I've seen this mentioned before, but just read the newspaper that Comcast will end delivery of analog signals to Chicago city customers by July. Then they will begin suburban upgrades. The article stated customers will need to exchange their analog boxes for digital ones. They will not charge an additional fee or raise rates for current analog customers (per a vice president).

I'd like to presume the basic tier will remain un-encrypted and can be tuned in with one of the new digital tuner DVD recorders. I just don't need or want to have to use a STB on every piece of equipment I own.

All of these Comacast Chicago threads should be merged.

I'd like to presume the basic tier will remain un-encrypted and can be tuned in with one of the new digital tuner DVD recorders. I just don't need or want to have to use a STB on every piece of equipment I own.Wish it would happen, but looks like Comcast (here anyway) will not unencrypt any digitals save local stations. Thus you will need a box for every set.

What is really devious is that now they can charge you an extra outlet charge. Every extra set in your house will cost you another $6/month outlet charge. That does not include any rental fees for boxes, just for having the extra TV. If you have 5 TV's, that would be $24/month, etc. That really is a PITA !!

This is the goal of their business model for digital. They have long considered that people with multiple TVs who don't pay a per device fee to be some sort of piracy of their signal.

This is the goal of their business model for digital. They have long considered that people with multiple TVs who don't pay a per device fee to be some sort of piracy of their signal.

Perhaps their bean counters finally understood how the cable system works and said, "let's make our quarterly results prettier, let's charge for everything!". Maybe by next year they'll charge 5c every time we change a channel because of "overhead costs" :)

But I dont think they consider it piracy. For example, one of the Comcast reps who was "fixing" a problem with my box had a supply of splitters (3-way even) and cables with him

so just tell all your friends (especially those with HD and ATSC tuners) that OTA HD is just as good (if not better) than cable. Hey, it saved me $60+ a month and I don't miss it. Actually get more done around the house on the weekends because "nothing is on" the channels I get.

The more people that move away from cable/satellite the better. I probably won't go back until they have a "cafeteria" plan for cable service. Why pay $60+ a month for 2-3 channels beyond the locals that I would ever watch.

Wish it would happen, but looks like Comcast (here anyway) will not unencrypt any digitals save local stations. Thus you will need a box for every set.
What is really devious is that now they can charge you an extra outlet charge. Every extra set in your house will cost you another $6/month outlet charge. That does not include any rental fees for boxes, just for having the extra TV. If you have 5 TV's, that would be $24/month, etc. That really is a PITA !!

When is Comcast suppose to be going totally Digital???
What about a TV with Cable card? Cable ready? Digital ATSC tuner?

I will have to make a call to my represenative, sounds like someone needs to be getting involved with this Digital network switchover'

More fee's, more control over the customer, sounds great......

When is Comcast suppose to be going totally Digital???Within the next month, in Chicago. They aren't going totally digital in the next month, they are just eliminating all of the analog cable channels, around 60 in all. Channels 2-22 (mostly locals) will still be available in analog.

A number of other Comcast systems will be making the same changes over the course of the next two years.

Comcast, Chicago has just initiated a $17.95 "self install fee" for Moto 3416 dual tuner STBs.

I picked up a Moto 3416 DVR in Feb. No $17.95 "self install fee" then.

I wonder if the new $17.95 "self install fee" is a result of rumors of growing shortages of Moto 3416 STBs?

so just tell all your friends (especially those with HD and ATSC tuners) that OTA HD is just as good (if not better) than cable.

I never bought into the "cable is the best" hype and didn't rip out my perfectly good tower antenna (as did most of my neighbors who have lived to regret it). Now that antenna is coming in very handy to offer great HD (and other SD digital channels)...free of monthly fees, and with better quality than what cable can offer.

The following article outlines the "comeback" of OTA signal reception:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek/

I wonder if the new $17.95 "self install fee" is a result of rumors of growing shortages of Moto 3416 STBs?
Besides the an STB shortage I have a feeling the Chicago area will also have an antenna shortage as people dump cable for OTA. :D

This is the goal of their business model for digital. They have long considered that people with multiple TVs who don't pay a per device fee to be some sort of piracy of their signal.
I agree completely. In fact, since the DiviX debacle, I have felt that no only do they want a business model where you pay for every single thing, but that they also want some kind of pay per view mechanism. I feel that the industry was stunned by the overwhelming rejection of pay per view DVDs by the consumer, and they are feverishly working on a more consumer-palatable way of doing the same thing.

I'm hoping that with the advent of all digital over the air we will see a larger selection of channels over the air. It's my understanding that the new digital regulations will allow local broadcast affiliates to have multiple channels, based on an alloted amount of bandwidth and how they wish to split it up between sub channels.

I'm hoping that with the advent of all digital over the air we will see a larger selection of channels over the air. It's my understanding that the new digital regulations will allow local broadcast affiliates to have multiple channels, based on an alloted amount of bandwidth and how they wish to split it up between sub channels.Well, all I can say to that, is that our OTA channels all looked really good when they first went digital. Now that they've added a bunch of subchannels to them since (and are adding more, slowly but surely), many of them don't look all that hot anymore.

They're declining, just as all the other, established provider's are.

Now that they've added a bunch of subchannels to them since (and are adding more, slowly but surely), many of them don't look all that hot anymore.

Mine actually got better at the beginning of the year. The local stations didn't want to have to broadcast additional hours of childrens programming for their other streams so they turned them off. OTA only has one channel left (PBS) with 2 channels, all the others just have one.

However, on Thurs / Friday during the masters golf tournament the local CBS station sent the HD USA Network feed out OTA on their digital channel and left the analog channel the typical daytime trash.

Well, all I can say to that, is that our OTA channels all looked really good when they first went digital. Now that they've added a bunch of subchannels to them since (and are adding more, slowly but surely), many of them don't look all that hot anymore.

They're declining, just as all the other, established provider's are.Are you referring to a declining quality of the signal or the quality of the content as more sub-channels are added?

However, on Thurs / Friday during the masters golf tournament the local CBS station sent the HD USA Network feed out OTA on their digital channel and left the analog channel the typical daytime trash.
That's pretty sweet. Looks like your local CBS station is very progressive. I wasn't around on Thurs/Friday, so I don't know what our CBS station did.

Are you referring to a declining quality of the signal or the quality of the content as more sub-channels are added?Signal/picture quality. Especially our PBS-HD channel, which used to look spectacular, and has really has taken a big nosedive since they've added two more subs to the one they already had. And, to top it off, the two newer subs look so bad they are virtually impossible to watch.

Just doesn't make sense.

All of these Comacast Chicago threads should be merged.

Don't you feel like King Lear trying to turn back the tide?

I like the Coma-cast :) Fits them perfectly.

I'm hoping that with the advent of all digital over the air we will see a larger selection of channels over the air. It's my understanding that the new digital regulations will allow local broadcast affiliates to have multiple channels, based on an alloted amount of bandwidth and how they wish to split it up between sub channels.

Nice thought but OTA multicasting was/is DOA. It was originally perceived to be a way to offer more content over the air but it failed before it even had a chance to develop. Turned out to be a non starter.

Here's an article (almost a year old) that touches on why OTA is going to remain a sub standard alternative when comparing content alternatives. For those that can get by with 7 or 8 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels more power to them (PBS excepted of course).

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6346618.html

what's new about them charging extra per outlet? They used to try and do that years ago then dropped it as it was pretty much unenforcable after a lot of customers signed up. They used to drive around here with signal leakage sniffer trucks and if a house came up hot they'd try to force them to pay for the extra outlets or shut them off.
They are just going back to the old "lets charge for every little service", like they have done in the past.

You're right. Nothing new about it. I agree. And add to the mix the amount of piracy involved. I wonder how many multi unit dwellings in Chicago have the whole building wired on one account. Especially in an urban densely populated environment like Chicago.

Nice thought but OTA multicasting was/is DOA. It was originally perceived to be a way to offer more content over the air but it failed before it even had a chance to develop. Turned out to be a non starter.


Well, here in my area the local CW affiliate is not only broadcasting the CW in analog and HD, but also broadcasting a new channel TUBE which is a music video channel that is all music like MTV used to be. We have three different over the air PBS channel, plus the standard analog. Our NBC affiliate is broadcasting a weather channel in addition to NBC HD and SD.

For those that can get by with 7 or 8 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels more power to them (PBS excepted of course).

[/url]

Unfortunately, PBS in Chicago is not an exception. See Ramm's post above yours. WTTW broadcasts HD in bit starved 720p to support three SD subchannels, two of which are unwatchable.

Nice thought but OTA multicasting was/is DOA. It was originally perceived to be a way to offer more content over the air but it failed before it even had a chance to develop. Turned out to be a non starter.

In my area this is very true:

FOX - 1 channel
ABC - 1 channel
NBC - 1 channel
CBS - 1 channel
CW - 1 channel
PBS - 2 channels (Analog SD Feed and for 5 hours per day the HD feed)

So, I can receive one multicast station for 5 hours during the day (8PM-1AM), other than that, all single stations.

What I gather is that the SD subchannels take away from the capacity of the HD channel. Is this mainly occurring with OTA digital, or is Comcast doing the same? I realize cable can do what they want, but would this also means their SD subchannels can be sent separately, such that they do not affect the main HD channel? I ask because the Comcast clear QAM local HD channels sure look pretty good to me.

I would speculate that Comcast is doing a big favor to Directv and Dish Network since one of the main attractions of cable TV is you can hook up all of those old cable ready analog TV sets around the house without having to rent a STB for each one. If the analog services are reduced to an extremely minimal level then the need to have a satellite STB vs. a Cable STB for each TV becomes a wash and frequently satellite service (depending on what services you want) can be less expensive in the long run.

I'm in Portland Oregon here with Comcast and they carry all the OTA digital channels, plus the hd versions too. PBS now has 3 digitals, 1 HD and 2 subs and so far the HD looks fine to me in 1080i from my LG 4200a box. I'm gonna be pretty pissed off if they try to force me to rent a stupid box and pay for extra outlets. I bought the box so I didn't have to rent their crap, it's spendy enough as it is with internet and extended basic.
Of course as I posted they tried to make us pay for outlets way back when, and basically everybody added their own anyway so they finally gave up.
To this day many of the big box stores will not actually admit you can get many HD channels for free if you have your own settop like mine :mad:
We'll have to wait and see if it actually happens and where.

What I gather is that the SD subchannels take away from the capacity of the HD channel. Is this mainly occurring with OTA digital, or is Comcast doing the same? I realize cable can do what they want, but would this also means their SD subchannels can be sent separately, such that they do not affect the main HD channel? I ask because the Comcast clear QAM local HD channels sure look pretty good to me.Comcast just retransmits whatever signal the OTA affiliate delivers. If the OTA affiliate uses subchannels, then obviously those take away from the bandwidth on the high-definition feed.

I would speculate that Comcast is doing a big favor to Directv and Dish Network since one of the main attractions of cable TV is you can hook up all of those old cable ready analog TV sets around the house without having to rent a STB for each one. If the analog services are reduced to an extremely minimal level then the need to have a satellite STB vs. a Cable STB for each TV becomes a wash and frequently satellite service (depending on what services you want) can be less expensive in the long run.I think business at Dish is gonna pick up when people with multiroom SD find out about those 322 dual-tuners.

For those that can get by with 7 or 8 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels more power to them

You are describing the vast majority of the TV viewing public. :cool:

:) You are describing the vast majority of the TV viewing public. :cool:

Once again you have your facts wrong. :cool:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003521968

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1001656806

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA507009.html?display=Feature

You need to start paying attention to the data as opposed to your inaccurate opinions. :)

For those that can get by with 7 or 8 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels more power to them (PBS excepted of course).


So, are you saying that it takes 200 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels for you go get by? :p ;)

IMO, I would say that about 98% of all programming is not worth watching.

On average, I watch about 4 real hours of TV a week (sometimes I have the TV on to just make noise in the house). I record 3 programs a week and watch them on my own time. (as an FYI, that "idol" show isn't one of them). Otherwise, I look for IQ numbing movies :D I tend to find better things to do rather than watching TV....however the internet does seem to take up a lot of time.

:)

Once again you have your facts wrong. :cool:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003521968

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1001656806

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA507009.html?display=Feature

You need to start paying attention to the data as opposed to your inaccurate opinions. :)
It's not an opinion - the numbers in those links prove my point - the ad revenue is still much higher for broadcast chs than cable. And those numbers are comparing 4-5 network chs vs many many more on cable. If the comparison would be between the top 5 broadcast chs and the 5 top cable chs, the broadcast chs would win by a huge margin. One episode of American Idol has a bigger audience than virtually all of cable combined - sad but true.

So, are you saying that it takes 200 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels for you go get by? :p ;)

IMO, I would say that about 98% of all programming is not worth watching.

On average, I watch about 4 real hours of TV a week (sometimes I have the TV on to just make noise in the house). I record 3 programs a week and watch them on my own time. (as an FYI, that "idol" show isn't one of them). Otherwise, I look for IQ numbing movies :D I tend to find better things to do rather than watching TV....however the internet does seem to take up a lot of time.

Good points.

But I actually appreciate the ability to have access to what I will call options that are less IQ numbing than what the broadcast networks have chosen to offer. I like Discovery HD, National Geographic HD, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, Universal HD, HDNET, HD Net Movies, The History Channel, A&E, Bravo, CSPAN, CSPAN2, CSPAN3, CNBC, CNN, CNN International, Bloomberg TV, Science Channel, Discovery, Discovery Times, History International, Biography, BBC America, etc. etc.

And I don't mind paying for them. I like the fact that there are content options. And have voted with my wallet. Some people go to the library others buy books. Ask Amazon.

For some reason the folks that do mind paying for content seem to be on a "something for nothing" mission. Not so much you sivartk - I've followed your posts for a while and understand your position. It is reasonable and understandable. Nothing wrong with it. But others may choose to want additional content. I also think there is nothing wrong with this as well.

It's not an opinion - the numbers in those links prove my point - the ad revenue is still much higher for broadcast chs than cable. And those numbers are comparing 4-5 network chs vs many many more on cable. If the comparison would be between the top 5 broadcast chs and the 5 top cable chs, the broadcast chs would win by a huge margin. One episode of American Idol has a bigger audience than virtually all of cable combined - sad but true.

Got it. So what you meant to say was the "vast majority of revenue dollars" instead of "the vast majority of the viewing public". Network broadcast viewership has been eroding at an alarming rate for 20 years now with cable moving into the lead about 6 years ago. Although this loss of viewers trend has begun to slow recently.

Network broadcast viewership would be even lower if not for the fact that carriage is mandated on the cable networks. If broadcast networks were relegated to just OTA they would probably be in receivership. Cable carriage is the reason why the advertising dollars are still in the broadcast networks favor.

Cable delivers the "vast" majority of the viewers for the broadcast networks. So that big bad cable company is the reason why the "idol" fans have such great content to watch. :eek: Funny actually when you think about it.

I recently read an article that promoted the position that broadcast networks should stand on their own without mandatory carriage regulations. But if that happened we all know what the result would be. The broadcast networks would fail - quickly.

Much of this is debatable - the Chicago area switch on Comcast's part may shed a light on the things to come. I have a feeling cable subs will go down and OTA/sat sub will go up.

Much of this is debatable - the Chicago area switch on Comcast's part may shed a light on the things to come. I have a feeling cable subs will go down and OTA/sat sub will go up.
Quite possible. But will it be a paradigm shift?

Satellite is tough in urban big city environments. But possible. It depends on if people are willing to continue to pay for content. And if they are then it comes down to cable, satellite, and the telco offerings. Either way competition is good for the consumer.

OTA offers extremely limited content choices. But for a spare or little watched TV why not go OTA. Will this result in a loss of a sub? Maybe. But chances are that at least one television will have cable, satellite or telco access.

I currently have two DVRs from the cable company. One HD and one SD. I have a wireless A/V connection to televisions upstairs. These devices run about $50. So it offers a quick payback. It allows me to fully control all aspects of the DVR (downstairs) on a remote television (upstairs). It is like the DVR is right next to the upstairs TV(s). In this case there is no tuner involved. Just the A/V input of the remote television is used. I can even control a DVD recorder in the downstairs setup because remote control is accomplished via an IR blaster. It is a very simple setup - all wireless. And nothing is ready to go "obsolete" in 2009 from a tuner perspective. You also may see more of these being sold.

Nice thought but OTA multicasting was/is DOA. It was originally perceived to be a way to offer more content over the air but it failed before it even had a chance to develop. Turned out to be a non starter.[/url]

I didn't read the article, but PBS stations in a lot of places (from what I've seen locally and heard of in other places) do a lot of multicasting. KQED here does something like 5 subchannels *part* of the time, but does true HD in prime time, AFAIK.
(I don't actually have an antenna yet.. I'm seeing them on QAM on my series 3 Tivo.. I should get cable cards some eon.)

The HT guys in their podcast complain (rightfully) about the stupid weather sub-channels that a lot of stations do. I think *two* bay area channels have weather subchannels.

Quite possible. But will it be a paradigm shift?

Satellite is tough in urban big city environments. But possible. It depends on if people are willing to continue to pay for content. And if they are then it comes down to cable, satellite, and the telco offerings. Either way competition is good for the consumer.

OTA offers extremely limited content choices. But for a spare or little watched TV why not go OTA. Will this result in a loss of a sub? Maybe. But chances are that at least one television will have cable, satellite or telco access.

I currently have two DVRs from the cable company. One HD and one SD. I have a wireless A/V connection to televisions upstairs. These devices run about $50. So it offers a quick payback. It allows me to fully control all aspects of the DVR (downstairs) on a remote television (upstairs). It is like the DVR is right next to the upstairs TV(s). In this case there is no tuner involved. Just the A/V input of the remote television is used. I can even control a DVD recorder in the downstairs setup because remote control is accomplished via an IR blaster. It is a very simple setup - all wireless. And nothing is ready to go "obsolete" in 2009 from a tuner perspective. You also may see more of these being sold.Another option yet:

Timer recording things on the main TV with a DVD recorder (RAM or RW - or even VHS), and playing them back on compatable players in the other rooms.

If nothing else, this may cause families to actually spend more time in the same room together - even if they are just watching the TV :).

Comcast in final testing for switched video:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6410009.html

Interesting quote:

"If a programmer comes to us and says, 'We want you to carry new HD channels' … we’re stuck in that bandwidth problem," he added. The move to switched digital video will mean "we don’t have to plan two or three years in advance which channels we’re going to be dropping to carry HD."

It looks like Comcast in Chicago isn't going "all digital" as this thread suggests. Based on this report Comcast will continue to offer basic analog with 34 channels.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6432144.html

It will be moving the analog extended basic comprised of 38 channels to digital - which will require an STB. Not great news but not an "all digital" conversion.

Also the way it looks those that decide to move to the new digital STB will have an expanded channel lineup with no increase in fees. The non premium digital channels above 99 will be included. Plus a Guide, OnDemand, etc.

If it was me I would consider the following. Go with the new STB on my main television - again no increase in fees. And continue to use analog coax to my secondary televisions for the basic analog channels. At least the secondary televisions won't go dark this way.

Also perhaps consider using the STB as a distribution hub. By this I mean changing the coax path to the secondary televisions. Use the coax going to the secondary televisions as a path from the STB. This will allow the full digital offering to secondary televisions. And rewiring the path would be simple. The coax is already there. It would require just a change in how the coax splitter is arranged. Using an RF remote control extender would also allow for control of the STB from a secondary location. These remote extenders are cheap and easily available.

Would this "hub" concept work for households that have three televisions operating at the same time in different locations with different viewers all watching different content? No because the STB can only output one channel at a time. But it may be a decent workaround for those bedroom televisions or seldom used televisions. A coax switch could also be considered which would allow for a choice between the analog basic via coax or digital from the STB.

In any event it looks like basic analog service comprised of 34 channels which will include the local OTA channels and a few extras will survive. Which is good for timer recordings using a DVD recorder (for the channels that will remain analog).

This also bodes well for TVGOS users which may rely on an analog PBS feed. Both for those that want to continue to use TVGOS for analog channels and especially for those that want to continue to use TVGOS with an IR blaster equipt DVD recorder and a digital STB.

It looks like Comcast in Chicago isn't going "all digital" as this thread suggests. Based on this report Comcast will continue to offer basic analog with 34 channels.


I don't think anyone sugested as such - if one read the annoucement from Comcast it was clear what they were doing. That message does suggest that at some point in the future they will pull the plug all together.

I think the main point of this thread (and it seems it is mentioned in many others) is that the era of recording directly from a cable co coax with a DVDr with an analog tuner is coming to an end. And to have any chance of recording anything in the future you better look for something with a QAM tuner.

I remember the good old days of cable when a STB was only needed for premium channels, and basic cable consisting of about 20 channels was just $9.99 per month. I would gladly pay $20 a month for just 20 HD channels that I really wanted (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, PBS, SciFi, ESPN 1/2, BBC, National Geo, History, SunSports, CNN, MTV/VH1, and the rest sports channels).

I think the main point of this thread (and it seems it is mentioned in many others) is that the era of recording directly from a cable co coax with a DVDr with an analog tuner is coming to an end. And to have any chance of recording anything in the future you better look for something with a QAM tuner.

Why only a QAM tuner for "any chance of recording anything in the future"? It is obvious that Comcast is not going to open up extended basic unencrypted for QAM tuners (as has been suggested by posters in the past - gee I wonder who that was?). Chicago has proven this. You'll need a set-top from Comcast for access to extended basic - not a QAM tuner.

If somebody is only interested in the limited content that a QAM tuner offers why pay the cable company for analog basic service in order to get unencrypted digital in the clear? Is not this content free over the air with an ATSC tuner? What does the QAM tuner add to the equation besides a monthly bill from Comcast?

I thought you posted in the past that antenna sales and satellite subs will go up in Chicago. How does a QAM tuner for "any chance of recording anything in the future" play into that prediction? Loss of cable subs means no cable coax for the QAM tuner right?

STB = Monthly cable bill with variable content decided by the sub.
QAM tuner = Monthly cable bill with very little content. ~$15 per month.
ATSC tuner = Free with very little content on par with QAM content.

Why pay $180 per year for what you can get for free. And the whole idea is not to be forced to pay for an STB from Comcast right? So that's out. All you can get with QAM is in the clear digital channels right? Which essentially means the OTA broadcast channels.

To me it looks like the QAM tuner is getting squeezed. Already obsolete perhaps? It defiantly will not give you "your neighbor's pay per view" as was posted in the past :cool:

Based on recent announcements I'm having a hard time understanding where QAM will fit. I have a QAM tuner on my television and I like it for HD. But I would never use it if I was just interested in solely what QAM offered. I'd use the ATSC part of the tuner. QAM is a bonus because I'm an STB subscriber. No STB subscription means ATSC in my mind. Paying solely for QAM access does not make sense.

It looks like QAM is already a victim. Similiar to multicasting. Technology is passing it by before it even had a chance. At least in its present form. Which is what is being installed in the 2007 model DVD recorders. I don't get the point.

If somebody is only interested in the limited content that a QAM tuner offers why pay the cable company for analog basic service in order to get unencrypted digital in the clear? Is not this content free over the air with an ATSC tuner? What does the QAM tuner add to the equation besides a monthly bill from Comcast?


There are these obstacles several thousand feet tall (called mountains) which block any possible line of sight from my house. An antenna cannot be used to obtain the ATSC signals.

I have broadband internet from Comcast. For next to nothing ($3 a month), I'm able to receive the QAM channels and view them on my HDTV with built-in tuner. Also, in addition to the local HD networks, I receive dozens of other channels (both digital and analog) such as the digital music channels, various cable networks and onDemand feeds*. None of these are available via ATSC signals OTA.


To me it looks like the QAM tuner is getting squeezed. Already obsolete perhaps? It defiantly will not give you "your neighbor's pay per view" as was posted in the past.


You are 100% wrong on that point. I CAN play back onDemand feeds on a TV with a QAM tuner without having the cable company's STB connected. I can either start the onDemand program on the STB connected to another TV or view feeds currently being viewed by others in my area.


It looks like QAM is already a victim. Similiar to multicasting. Technology is passing it by before it even had a chance. At least in its present form. Which is what is being installed in the 2007 model DVD recorders. I don't get the point.

A DVD recorder with a QAM tuner would allow me to record any of the dozens of QAM channels I'm currently receiving.

Something else to remember is the date this summer (July 2007) where cable companies will be required to allow subscribers to use their own tuners and that all tuners support CableCARD technology. Also OCAP (OpenCable Application Platform) devices should be out later this year. Perhaps the manufacturers are waiting to announce new DVD/HDD devices which support CableCARD and OCAP instead of releasing devices now which don't support either technology.

If somebody is only interested in the limited content that a QAM tuner offers why pay the cable company for analog basic service in order to get unencrypted digital in the clear?

Interesting point...however some have reported some non-OTA channels (Discovery HD, etc) in the clear QAM. In my area, you get a couple of Digital SD channels that I'll never watch in addition to the locals. In the past with the basic (locals only) analog package the signal was much cleaner than an antenna....not so with digital. I guess this would only appeal to those who can't get a good OTA signal or those (like me) that hope that cable companies will decide to add more QAM in the clear channels (similar to today 20 channel basic package)....a guy can dream, can't he? :p

There are these obstacles several thousand feet tall (called mountains) which block any possible line of sight from my house. An antenna cannot be used to obtain the ATSC signals.

I have broadband internet from Comcast. For next to nothing ($3 a month), I'm able to receive the QAM channels and view them on my HDTV with built-in tuner. A DVD recorder with a QAM tuner would allow me to record these channels. Also, in addition to the local HD networks, I receive dozens of other channels (both digital and analog) such as the digital music channels, various cable networks and onDemand feeds*. None of these are available via ATSC signals OTA. (I can play back onDemand feeds on a TV with a QAM tuner without having the cable company's STB connected. I can either start the onDemand program on the STB connected to another TV or view feeds currently being viewed by others in my area.)
This is great news but far from the norm. There are going to be obvious reception issues with anything OTA. Which was the basic premise for cable to begin with. Hard to reach OTA areas were "wired" with community cable projects.

The extra channels you get may be a function of the capabilities of your cable company but this does not play with the likes of Comcast. There may be isolated opportunities but the loopholes are getting smaller.

But still great news for you. Yes QAM does work with internet access so this is good as well.


Something else to remember is the date this summer (July 2007) where cable companies will be required to allow subscribers to use their own tuners and that all tuners support CableCARD technology. Also OCAP (OpenCable Application Platform) devices should be out later this year. Perhaps the manufacturers are waiting to announce new DVD/HDD devices which support CableCARD and OCAP instead of releasing devices now which don't support either technology.

I believe we will see more with the software authentication approach instead of the CableCard 2 method. But this is still a ways off. I agree. But these products still have to compete with the DVR rental market which the mass market seems to prefer.

The point of my post was to question the statement that somehow a QAM tuner would future proof somebody. My personal opinion is that this is nonsense. In most cases a QAM tuner is unnecessary and to pimp one as a necessity is bad advice.

But again I'm happy QAM works for you. Like I mentioned I use QAM too for secondary HD reception. I wish it worked as well for me as it does for you though!

Interesting point...however some have reported some non-OTA channels (Discovery HD, etc) in the clear QAM. In my area, you get a couple of Digital SD channels that I'll never watch in addition to the locals. In the past with the basic (locals only) analog package the signal was much cleaner than an antenna....not so with digital. I guess this would only appeal to those who can't get a good OTA signal or those (like me) that hope that cable companies will decide to add more QAM in the clear channels (similar to today 20 channel basic package)....a guy can dream, can't he? :p
I feel your pain. But it looks like the cablecos are going to lock things down. I don't think they were ever happy not to be able to control additional outlets effectively with analog. And would never give up the chance to control things now with digital by opening up clear QAM for extended channels.

But I still think basic analog will be around for years. The whole lifeline argument hits at the elderly. And the elderly vote. And I think you'll also see extended basic still around for years on systems that will not make the investment in infrastructure.

Don't any of the new recorders also have analog tuners? If so, then they're just basically the same as before, with the possibility of a few extra clear QAM channels.
It is my understanding that anything with a tuner for 2007 has NTSC (analog OTA and analog cable) capabilities.

It is my understanding that anything with a tuner for 2007 has NTSC (analog OTA and analog cable) capabilities.So, the new recorders are actually a bit of an upgrade then (at least potentially), technically speaking (since it's not really their fault that the cable companies are shutting of extended basic).

And I'd imagine that the IR blasters will probably work with more satellite/cable tuners than past models, so that could be a plus that no one's mentioned (of course, that actually remains to be seen).

It really just comes down to a person's needs. To some people it's an advancement - to others it's not worth having - or at least has some necessity shortcomings (I know that I wouldn't even want anything myself without a hard drive and a program guide for non-manual recording).

So, the new recorders are actually a bit of an upgrade then (at least potentially).

And I'd imagine that the IR blasters will probably work with more satellite/cable tuners than past models, so that could be a plus that no one's mentioned.

This has been the problem. The catch 22. The new 2007 units with digital tuners suck. So what is the digital tuner worth to somebody? Nothing to me because I don't use a tuner. And no HDDs from top tier manufacturers. Terrible. That's why the prices of quality 2006 analog DVD recorders with HDDs have gone up.

The Toshiba RD-XS54 that I picked up a couple months ago has an IR blaster. It has over 350 IR codes for over 80 STBs. An IR blaster code is not rocket science. It just has to change the channel. So the Scientific Atlanta code should work for all new SA boxes that may come out in the future. Same with Motorola. I'm not that concerned about future capabilities. But who knows.

The new 2007 units with digital tuners suck. So what is the digital tuner worth to somebody?

How many have you used? If by "sucks" you mean no HDD, no upgraded features, and a higher price tag, then I guess you are right (so far). I have used 2 of them (Magnavox and LG). Both had very good SD picture quality. The tuner of the Magnavox (digital portion) had some quirks that I didn't like. The only complaint I can find so far about the LG (VHS / DVD combo) is that it doesn't have a hard drive. Upon comparison, the picture quality matches that of my 4 year old Panny and the user interface is 100 times better with more features for creating a DVD within the unit (Menu options, screen shots, etc).

I am rather impressed with the LG unit and I think it will serve my grandparents well as an ATSC tuner and recording / playing device.

Granted, I haven't used any machines made in 2004, 2005, and 2006, so maybe these are a step backwards from those years, but a far cry from "sucks" when compared to my DMR-E80H.

How many have you used? If by "sucks" you mean no HDD, no upgraded features, and a higher price tag, then I guess you are right (so far). I have used 2 of them (Magnavox and LG). Both had very good SD picture quality. The tuner of the Magnavox (digital portion) had some quirks that I didn't like. The only complaint I can find so far about the LG (VHS / DVD combo) is that it doesn't have a hard drive. Upon comparison, the picture quality matches that of my 4 year old Panny and the user interface is 100 times better with more features for creating a DVD within the unit (Menu options, screen shots, etc).

I am rather impressed with the LG unit and I think it will serve my grandparents well as an ATSC tuner and recording / playing device.

Granted, I haven't used any machines made in 2004, 2005, and 2006, so maybe these are a step backwards from those years, but a far cry from "sucks" when compared to my DMR-E80H.
I was mainly talking features. It seems like everything that was accomplished over the past two years went away over night. I'll use my Toshiba RD-XS54 for example. The XS54 has excellent editing capabilities. Does amazing things when moving recorded content around the HDD for editing or dubbing purposes. For example you can dub VR mode content to a DVD-R or -RW or Ram at high speed and then dub it back to the HDD at high speed. I can network to it because it has networking capabilities. I have it hooked up to my wireless home network. I can edit content on the XS54 HDD with my wireless laptop when in a different room. I can log onto the XS54 and turn it on remotely with my laptop. I can communicate with it remotely via email to set up timer recordings. It has TVGOS that works great. And this is just for starters. The list is long. The custom editing features alone would create a long list. Custom menus. Custom user definable wallpaper on both title and chapter menus. Custom chapter thumbnails. And a great DVR. Etc. etc. etc.

All gone with the new Toshiba 2007 offerings. Very disappointing.

The point of my post was to question the statement that somehow a QAM tuner would future proof somebody. My personal opinion is that this is nonsense. In most cases a QAM tuner is unnecessary and to pimp one as a necessity is bad advice.


From all indications it seems that for the foreseable future most cable cos (including FIOS) will deliver some basic tier of service in clear QAM (even after all analog is shut off). The reception of those chs is the future proofing I'm talking about. It doesn't matter that you might be able to pick up most of those chs free via OTA.

What does the typical cable co sub have now? Extended basic at about $50/mo with HSI probably (+$40). What is that person probably going to do when analog is shut off? He probably keeps the sub and gets a free digital STB for his main TV. He doesn't want to pay for an STB at every TV so what does he do? He either gets a TV or something else with a QAM tuner (like a DVDr) so at least he can get the locals.

Or he's tired of shelling out $90 to the cable co and says he can live with just the HSI and the lifeline tier (my guess at $45). What does he do when analogs are shut off? He needs a QAM tuner at every location to watch anything.

Or he's really tired of the cable co and cuts off all cable TV and puts up an antenna (but keeps HSI at $40/mo) -cause he doesn't have a QAM tuner to get the TV chs that you get with any kind of cable co connection.

You see how the last choice doesn't make sense and that a QAM tuner makes sense for a lot of these people?

But I still think basic analog will be around for years. The whole lifeline argument hits at the elderly. And the elderly vote. And I think you'll also see extended basic still around for years on systems that will not make the investment in infrastructure.
Maybe, maybe not. From reading that Chicago Comcast annoucement it sounds like that "years" you're talking about could be as little as 2. :eek:

Other than Comcast insiders virtually no one here saw the Chicago issue coming so soon.

Like I said, once the analog sub numbers are low enough Comacst won't hesitate one bit to pull the plug - and they won't even make an official anoucement about it. And it doesn't matter if the analog subs vote - it's too late once things are switched off - they're not coming back.

If Comcast requires me to pay extra per set for standard cable channels I will no longer have any reason not to go Satellite. The fact that you have to pay a little extra for each set with satellite is the primary reason....actually the ONLY reason I stay with Comcast. Add extra STB rental costs to each TV and the already high price of cable jumps up to a point where I just won't be able to justify the expense, I can barely justify it now.

Frankly I am sick and tired of paying so much money for a channel line up that is FULL of commercials....weren't advertisements supposed to pay for TV?

Really, consumers need to rise up, in mass, and say SCREW YOU. Declare a national NO CABLE Month at which time hundreds of thousands cancel their cable for a month, and being as Satellite isn't really that much different in price, boycott them for a month too.

Or he's really tired of the cable co and cuts off all cable TV and puts up an antenna (but keeps HSI at $40/mo) -cause he doesn't have a QAM tuner to get the TV chs that you get with any kind of cable co connection.

You see how the last choice doesn't make sense and that a QAM tuner makes sense for a lot of these people?

This is my setup, but I also use the QAM channels. I use the QAM channels to record on my HD DVR (especially if I want to archive). This way if a storm rolls through that can cause cut-outs on DTV (I.e. lightning), I will still have a good recording. Will the cable companies figure out a way to turn off QAM in the clear channels when the customer just purchases internet service, maybe, but until then I'm not going to complain.

I remember the good old days of cable when a STB was only needed for premium channels,

Not for everybody.. I had HBO (and at other times, Showtime and Cinemax) with *no box* whatsoever. It was filtered outside my house. This apparently was only possible on "old" cable systems, but if that's so, it was preferable IMHO.

Now that I have an S3 Tivo, I'm likely to eventually get cablecards.. but I still hope some analog remains for a LONG time for my existing S1 Tivos to consume.

Here's one for the ages. And trust me I'm not that old. My first experience with HBO was OTA. The tallest building in the city had the HBO transmitter and HBO would install a rooftop antenna that would be pointed to the transmitter. The antenna used a "down converter". There was also a competing service called SelecTV. So there were two OTA commercial free movie options in town.

Really, consumers need to rise up, in mass, and say SCREW YOU. Declare a national NO CABLE Month at which time hundreds of thousands cancel their cable for a month, and being as Satellite isn't really that much different in price, boycott them for a month too.
This should be happening in Chicago right now - but people are too lazy (and set in their ways) and they just keep paying that ever increasing cable bill. :rolleyes:

Based on recent announcements I'm having a hard time understanding where QAM will fit. I have a QAM tuner on my television and I like it for HD. But I would never use it if I was just interested in solely what QAM offered. I'd use the ATSC part of the tuner. QAM is a bonus because I'm an STB subscriber. No STB subscription means ATSC in my mind. Paying solely for QAM access does not make sense.

It looks like QAM is already a victim. Similiar to multicasting. Technology is passing it by before it even had a chance. At least in its present form. Which is what is being installed in the 2007 model DVD recorders. I don't get the point.


I have a QAM tuner in my TV and use it to get the local clear QAM HD channels. I agree paying solely for QAM access does not make sense. However I subscribe to extended basic because I do enjoy several of the cable channels, & getting the HD locals without an antenna is a bonus. I do not have a STB & my TV tunes in everything I pay for.

I mainly time shift & it would be nice, for example, to record CBS in 16:9 vs 4:3 for later viewing. I realize it would not be HD, but starting out with a better HD signal sure would be nice. So for me having a DVD recorder with a QAM tuner makes sense.

Nice thought but OTA multicasting was/is DOA. It was originally perceived to be a way to offer more content over the air but it failed before it even had a chance to develop. Turned out to be a non starter.

Here's an article (almost a year old) that touches on why OTA is going to remain a sub standard alternative when comparing content alternatives. For those that can get by with 7 or 8 mindless IQ numbing commercial driven idol channels more power to them (PBS excepted of course).

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6346618.html

That is an interesting article, however, the person who wrote the article is either naive or had expectations not based on the reality of the TV business.

Ratings are the lifeline of network TV. Finishing on top of the ratings and in various advertiser-coveted categories is very important for their ad-revenue. An insider of the TV business expecting ABC to rerun LOST over and over on multicast or CBS to show CSI over and over does not make sense. Even without revenue from iTunes or On-Demand, they wouldn't multi-cast their primetime shows. They would only do this if the rating system was adjusted to factor those in but they would still be worried that it would dilute their initial numbers. They are already starting to pay more attention to TiVo/DVR/online/OnDemand/iTune numbers... With some of those methods they have control of the delivery (online on their website), or they get revenue (iTunes, UnBox, for-pay OnDemand), additional sponsors (free OnDemand). Obviously they have no control over TiVos and DVRs and VHS/DVD-Rs. With multicasting they would have no direct control...

PBS is an exception of course because their ad revenue (i mean endorsements) are not based on ratings, so they have no problem repeating everything over and over and over, which PBS viewers are thrilled about :-)

... I mainly time shift & it would be nice, for example, to record CBS in 16:9 vs 4:3 for later viewing. I realize it would not be HD, but starting out with a better HD signal sure would be nice. So for me having a DVD recorder with a QAM tuner makes sense.

That's what I do using my RJTuner HDTV Tuner Box w/QAM (S-Video OUTput to DVD-VR330) & Samsung DVD-VR330 DVR/VCR Combo (Component OUTput > Toshiba 62HM196)!!! Read about my RJTuner HDTV Tuner Box w/QAM here! (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798636)

Just watched my DVD-RW recorded 16x9 NCIS & The UNIT shows last night, ... and they both looked great, super clear vs. the fuzzy 4x3 analog cable signal and the Dolby Pro Logic Surround Sounded GREAT w/some of the effects (The UNIT) seamlessly audible @ my side surrounds!!!

NOTE: My service is Comcast Limited Basic Cable (no box) and both my Toshiba 62HM196 & RJTech HDTV Tuner box QAM pulls-in ...

2-1........KNTV HD
4-2........KRON HD
5-1........CBS HD
7-1........ABC HD
9-1........KQED HD
116-1....NBC HD

Phil