stop an owner from moving was in 1980 when Davis took his Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. League owners don't want to be reminded of their decision — Davis sued his fellow owners, won, and wound up in L.A.

The California problem extends to San Diego where Alex Spanos is negotiating with suburban San Diego cities to build a new Chargers stadium after San Diego city officials told him they could not meet his demands for a new facility.

Goodell and the NFL owners did not touch the revenue-sharing issue at their fall meetings in New Orleans a few weeks back, and they seem to be no closer to figuring out a solution.

The league has not really talked much with its member clubs about revenue sharing, but the United States Senate is monitoring talks on the subject. Senator Schumer is pressuring Goodell and the owners to get a deal done. With the Democrats now in control of the Senate, the NFL might feel more inclined to get the deal done, particularly with Schumer wielding more influence as major strategist in the democrats' election day win.

Whether the New Orleans Saints owner, Tom Benson, remains in Louisiana is another difficult situation. New Orleans no longer has a corporate community that can buy high-end tickets for luxury boxes and club seats or buy marketing partnerships or sponsorships; a recipe for financial disaster.

But the most pressing problem for Goodell is to find a way to bring about a resolution in the Time Warner- Cablevision negotiations. Right now both the cable operators and the NFL owners are playing a game of hardball that could result in a good number of football fans having to follow the Denver-Kansas City tilt the old-fashioned way. On the radio.

http://www.nysun.com/article/43841

VisionOn

11-21-06, 05:24 PM

oh boy, if Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii is the standard of what people are holding out for then the rest of the country has it bad!

i'll trade you the interactive pet adoption channel, the pizza hut ordering channel, and the multi-screen sport channel for all my locals in HD, DVR software that doesn't make me cry, and *any* new HD channel.

well I don't have any new HD channels to offer but I can trade you some of the three old ones that we've had for two years. Oh and Movie Trailers on Demand!

At least you actually see progress in content and delivery and not just on demand channels being rebadged and merged together to appear "new."

Riverside_Guy

11-22-06, 12:21 PM

bgooch, very well written piece you posted. Points out that things are far more complicated than may initially meet the eye.

Then again, I find amusement galore when 2 ultra-rich corporate mini-Enrons mix it up. Still, I do kinda go for TWC's point, those games bloody well should be on basic cable, not tied into another pay tier.

toadfannc

11-26-06, 08:44 AM

clapple

11-26-06, 09:18 AM

>> It must not be significant enough for Time Warner to care. <<

Of course they don't care, as long as there is no competition !

Can't wait for Verizon to start providing TV service.

gparris

11-26-06, 11:32 AM

I would assume that there are examples of where TWC has had competition and rates have gone down and service levels have increased?

Arcade

11-26-06, 10:00 PM

This weekend I visited homes that had Cox and Comcast service. Not only is TWC programming line-up very inferior (while paying higher monthly rates), but the PQ and services (guide, etc.) are much worse than Cox or Comcast. Don't believe all the crap you read on these forums about TWC's technical quality. That's just a poor excuse to divert attention away from their woeful record on responding to customer demand for more and better programming.

Satellite is definitely not convenient for where I live, but I'm ready to give it a try. I'm curious about what kind of defection rate there is these days, especially with the NFL Network situation and with more and more people realizing what a joke TWC is compared to other providers. It must not be significant enough for Time Warner to care.

Well TWC lost me as of last month.
No NFL Network
No CW network
No CBS HD
No ABC HD
No NBC HD
No FOX HD
No Food Network HD
No HGTV HD

And the list goes on and on.
See you later Time Warner.

I also switched my phone service to Sun Rocket for a flat 16.99 a month.
So far it works great and was very easy to setup.

I was spending near 200.00 a month with TWC. My bill this month for just internet was 29.00.
Maybe if enough people hit them in the pocketbook they will get with the program someday. I'm not holding my breath though.

Stan54

11-27-06, 01:01 PM

It's an odd thing. When my local system was Adelphia, everybody seemed to say that Adelphia was the worst possible cable company to have. Ever since they upgraded our local system 6 or 7 years ago, I have believed that Adelphia was fine at least here in central Maine. Still the criticism (local and national) continued right up until the day that Time Warner took over.

Now, I learn through the internet that in fact Time Warner is the worst possible cable company to have. ............ I wish people would get together and make up my mind!

Actually, the fine signal quality and service continue on our local system despite the change in the "brand name." I guess the technical quality and service are a local matter for each subscriber. ........ Bad area = bad problems. Good area = fewer problems.

So far, I have 13 HD channels. We don't have CBS, yet, but I can't say that I really want TWC to start paying the local channels to carry their signals. When the CBS channels (in this area) begin selling less advertising because of the decreased number of eyeballs, it won't be long until they DEMAND to be put on the local system.

toadfannc

11-29-06, 10:00 AM

http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=32185

Cox has added a handful of HD channels (MTVHD, ESPN2HD, etc.) in the past 6 months-- Comcast has added 9 new HD channels in the past year or so. TWC has added nothing.

How would you like to be a former Comcast or Adelphia customer who now has TWC? ESPN2HD-- gone, NFL Network-- gone, along with many, many others. Those people are even bigger losers than us long suffering TWC customers are. At least we're used to getting nothing. Check it out on this and other (http://www.hdtvoice.com and http://www.highdefforum.com among others) forums with posts from ex-Comcast/Adelphia subscribers. There's even a lawsuit in LA from customers who were forcibly switched to TWC and are now very pissed:

http://www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=31859

Get ready to hear from the sychophants about TWC's "pragmatic" (translation: the highest rates for the worst channel line-up) attitude towards new programming. Or, how superior TWC is with technology. BS.

EricM407

11-29-06, 07:26 PM

I would assume that there are examples of where TWC has had competition and rates have gone down and service levels have increased?

Everest is laying cable in my area right now. Neighborhoods where Everest is live (in the same city, mind you) get a discount from TWC that isn't offered to us schlubs who have no choice in cable providers. They still get the same sucky service though - guess TWC can't offer two tiers of that.

Cain

11-29-06, 10:37 PM

Cox has added a handful of HD channels (MTVHD, ESPN2HD, etc.) in the past 6 months-- Comcast has added 9 new HD channels in the past year or so. TWC has added nothing.

Why ???

delar

11-29-06, 11:57 PM

They still get the same sucky service though - guess TWC can't offer two tiers of that.
Tiered suckage. Don't give them any ideas.

toadfannc

11-30-06, 05:20 AM

Why ???

Why NO HD channel addtions? Ask TWC.

See my earlier post about what the TWC apologists will tell you.

Riverside_Guy

11-30-06, 08:37 AM

TWC just added three HD channels effective 11/1/06 in my market.

toadfannc

11-30-06, 09:46 AM

TWC just added three HD channels effective 11/1/06 in my market.

I'm talking about national HD channels-- not local/regional ones that apply to one or 2 markets.

Berk32

11-30-06, 10:51 AM

I'm talking about national HD channels-- not local/regional ones that apply to one or 2 markets.

Well 2 of the channels he's talking about is Starz-HD and Cinemax-HD
(2 channels that corperate TWC already had access to.... just weren't added in NYC until this month)

The other channel he's refering to is MSG-HD, which is local, but important.
(another was also added this month... YES-HD)

toadfannc

11-30-06, 11:00 AM

Well 2 of the channels he's talking about is Starz-HD and Cinemax-HD
(2 channels that corperate TWC already had access to.... just weren't added in NYC until this month)

The other channel he's refering to is MSG-HD, which is local, but important.
(another was also added this month... YES-HD)

Right- 2 locals, and 2 subscriptions (only available in 1 or 2 markets). I'm referring to HD channels available to all customers (ex. Discovery HD, TNT-HD) or in a suite (ESPNHD, InHD). Cox has added MTV-HD, ESPN2HD and others. Comcast has added even more-- not locally specific or subscription channels. Tell me ... what has TWC added in the last 3 years? Only Universal HD (over 2 years ago), and even that channel is not provided in many TWC markets-- and, it's by far the most worthless HD channel available. That is, unless you love 'Knight Rider', 'Quantam Leap', 'The Equalizer', and 'Medical Investigation' (all 6 episodes) re-runs.

bgooch

11-30-06, 07:03 PM

Television As Computer
Chris Kraeuter, 11.30.06, 10:00 AM ET

Burlingame, Calif. -

Time Warner Cable is expanding on Thursday a test program for bringing interactive applications like fantasy football stats and eBay bidding into televisions that could eventually reach all of its markets.

The expansion continues a movement toward funneling the information on the Internet into what, for many, is the center of life at home: the television.

"This has the means for enhancing viewing and making our lives more convenient," says Dan Levinson, head of marketing for BIAP Systems, the Plano, Texas-based software company that developed the applications for Time Warner Cable, a subsidiary of media conglomerate Time Warner.

Stamford, Conn.-based Time Warner Cable's "Instant News and More" service for its digital customers will eventually be available to all of its 13.5 million subscribers in 33 markets, mostly in New York, Texas, Ohio, the Carolinas and Southern California, up from the eight it previously served with the test program that began two years ago. A company spokesman declined to specify when all of its subscribers would be able to access the service.

Satellite providers like DirecTV and EchoStar Communications and cable companies like Time Warner Cable are witnessing their stronghold--premium broadcasting subscriptions--getting usurped by downloads and streaming content on the Internet.

BIAP's technology gets built into the cable company's infrastructure and gets automatically loaded into a subscriber's set-top box, where it's then accessed with a standard digital remote.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/cable-television-interactive-tech_cx_ck_1130cable_print.html

dlep

11-30-06, 07:32 PM

dc10forlife

11-30-06, 08:35 PM

kjpjr

11-30-06, 11:17 PM

I agree with dlep the BIAP stuff is real junk. It slows down the channel surfing and I have had problems with my box rebooting if I try and use any of it. Oh and it is very slow and never up to date. Oh and it is not very local if you don't live in a large market. It does do a nice job giving us yesterday's weather. I knew TWC had to have their greedy little hands in this deal.

dlep

12-01-06, 07:21 AM

Just got the new pricing information in the mail today. Currently, INHD, INHD2, HDNET, HDNET Movies, and ESPNHD are in the HD Tier. The new pricing lists only four channels in the HD tier. Presumably INHD2 is being taken off. I wonder if TWC will bother complying with the law by informing customers it is removing INHD2?

TWC in Appleton, WI has informed me that we will lose INHD2 on January 1, 2007. So now that we lose an HD channel it will be interesting to see what, if anything, replaces it. If the loss of the channel frees up some bandwidth to add a different HD channel then at least we didn't have a net loss. However, I find it appalling that TWC is losing HD programming, albeit many repeated programs on INHD2, when just about every provider is adding HD programming.

Harley_Dude

12-01-06, 09:07 AM

TWC in Appleton, WI has informed me that we will lose INHD2 on January 1, 2007. So now that we lose an HD channel it will be interesting to see what, if anything, replaces it. If the loss of the channel frees up some bandwidth to add a different HD channel then at least we didn't have a net loss. However, I find it appalling that TWC is losing HD programming, albeit many repeated programs on INHD2, when just about every provider is adding HD programming.

I got the same letter from TWC San Antonio yesterday. I would assume that nothing is replacing INHD2 or they would have been touting a new channel coming soon in the letter. They'll just use the bandwidth for another highly needed shopping or foreign language channel :rolleyes:

kjpjr

12-01-06, 09:30 AM

In the interest of caring about its customers I am sure TWC will cut the rate in the tier that INHD2 is in by 16% since in our area it is part of six pay channels. So my bill will go down $1.11 a month right after the pigs fly over my house!

Riverside_Guy

12-01-06, 09:51 AM

That "Instant News..." sure sounds like it's part of the whole OCAP thing. As I understand it, their new STB software, being referred to as "Mystro," is needing deployment first. That software should also allow for SDV which should eliminate any bandwidth issues.

Honestly as I read folks from around the country and their issues with poor images, I wonder why I see pretty pristine images, I mean I don't seem to have a lot of the issues others seem to routinely have. I then read about how my local system, serving a huge metro area, has as much if not more bandwidth than almost all other domestic markets. Frankly, I'd rather the way it is right now than having some of the more marginal HD channels available at the expense of image quality.

As for InHD2, it is NOT TWC or any other MSO that is dropping it. It's gone from the source. TWC had nothing to do with it. What IS going to be interesting is that it WAS on a pay tier. On 1/1/07 we will see a reduction of 20% on that pay tier. If TWC left it that way, I gotta think there's be something of a revolt, the customers saying "add another channel or drop the rates." Personally I see a lot of interest in ESPN2 HD, even though I'm not particularly interested, there is a list of others I'd rather see first. BUT that tier does have ESPN HD, so logic tells me they are negotiating to put both ESPN HD channels on that tier.

Marcus Carr

12-01-06, 10:14 AM

As for InHD2, it is NOT TWC or any other MSO that is dropping it. It's gone from the source. TWC had nothing to do with it.

INHD2 is owned by Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox. So MSOs did have a little something to do with it.

holl_ands

12-01-06, 07:45 PM

www.indemand.com still has not posted a press release re inHD2 being "merged" into inHD1....or what, if anything will replace it.

However, since inHD1/2 are currently carried by a shared MPEG2 stream on a C-Band transponder for distro to cable headends,
I would predict that they will simply REPLACE inHD2 with "SOMETHING ELSE", rather than leaving half the transponder capacity unused....

toadfannc

12-04-06, 11:44 AM

humdinger70

12-04-06, 12:27 PM

It might free up enough bandwidth so that, say, Time-Warner can now find a permanent place for Universal HD (for which they do have a carriage agreement, but not every TWC system carries it).

Darren_N

12-04-06, 12:56 PM

Berk32

12-04-06, 03:09 PM

Here in the Kansas City market, we have already lost INHD2. So now we all have on this tier is INHD, HDNET, HDNET Movies, ESPNHD, and Universal HD. It looks like they added Cinemax HD to the premium tier but since we'd have to pay more to get it, I don't consider that a fair replacement for losing INHD2.

I think its a safe bet that any TWC area that doesn't have Universal HD yet will be getting it as a replacement for INHD2, and will be a part of the HD-Tier for everyone as soon as they lose INHD2.

If you already have UniversalHD and haven't lost INHD2 yet, then the new channel is probably going to be 1 of the "missing" channels in your area that TWC national has a carriage agreement for.... (CinemaxHD, StarzHD, possibly something else) or a missing local HD channel. (There are rumors that NYC will be getting WWOR-HD, since its the only local channel with HD content missing from our lineup)

Riverside_Guy

12-04-06, 04:00 PM

Berk32

12-04-06, 05:12 PM

Riverside_Guy

12-05-06, 12:58 PM

Riverside_Guy - like I said - UniversalHD is probably going to the HDExtra tier for everyone as INHD2 is removed

Certainly possible in your market, here it is already part of the "free" HD channels we get, so switching it from a free to a pay channel is a rate increase... doing nothing also is a rate increase as we get 20% less content that what we are paying for. Pretty sure such things need approval from the licensing agency. On the bill I got they announce the channel going away 12/27. They say nothing about anything in it's place, so I'm going to be filing a complaint with the right licensing agency.

Berk32

12-05-06, 01:50 PM

Certainly possible in your market, here it is already part of the "free" HD channels we get, so switching it from a free to a pay channel is a rate increase... doing nothing also is a rate increase as we get 20% less content that what we are paying for. Pretty sure such things need approval from the licensing agency. On the bill I got they announce the channel going away 12/27. They say nothing about anything in it's place, so I'm going to be filing a complaint with the right licensing agency.

We're in the same market.....

and areason they haven't announced the replacement yet might be because they haven't made a final decision...... perhaps ESPN2 is still being worked out.... (lets just hope and pray)

AndyHDTV

12-05-06, 02:05 PM

We're in the same market.....

and areason they haven't announced the replacement yet might be because they haven't made a final decision...... perhaps ESPN2 is still being worked out.... (lets just hope and pray)

yeah I'm waiting till 1/1/07 to see what's going on, you know how TWC operates.
allways last minute.

hopefully the new president of programming will bring us at least 5 new HD channels this coming year. Something Comcast has done for thier subcribers.

archiguy

12-05-06, 02:30 PM

yeah I'm waiting till 1/1/07 to see what's going on, you know how TWC operates.
allways last minute.

hopefully the new president of programming will bring us at least 5 new HD channels this coming year. Something Comcast has done for thier subcribers.

Doesn't matter. Not if TWC National negotiates carriage deals with a hundred more HD channels (even if there were that many). The decision on which channels to add, if any, rest with the local TWC outlets. The question is how much bandwidth do they have and how do they want to allocate it. And, how greedy the local manager is and how much he cares about his HD customers. Here in my area, they don't value us too much. They haven't added any new HD content in over 3 years, yet keep adding bandwidth hogging analog niche, shopping, and foreign language channels (bonus points for guessing which language :rolleyes: ) at a regular clip.

dall08fan

12-05-06, 03:03 PM

webzila

12-05-06, 03:37 PM

Looks like Comcast now has ESPN2 HD but Time Warner does not.
Not sure how long Comcast had it but I just noticed that on the ESPN website and confirmed it on Comcast website..

Here in Houston, if you ask the Time Warner reps about any new HD channels they all say that none are in the works at this time. Doesnt matter though, during the 1st quarter of this year Comcast is taking over and Time Warner is moving out of Houston so hopefully Comcast service is better ... they already seem to have more HD content than TW.

Also, does anyone notice the frequent problems with HD audio/video sync and audio dropouts? I dont know if its a problem with Time Warner or all cable/dish companies but this happens very frequenty and sometimes corrects itself -- only happens on HD -- analog and digital work fine.

LL3HD

12-05-06, 03:40 PM

While I wish my cable company would add more HD channels to the lineup, I cannot believe people in here do not undertand the whole concept of cable/satellite companies trying to please the most people it can. We complain because they add Spanish channels, but if there is a large Spanish population that will watch it then why would they not add the channels. Whether we all like it or not, HD is still a very small viewing audience. There a small percentage of people who love organic foods, but if you go into a grocery store you are not going to find 25% of the store allocated to organic foods, if only 1% of the customers are buying it. It is the same with cable companies. As more people get into HD, then cable companies will make more of effort to get more content, right now they are going to add channels based on demographic, like any well run company would.Organic foods?? :confused:
based on demographic?? :rolleyes:
HD is still a very small viewing audience?? :mad:

Who cares that a large group of people want to watch tv in a language other than English. I don’t go to Venezuela (or any other Spanish speaking country) and expect the local cable provider to cater to my English whims and I certainly know they wouldn’t anyway.

DeathRay

12-05-06, 03:44 PM

how about we compromise and let TWC add a Spanish language organic cooking channel in HD.

Darren_N

12-05-06, 03:55 PM

Huh? UnHD is on a pay tier in KC? Weird, in my market, it's called HDXtra and has InHD 1&2, HDNet, HDNet-M, and ESPN. UnHD is free... er, I mean it's part of the basic package, not in any kind of pay tier. Here, that HDXtra tier is 5 bucks IF you are already paying for DVR service. So for us, we are losing 20% of that pay tier. I dare say losing 20% of a pay tier means they have to put something there. While not my liking, my guess is ESPN2 HD as that tier already carries ESPN HD.

Well, from where it is in the channel line-up, it appears to be part of a pay tier. Here is the tier that includes Universal HD:

1500 Discovery HD Theater
1501 INHD (INHD2 used to be 1502)
1503 HD Net
1504 HDNET Movies
1505 ESPN-HD
1506 NBC Universal HD

Here in KC, this tier is called the HD Pack and we have to pay 5 bucks extra a month for it. On the TWC KC website, Universal HD is listed as part of this tier in the channel lineup.

dall08fan

12-05-06, 04:31 PM

If you lived there you would, especially if the population was growing with English speaking residence. Since you want cable companies to cater to a small percentage of people, then you be one of those who would want a Spanish speaking coutry to cater to your needs if you went there.

VisionOn

12-05-06, 06:42 PM

Inundated

12-05-06, 08:08 PM

Looks like Comcast now has ESPN2 HD but Time Warner does not.
Not sure how long Comcast had it but I just noticed that on the ESPN website and confirmed it on Comcast website..

For whatever reason, when Time Warner picked up the Adelphia systems here (Cleveland), we got to keep ESPN2HD.

I have no idea why. TWC dropped ESPNU when it took over, along with (of course) NFL Network. But ESPN2HD survived, and we still get it to this day.

toadfannc

12-05-06, 09:10 PM

For whatever reason, when Time Warner picked up the Adelphia systems here (Cleveland), we got to keep ESPN2HD.

I have no idea why. TWC dropped ESPNU when it took over, along with (of course) NFL Network. But ESPN2HD survived, and we still get it to this day.

They made a side deal for continued carriage of ESPN2HD for the former Adelphia markets. Presumably, until a more broad carriage agreement could be reached. Of course, that hasn't happened- and don't expect it to. I would bet that you having ESPN2HD is short lived- so enjoy it for now, until it gets yanked like the NFL Network and ESPNU. Welcome to our world.

webzila

12-05-06, 11:15 PM

For whatever reason, when Time Warner picked up the Adelphia systems here (Cleveland), we got to keep ESPN2HD.

I have no idea why. TWC dropped ESPNU when it took over, along with (of course) NFL Network. But ESPN2HD survived, and we still get it to this day.

TimeWarner is strange. They are slow to add channels and when they do add channels its usually something I have no interest in. Even with HD, there is PBS and Discovery...those channels are nice once in a while but I didnt get an HD TV to watch nature and discovery programs all the time. Whats stopping TW from getting channels such as ESPN2 HD especially since now all the competitors carry it. Why dont they add NFL network as well, its not even HD.

I was kind of hesitant about Comcast taking over Houston but now I cant wait until TW gets the hell out.

avguygeorge

12-06-06, 12:33 AM

Well I'm in LA, Ca----West Valley--- Just this Sun I had my installation. I bought pretty much the whole deal. I have the HD-DVR---YIKES, It has an HDMI out;--right there on the back!!!
Out here C max and Stars have been added to their lineup.---Those last 2 did it for me. I was +10 years with D*.---and just gave up--- I still have my dish & stuff hooked up. Most of the movies look near the same.I didn't count but I must have 50 more channels.-- Funny thing ,--I actually haven't actually watched a complete movie. I spend all the time surfing---With pay per view the channel #s go up to 1500--The guide is so fast!! I can only use the hdmi with my projector--Ruby-- It are great!!In my case it's good how much more I get for near the same monthly. I turned in my old Voom dish--that is good for 15,a month, off my bill for the first year.You could guess I'm happy,yup!!

toadfannc

12-06-06, 08:52 AM

Whats stopping TW from getting channels such as ESPN2 HD especially since now all the competitors carry it? Why dont they add NFL network as well, its not even HD?

Isn't it obvious? GREED. TWC uses the huge profit they get for charging us more and offering less-- to funnel to their other failing businesses (AOL, yada yada yada). Other cable companies (ex. Comcast, Cox) and satellite providers actually care about what their subscribers want, and work to keep their TV customers happy.

Riverside_Guy

12-06-06, 02:29 PM

Well, from where it is in the channel line-up, it appears to be part of a pay tier. Here is the tier that includes Universal HD:

1500 Discovery HD Theater
1501 INHD (INHD2 used to be 1502)
1503 HD Net
1504 HDNET Movies
1505 ESPN-HD
1506 NBC Universal HD

Here in KC, this tier is called the HD Pack and we have to pay 5 bucks extra a month for it. On the TWC KC website, Universal HD is listed as part of this tier in the channel lineup.

Indeed, it's way weird different areas get such completely different things. Here, DiscHD and NBC HD are both part of the basic package. It sure does sound odd that you have to pay extra for one of the original big three broadcast networks, yet Fox HD and CW HD (not part of the original big three) I'm guessing you get for free.

In any case, I did file a complaint about loss of services with the agency that grants TWC it's license to provide TV services, we'll see how that goes.

Riverside_Guy

12-06-06, 02:39 PM

Isn't it obvious? GREED. TWC uses the huge profit they get for charging us more and offering less-- to funnel to their other failing businesses (AOL, yada yada yada). Other cable companies (ex. Comcast, Cox) and satellite providers actually care about what their subscribers want, and work to keep their TV customers happy.

Boy, there are other general public forums where the vitriol against cable companies is about 80% Comcast (usually referred to as Comcrap) and 15% TWC. And how about the satellite guys? I assume you're aware that Direct applies more compression to their signals to make the "we got more HD" claim than any other provider? Seems pretty universal it is referred to as "HD Lite."

Trust me, they are all equally scum-sucking greedy 'tards. Spewing venom here is nowhere, all I can suggest is you follow my example. If something these guys do strikes you wrong, file well spoken complaints to the agency that licenses them. Other than cancelling you account, it's the ONLY way "we" have any chance of making any changes.

AlbanyHDTV

12-06-06, 04:54 PM

Recieved a letter from Albany TWC today. Prices going up in 2007 on the following:

One Premium Channel- From $13.95 in 2006 to $14.95 in 2007
DVR- From $4.95 in 2006 to $6.95 in 2007

dall08fan

12-06-06, 11:06 PM

First of all, all cable companies are in there to make money. This crap about certain cable companies caring more about making there customers happy is BS. They do it to make more money, period. I have gone through several cable companies and Directv. I have had things I loved about each one and things I could not stand. Directv is to compressed, getting into HD was expensive at the time. Cable's basic channels were all analog and they did not have some of the sports channels that Directv has. I loved Directv cause of the sports packaging and it would not be out after a hurricane. I love cable cause there HD is far better in picture quality compared to Directv. I could go on, but you all should get the point.

mgh

12-08-06, 12:55 PM

Bright House Network now showing A&E HD in Bakersfield, CA. BHN is somewhat a TWC clone in terms of programming. Not on my wish list for new hd....

Riverside_Guy

12-09-06, 02:04 PM

Recieved a letter from Albany TWC today. Prices going up in 2007 on the following:

One Premium Channel- From $13.95 in 2006 to $14.95 in 2007
DVR- From $4.95 in 2006 to $6.95 in 2007

Boy, that's a hell of a percentage increase in DVR service. However, while it's a service charge, it's 100% for the rental of the box (and the software to operate it). Has nothing to do with their infrastructure or costs at the heads end. Yet the pricing disparity between different areas is huge (ours has always been 9 bucks/month). TWC pays the exact same price for the box whether it's in the TriCities (old stomping grounds, but I think they've plowed over the furrow I made between Schenectady and Saratoga Springs!) or NYC.

VisionOn

12-09-06, 03:17 PM

Boy, that's a hell of a percentage increase in DVR service. However, while it's a service charge, it's 100% for the rental of the box (and the software to operate it). Has nothing to do with their infrastructure or costs at the heads end. Yet the pricing disparity between different areas is huge (ours has always been 9 bucks/month).

As far back as I can recall it's always been $6.95 here. When I was in NY a few years back I saw an ad for the DVR at $10 and thought that was expensive! So based on that price increase I'm expecting it crawl towards the $10 mark here in the not too distant future.

beatles6

12-10-06, 04:05 PM

Berk32

12-10-06, 04:41 PM

How about FSNY HD? The last of moron Dolan's cablevision channels.

Well thats a regional channel... not something most people with Time Warner would care about, since they wouldn't get it.

AndyHDTV

12-11-06, 07:05 PM

my email:
"Hello, I'm eagerly awaiting any new HD channels. I was just wondering if an agreement was made allowing TWC to carry HGTV-HD & FOOD-HD, and if not is an agreement expected soon?"

thank you, Andy

response:
"Thanks for your question about our HD services. We currently are in discussions with Time Warner and am hopeful we will reach an agreement to carry the services. The best way to help insure that you will be able to see them is to call your system and let them know. In fact, the more they hear from their customers the more motivated they become."
Thanks for your interest in our networks and for being a terrific fan.

John

AndyHDTV

12-11-06, 07:18 PM

http://www.tvpredictions.com/timemhd121106.htm

Time Warner to Add MHD
The high-def music channel comes from MTV Networks.
By Phillip Swann
Washington, D.C. (December 11, 2006) -- Time Warner has announced that it's adding MHD, the High-Definition TV channel from MTV.

The launch is part of a new carriage agreement between the cable operator and the Viacom-owned MTV Networks.

MHD, a 24-hour HDTV channel, features music videos and concerts in high-def. The channel, which debuted last January, is available on some cable systems including Comcast and Cox. But the addition of Time Warner is a big boost for the new network.

"This agreement reflects the resonance our highly targeted multi-platform brands have with the devoted niche audiences they serve," said Nicole Browning, President, Affiliate Sales and Marketing, MTV Networks and BET.

"Our agreement with MTVN...permit us to offer customers additional, diverse programming choices and align channel line-ups, especially among those systems we recently acquired from Adelphia and Comcast," said Fred Dressler, TW's executive vice president for programming.

MHD is not available on DIRECTV or EchoStar's Dish Network

Stan54

12-11-06, 07:32 PM

VisionOn

12-11-06, 07:33 PM

Is this supposed to be the replacement for InHD2? Can't say I'm particularly excited to see the MTV music lineup in HD. That's assuming it ever reaches this area.

Anyone else been wanting this channel?

Stan54

12-11-06, 07:36 PM

LL3HD

12-11-06, 08:11 PM

Oh my God! They can save the bandwidth on these, too as far as I am concerned. Bandwidth is precious and this is what television comes up with.So you’re not into music, home repair, cooking and eating…just curious... what channel are you waiting for?

Gary J

12-11-06, 08:20 PM

So you’re not into music, home repair, cooking and eating…just curious... what channel are you waiting for?
Does it matter?

That's why restaurants have menus.

LL3HD

12-11-06, 08:50 PM

That's why restaurants have menus. :rolleyes: Whatever that means.

I was just curious as to what other HD channels are out there that I’m not aware of but Stan54 is. That’s all. :)

dc10forlife

12-11-06, 09:47 PM

I would love to insure against time warner not getting any more HD channels, but what insurer would take on that risk?

JayPSU

12-11-06, 09:52 PM

:rolleyes: Whatever that means.

I was just curious as to what other HD channels are out there that I’m not aware of but Stan54 is. That’s all. :)

That we do not have yet (at least here in Columbus, Ohio)? How about Starz, Cinemax, TMC, ESPN 2, and NFL Network in HD? Also, how about Starz On Demand? I'd rather save the room for these.

Berk32

12-11-06, 10:12 PM

That we do not have yet (at least here in Columbus, Ohio)? How about Starz, Cinemax, TMC, ESPN 2, and NFL Network in HD? Also, how about Starz On Demand? I'd rather save the room for these.

A number of markets now have Starz and Cinemax.

and not gonna get nfl network HD without the normal nfl network.....

VisionOn

12-11-06, 10:55 PM

A number of markets now have Starz and Cinemax.

the number being a figure you can count on one hand. I expect MTV HD will join them in being invisible to the majority of markets. I certainly won't be expecting it here. It's been at least a year since they added something new to the HD lineup and that was just UHD.

LL3HD

12-11-06, 11:07 PM

That we do not have yet (at least here in Columbus, Ohio)? How about Starz, Cinemax, TMC, ESPN 2, and NFL Network in HD? Also, how about Starz On Demand? I'd rather save the room for these.That does stink.
We were lucky enough to have Starz and Cinemax added recently here in the NY market. Hope they get it to your market soon.

AndyHDTV

12-12-06, 12:19 AM

According to a poster in Columbia, SC:

"I saw a banner running on the bottom of the weather channel this morning saying that time warner cable will be adding MHD, A&EHD and TVone to the lineup before the 31st of Dec."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9118487#post9118487

VisionOn

12-12-06, 01:05 AM

Time Warner SC should adopt the Vegas marketing slogan ...

"What happens in Time Warner South Carolina, stays in Time Warner South Carolina."

optivity

12-12-06, 08:21 AM

Will there ever be a Sci Fi HD channel?

Riverside_Guy

12-12-06, 09:58 AM

I seriously doubt MHD will be a "replacement" for the dropped InHD2... InHD2 was part of a pay tier. My guess is that MHD is going to be a "free" channel (we have 2 "collections" here, an intro package and a value package; the value package has everything, the intro package less so; MHD MAY be in the value but not the intro package). In any case that's great news.

PLUS A&E, wow! As for the marketing, we found out about the addition of Starz & Cinemax from someone posting about catching a crawl on the Weather channel, so that looks like that method could be accurate. Nice explosion of HD goodness!

FYI, my complaint to DOITT (the licensing agency who grants TWC-NY the right to operate) about them dropping 20% of a pay tier got a phone call from their public affairs group. FWIW, they ARE aware they "owe" us a replacement, no they won't drop the rates but they DO have every intention to replace the channel. They can't say with what, but they were emphatic that something would be in it's place. I asked about why didn't they say the same thing when they announced it was being dropped, they said they felt it would generate tons and tons of calls from folks asking what channel would be added!

Boy would I jump for a SciFi HD channel. Before we can even think about that, SciFi needs to start the ball rolling. Like a lot of other channels, it would start with very little actual HD (look at A&E HD, we haven't even seen it in my market and already legions are complaining it has too little HD content!). However, I sure as hell DO see BSG being run on UnHD in HD. It's about 5-6 episodes behind the first run broadcasts. SciFi & UnHD are NBC owned, so there's a good connection there. Only a guess, but other shows COULD follow a similar path. I sure hope so.

Pipesmoker

12-12-06, 10:25 AM

At least the majority of you can actually get HD. I live in Uniontown, Pa. 'bout 45 mi. south of Pittsburgh and 20 mi. north of Morgantown, WV. We use to have Charter but was switched to Atlanticbb.net. I inquired about HD programing being available, they stated they had no firm date!!!! I get the premium tier HBO(4) Cinemax(3) TMC, Starz, Action, etc.,etc. Pay $150 +or- a few bucks a mo. That includes my HS internet connection, 3000/256. What really gripes me is 12 mi. down the road a town of 700/1000 gets HD on Adelphia. There seems to be a lot of knocks on Sat. because of compression issues of the HD, but to my thinking now, at least it is HD and is available including my local CBS-ABC-NBC &Fox. So here I sit with my just purchased Sam. HL-S7178 and no HD programing. I ordered the Toshiba HD DVD player last Fri. and got my grandson a PS3, so I'm covered that way(HD-DVD/Blu-Ray DVD0) but am seriously contemplating going Sat. and switching my internet to Verizon DSL (3mb/756) for 30, because if I drop my cable my "special" pricing fo the cable internet will go up to 38.99. Now to read, read and re read the forums on the Sat's to try and decide what one to go with should I decide.

Stan54

12-12-06, 02:44 PM

So you’re not into music, home repair, cooking and eating…just curious... what channel are you waiting for?

I use audio products for music. The channel I am waiting for (HD) CBS, FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, TNT (real HD), Comedy, FX, USA, SCI FI and National Geographic.

Marcus Carr

12-12-06, 06:29 PM

NFL Network Offers Cablers Free Preview

By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/12/2006 5:08:00 PM

In the latest chess move in the ongoing standoff between the National Football League and cable companies, the NFL Network is offering a free preview to Time Warner and Cablevision in the New York and New Jersey area in late December.

The free preview features the cable network’s exclusive coverage of a post-season college football game featuring New Jersey’s Rutgers University. No live NFL telecasts are included in the proposed free preview.

"We just received the offer and we are looking into it," a Time Warner spokesperson said Tuesday afternoon. A Cablevision spokesperson had not yet returned a call seeking comment at press time.

The network is offering the two cablers a free license to carry both the standard- and high-definition feeds of the network between 6 a.m. on Dec. 24 and 8 pm on Dec. 30.

Rutgers plays Kansas State University in the Texas Bowl post-season game on December 28. While local fans of NFL teams playing in NFL Network-televised games can see the game on an over-the-air station, that is not the case for NCAA football.

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6399399.html?display=Breaking+News

Bill G

12-12-06, 07:28 PM

[QUOTE=VisionOn]Is this supposed to be the replacement for InHD2? Can't say I'm particularly excited to see the MTV music lineup in HD. That's assuming it ever reaches this area.

I don't know about anywhere else but in the Southern Tier of NY, Corning & Elimra area InHD2 is being replaced by Universal HD. Now if they would play catch up and really add some HD would be nice. Personally I am thinking about going back to Directv even if it cost me $60per month extra.

Bill G

optivity

12-13-06, 08:13 AM

There is a rumor going around that my local cable provider, Albany Time Warner, is adding MTV-HD to their channel line-up. :cool: I'm "so glad" to see their allocation of precious bandwidth to such exceptional programming. :rolleyes:

With service like that... I'll gladly accept another increase in my cable TV rates. :p

Riverside_Guy

12-13-06, 10:59 AM

Well, there was an announcement that TWC and Viacom signed a carriage deal including MHD. That does not automatically mean any specific area gets it, it only means that a business deal is signed. My guess is that it might be a bit erratic in roll-out, meaning over the course of several months it rolls out.

We DO have at least one "sighting" of a weather channel crawl about adding A&E HD to the NYC area. We know the 11/1 additions to NYC were first "announced" on a weather channel crawl.

Ah Corning, my college sweeties came from there! Bill, do you get InHD without subscribing to a pay tier? Here, that channel is part of a pay tier, but UnHD is part of the basic package (sort of free, meaning you don't pay extra). It is a worthwhile channel, there's an eclectic mix of HD versions of some TV shows and movies. It's among the very few channels that everything is in HD.

Riverside_Guy

12-13-06, 11:06 AM

Oh boy is this ever getting interesting. I love 2 fat cat titans fight in public (NFL vs. TWC). While I'm a big football fan, generally it's my local teams I follow. Very few out of market games hold my interest, so there sure are other channels I'd prefer to NFL Network. This "free" deal is great, heaven knows Rutgers fans deserve not to be shut out. AND it puts 100% of the onus on TWC.

TWC's wishy-washy statement was a way dumb thing to do. A lot of folks would REALLY get incensed if they refused. I'm not big Rutgers fan, but I would get pissed. TWC should have instantly announced they were going with the offer... I'd love to know their thinking about what they DID say.

Rakesh.S

12-13-06, 12:21 PM

Boy...i'd be annoyed if they added MHD before HDNet Movies here in Dallas. Bandwidth is at a premium out here and no one knows when, if ever, it will improve.

Snickering Hound

12-13-06, 12:23 PM

According to my Time Warner bill here in Houston, INHD2 goes off the air on 12/15 with no replacement.

Berk32

12-13-06, 01:01 PM

We DO have at least one "sighting" of a weather channel crawl about adding A&E HD to the NYC area. We know the 11/1 additions to NYC were first "announced" on a weather channel crawl.

No we don't have any sightings Riverside_Guy.

that was the South Carolina guy.......

roland6465

12-13-06, 01:46 PM

According to my Time Warner bill here in Houston, INHD2 goes off the air on 12/15 with no replacement.

Same here in Winston-Salem, NC. I called and was told by a "manager" that my HD Pack would still be $6.95/mo. for the 3 remaining channels.

DirecTV installer is coming sometime today by 5. Time to unsubscribe to this forum, see 'yall!

optivity

12-13-06, 01:51 PM

According to my Time Warner bill here in Houston, INHD2 goes off the air on 12/15 with no replacement.Don't we pay extra for the HD Premium Tier? Instead of raising rates Time Warner is dropping channels to increase profitability. Nice! ;)

Verizon FiOS TV is coming soon :)

Bill G

12-13-06, 07:16 PM

Ah Corning, my college sweeties came from there! Bill, do you get InHD without subscribing to a pay tier? Here, that channel is part of a pay tier, but UnHD is part of the basic package (sort of free, meaning you don't pay extra). It is a worthwhile channel, there's an eclectic mix of HD versions of some TV shows and movies. It's among the very few channels that everything is in HD.[/QUOTE]

InHD and well as InHD are part of the HD Tier. I don't know how much it cost as I have Digital Phone, Road Runner, and Digital cable package. I don't watch InHD2 but am looking forward to Universal.

Did you keep any of your sweeties or send them home? :)

Bill G

m_tyson

12-13-06, 07:59 PM

Don't we pay extra for the HD Premium Tier? Instead of raising rates Time Warner is dropping channels to increase profitability. Nice! ;)

Verizon FiOS TV is coming soon :)

Call TW customer service and gripe about something (not too difficult), then ask for the goodwill promotion of HD VIP PAK free for 6 months... :D

dc10forlife

12-13-06, 08:43 PM

AndyHDTV

12-14-06, 12:25 AM

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399794.html?display=Breaking+News

Operators Shrug at NFL Network Offer

By R. Thomas Umstead 12/13/2006 6:00:00 PMDigg This | add to Del.icio.us |

Time Warner Cable Wednesday punted NFL Network’s six-day free preview offer back to the network with several options that would include basic-tier carriage of the Dec. 28 Rutgers-Kansas State Texas Bowl game.

Responding to the NFL Network’s free preview offer made yesterday to New York area Time Warner Cable and Cablevision systems, the MSO said it could not offer on its basic tier the network’s full free preview programming slate – which includes live coverage of the Dec. 29 Minnesota/Texas Tech Insight Bowl – as part of its digital tier due to a lack of channel capacity.

Instead, Time Warner -- in a letter to the 41 million subscriber network -- said is willing to offer the Texas Bowl on a stand alone basis to its basic subscribers or the full free preview lineup on its digital tier.

Cablevision said it would only make the Rutgers game available to all of its basic cable customers as part of the free preview.

An NFL Network spokesman, however, declined comment on whether it would allow either MSO to offer the game on a stand-alone basis.
---
---
---
wonder what channel it will be on for HD?

dildatonr

12-14-06, 11:39 AM

I work on shows for the food network - so it would be nice if TWC could get Food HD.

It's a bit of a bummer to work on an HD show and only get to see it in HD at work.

Riverside_Guy

12-14-06, 12:30 PM

Boy...i'd be annoyed if they added MHD before HDNet Movies here in Dallas. Bandwidth is at a premium out here and no one knows when, if ever, it will improve.

Oh I hear you! But we also heard the drone of "no more HD channels because of bandwidth" only to see them adding 2 new HD channels and turning 2 part time into full time. And the REALLY interesting thing is it SEEMS they didn't go "HD Lite" to get those new channels in play, neither I nor anyone else in my market (on AVS) has noticed any significant quality degradation.

Riverside_Guy

12-14-06, 12:38 PM

InHD and well as InHD are part of the HD Tier. I don't know how much it cost as I have Digital Phone, Road Runner, and Digital cable package. I don't watch InHD2 but am looking forward to Universal.

Did you keep any of your sweeties or send them home? :)

Bill G

Calling a collection of channels "HD Tier" sure implies it's an extra cost thing. BUT it may not be easy to tell from your bill. Here it's HDXtra, but there's a combo deal of DVR and HDXtra for 15 bucks, so the bill says HDXtra combo pack and doesn't mention DVR at all.

I'm just hoping UnHD starts carrying more SciFi shows like they do for BSG.

Ah, the sweetie. Turned out she wasn't that sweet after all. Besides, that was a LONG time ago.

Riverside_Guy

12-14-06, 12:49 PM

Time Warner southwest Ohio is in denial. CSR assured me that INHD2 would be here past Jan. 1st. She even spoke with her supervisor. So much for complying with the law and informing customers 30 days before removing a channel.

Well, they listed it being dropped on the bill I got a week or so ago, so they are OK here with the 30 day rule (it's going away 12/27 here). FYI, TWC is NOT dropping the channel, InHD itself is. TWC doesn't have any choice in that, their "choice" is about replacing the channel.

JayPSU

12-14-06, 12:58 PM

Berk32

12-14-06, 01:28 PM

I'm holding out hope that between losing INHD2, and the agreement with STARZ ending at the end of the year, TWC makes a deal with Starz and adds Starz HD, Starz On Demand, and maybe Cinemax HD to those of us out here in Columbus, Ohio.

TWC has already "reached a deal" for StarzHD and CinemaxHD (a number of markets have had it for at least a few months)...

So then its up to the Columbus Ohio division to "find the bandwidth" and add it.

Starz On Demand is a whole other story that I still don't understand.....

kjpjr

12-14-06, 01:54 PM

AndyHDTV

12-14-06, 03:40 PM

Starz On Demand is a whole other story that I still don't understand.....

TWC San Diego actually carries Starz OnDemand. don't knw any other offhand the carries it.

AndyHDTV

12-14-06, 03:42 PM

dc10forlife

12-14-06, 03:45 PM

Well, they listed it being dropped on the bill I got a week or so ago, so they are OK here with the 30 day rule (it's going away 12/27 here). FYI, TWC is NOT dropping the channel, InHD itself is. TWC doesn't have any choice in that, their "choice" is about replacing the channel.

Considering that TWC is a partner (or shareholder) in the InHD venture, it certainly did have a "choice" in whether to continue the channel.

There is an exception to the 30-day notice requirement for situations beyond the control of the carrier. TWC argued in its dispute with the NFLN that this exception allowed TWC to not provide any notice on eliminating the NFLN from its systems. The FCC didn't buy it, essentially finding that TWC knew it did not have a contract with the NFLN to carry the programming and that TWC could have signed a deal to continue carrying it or provided the 30 day notice as required by law.

So, I doubt the FCC would give TWC an out for failing to provide 30 days notice on a network TWC itself has partial control over. No chance in hell.

dennis1

12-15-06, 02:41 AM

Here in SC TW will treat its customers in the following manner: When INHD2 goes off the the air there will be no replacement, however, the cost for that tier will remain at $6.95 a month. It is so nice that they care about us. I asked if any channels might take INHD2 place and was told "no" by a CSR who spent about ten minutes away from the phone getting this information. So we really pay $6.95 a month for ESPNHD since that is the only channel of any real value in that tier. But now 17% of the channels are leaving this tier and no rate change -- that on top of the $4 a month they are raising the rates in SC for no new services, just a general rate increase. And a $1 of that rate increase is for box rental!I don't know if subscribers to other TW affiliates have the same situation as we do at TW Desert Cities.

When I got my HDTV, I called them up and asked for the "HD VIP Pack" (the INHD's, the HDNet's and ESPNHD). The customer-no-service person said it would be $9.95 per month. I said that the website showed it as $6.95. After checking, the rep gave it to me for the $6.95 price.

Now, every month on my bill I see "High Definition VIP Tier" listed at $9.95 and, right below it, "Service Discount" shown as -$3.00.

I pity the poor fools who don't realize that they can get three dollars off the price just by asking. And I don't see how TW gets away with it.

telemike

12-15-06, 07:49 AM

I emailed our local TWC and they have no news on any new HD channels at this time :(

Sure wish I could talk the wife into Dish or Direc-TV

Riverside_Guy

12-15-06, 11:35 AM

Considering that TWC is a partner (or shareholder) in the InHD venture, it certainly did have a "choice" in whether to continue the channel.

Uh, not at all. Do you make programming decisions for any company you happen to own stock in? It is and has been clear for a while that InHD made the decision to combine both their channels into one (so instead of 12 repeats of any show, we may only have 4). TWC really doesn't have any choice here. Any "shorter than 30 days" issue IS on TWC, the fact the 2 channels were being combined was clear several months ago. A bunch of other systems apparently dropped InHD2 months ago; curious in that InHD itself had not "combined" them.

FWIW, I think I earlier said you should file a complaint with your local licensing agency, mostly as a way of sending a message or to get some concrete information. I filed that complaint and also one directly with TWC. From TWC I got a total BS response, BUT from the complaint to the licensing agency I got a response from TWC's public affairs group. There was fairly specific language used that indicates they WILL replace that channel in that tier. Yesterday I got letters from the agency confirming my complaint AND from TWC back to the agency saying I was contracted, I was told they will replace. So I am very much looking forward to see what they will replace it with (I asked the PR folks why didn't they say what their intentions were when they informed us the channel was going away, they said the felt it wold generate a flood of "what channel is replacing it" way before they were in a position to say).

Truth be told, I'm kinda happy this is happening. It's clear InHD just didn't have enough programming to realistically fill 2 channels. So we're not really LOSING anything by them combining. AND we have an opportunity for a new HD channel. Of course, whatever they do use will make some happy and others not.

JayPSU

12-15-06, 11:45 AM

Uh, not at all. Do you make programming decisions for any company you happen to own stock in? It is and has been clear for a while that InHD made the decision to combine both their channels into one (so instead of 12 repeats of any show, we may only have 4). TWC really doesn't have any choice here. Any "shorter than 30 days" issue IS on TWC, the fact the 2 channels were being combined was clear several months ago. A bunch of other systems apparently dropped InHD2 months ago; curious in that InHD itself had not "combined" them.

FWIW, I think I earlier said you should file a complaint with your local licensing agency, mostly as a way of sending a message or to get some concrete information. I filed that complaint and also one directly with TWC. From TWC I got a total BS response, BUT from the complaint to the licensing agency I got a response from TWC's public affairs group. There was fairly specific language used that indicates they WILL replace that channel in that tier. Yesterday I got letters from the agency confirming my complaint AND from TWC back to the agency saying I was contracted, I was told they will replace. So I am very much looking forward to see what they will replace it with (I asked the PR folks why didn't they say what their intentions were when they informed us the channel was going away, they said the felt it wold generate a flood of "what channel is replacing it" way before they were in a position to say).

Truth be told, I'm kinda happy this is happening. It's clear InHD just didn't have enough programming to realistically fill 2 channels. So we're not really LOSING anything by them combining. AND we have an opportunity for a new HD channel. Of course, whatever they do use will make some happy and others not.

Is this just for TWC subscribers in NY? It seems that TWC has hundreds of heads! Your area recently got Starz and Cinemax HD, and my area still has not. Your area will get a new channel to replace INHD2, we'll probably get nothing. I wish Comcast was an option here in Columbus.

AndyHDTV

12-15-06, 12:00 PM

No mention of HD-OnDemand additions, many divisions still don't have a HD OnDemand channel. Meanwhile Comcast has over 100 hrs of HD content.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6400223.html?display=Breaking+News

Time Warner Cable’s system serving the Greensboro, N.C., market is expected to raise the curtain Friday on a robust on-demand platform that figures to encompass close to 2,000 titles by mid-2007.

Working with In Demand Networks, the system plans to introduce More Movies on Demand, a virtual video store, to its customer base with an eye toward lighting up a number of other divisions throughout 2007.

Supplementing the recent movie releases numbering upward of 200 that it typically offers to its subscribers on-demand, the new program will “layer on 400 incremental titles” under the Family Movies and Classic Movies headings, according to Bob Benya, senior vice president of on-demand and interactive TV for Time Warner Cable.

Whereas current releases cost $3.95 per film, most of the additional titles will be priced at $1.95, with special themed movies going for 99 cents, as a means to stimulate impulse sales.

Time Warner Cable and In Demand will support the More Movies on Demand launch with a multimedia push, according to Benya and In Demand senior VP of programming Dave Asch.

Beginning in February, Time Warner Greensboro will then add approximately 200 more titles per month through June, lifting its total movies-on-demand inventory to somewhere between 1,800-1,900 films, Benya said.

During the first quarter, he anticipates that other Time Warner divisions will roll out the expanded movies offerings..

Asch said the content aggregator has “spoken with several other operators” about helping them to open their own versions of the virtual video stores, which, he added, can be done in “a very scalable way,” depending on a carrier’s server space.

Asch said In Demand was garnering the additional titles from such studios as Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Lionsgate and Warner Bros. “And we’re in conversations with everybody else,” he added.

VisionOn

12-15-06, 01:07 PM

NC Jim

12-15-06, 03:39 PM

Chapel Hill/Durham (NC) division bill just arrived...All prices increased (Digipac 2000, which is my package, by $3.) INHD2 eliminated, replaced by Universal HD on the channel guide insert in the bill. Universal HD had always been free, not part of the HD tier. Channel info printed on bill: "Effective January 23, 2007, Home Buyers Channel will be removed from Channel 7. C-Span2 will move from Channel 60 to Channel 7. Food Network will move from Channel 77 to Channel 60. Sleuth will be added to Digital Variety Channel 126. TV Azteca will be added to Channel 100 and will replace Video Rola on Channel 386. Playboy will be available as a monthly subscription premium channel beginning December 12th on Channel 805. INHD2 is going off the air effective January 1st. Howard TV On Demand is now available on Channel 810.

I think we just got Sleuth, lost 20% of our HD channels, and got a rate increase...

JayPSU

12-15-06, 05:05 PM

I just got off the phone with a CSR, and Team Lead, at TWC Columbus, Ohio. She told me they have received absolutely no news that INHD2 would be merged into INHD and that we'd lose a channel. She said that they are aware of having to inform their customers 30 days in advance of a channel being eliminated, and she guaranteed me that INHD2 would be on the air here in Columbus for at least the next 30 days. HMMMMMMMM.

One other little tidbit, she informed me that on January 1st we will be getting Starz On-Demand. At least a little good news.

VisionOn

12-15-06, 05:21 PM

dc10forlife

12-15-06, 05:38 PM

Uh, not at all. Do you make programming decisions for any company you happen to own stock in?

If you think TWC's stake in INHD is like a shareholder in a publicly traded company then you are relying on some bad information. INHD more accurately resembles a joint venture between a few cable companies. If TWC is going to try to rely on that as its defense to the 30 day notice requirement then it will be clobbered again like it was with the NFLN dispute.

dpwicz

12-15-06, 07:59 PM

dennis1, the VIP Pack discount is automatic, but can go up at anytime

rcweiss

12-15-06, 09:40 PM

Talked to a Cincinnati rep and he said the same thing as Columbus, that TW Cincy has no knowlege of INHD merging on Jan 1st. I pointed him to several news releases on the internet from both INHD and other cable companies and he said he will have someone call me about it in the next couple of days after he talks to his management. Does anyone know if the 30 day rule is only relevant if a channel is being removed by the cable provider and not if the channel itself ceases to exist?

dc10forlife

12-15-06, 10:52 PM

Section 76.1603(b) of the FCC's rules, which implements Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 USC Section 543, states, "Customers will be notified of any change in rates, programming services, or channel positions as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty days in advance of such changes if the change is within control of the cable operator."

Section 76.309 of the FCC rules further defines what is "not in control of the cable operator" as the following: "Those conditions which are not within the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather conditions." In adopting this definition, the FCC observed that "events [that] are generally scheduled by the cable operator" and events for which "the operator knows the schedule reasonably well in advance of the event" are within the operator's control. See 8 FCC Red. 2892, 2903, para. 43 (1993).

Judge for yourself.

dennis1

12-16-06, 02:04 AM

dennis1, the VIP Pack discount is automatic, but can go up at anytimeDoes that mean that even though the lady had said that it would cost $9.95 per month, they would have nevertheless given me the $3.00 discount when my cable bill came in the mail? I guess that's a possible explanation--silly (in my opinion), but possible.

dennis1

12-16-06, 02:11 AM

Riverside_Guy

12-16-06, 10:13 AM

Is this just for TWC subscribers in NY? It seems that TWC has hundreds of heads! Your area recently got Starz and Cinemax HD, and my area still has not. Your area will get a new channel to replace INHD2, we'll probably get nothing. I wish Comcast was an option here in Columbus.

I have certainly observed (and made note of) the fact that different areas with the same company get very different things. I've listened to "we got them you don't" for those 2 channels, now I kinda get to be part of the "we got them" crowd. Yes, I think it totally stinks that under the same cable company, I get and you don't.

In another cable provider forum, 85-90% of the complaining is about Comcast (comcrap, crapfest). FWIW

optivity

12-16-06, 10:19 AM

I was speaking to a TW Desert Cities customer-no-service rep this afternoon on another subject. When we finished that, he asked if he could help me with anything else, so I broached the subject of INHD2.

He appeared to be honestly surprised and asked me where I had heard about it. Obviously, he couldn't tell me what was going to be replacing INHD2.My experience has been... with the exception of their subscriber's, TWs telephone CS representatives are generally the last to know. ;)

AstroTravellin

12-16-06, 12:53 PM

inHD 2 is going off air as of 12/31/06. A&E HD and MHD (Music High Definition) will be added on 12/20/06, here in Austin, according to the rep I spoke with this morning. They will also have all three Lord of the Rings movies available for free on HD-On Demand from 12/20 to 1/23.

ttexas22

12-16-06, 02:19 PM

holl_ands

12-16-06, 06:36 PM

Just to add one more report from the front lines:

I was speaking to a TW Desert Cities customer-no-service rep this afternoon on another subject. When we finished that, he asked if he could help me with anything else, so I broached the subject of INHD2.

He appeared to be honestly surprised and asked me where I had heard about it. Obviously, he couldn't tell me what was going to be replacing INHD2.

By the way, if the two channels actually are merging at the end of this month, wouldn't there be more than one source (multichannel.com) of that news? Wouldn't any self-respecting reporter want more than one quoted source?
How about an eyeball announcement to ALL inHD VIEWERS....
A couple days ago, I was watching inHD and observed an announcement being aired to the effect that inHD2
was being merged into inHD1 at end of this month....and how great inHD1 would be as a result.....

Unfortunately, still no additional info re what (if anything) would join inHD1 on inDemand's shared C-Band transponder
(AMC-10, Transponder 7) that up-links to cable headends:
http://www.lyngsat.com/hd/amc10.html
I'm guessing that inDemand will uplink SOMETHING on the other half of the shared MPEG2 data stream....so stay tuned.....

As usual, TWC will let us know about new HD channels only when they're up and running.....

PS: Here's the HD on SAT list:
http://www.lyngsat.com/hd/index.html