Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture

The cable operator launches advertising campaign aimed at satellite rivals.
By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (May 1, 2007) -- Comcast has launched an advertising campaign saying that satellite TV viewers like its High-Definition picture better than what they see on the dish.

The ad, which appears in today's editions of The Washington Post, includes the headline, "Comcast Wins the HD Picture Challenge...Satellite customers agree: HD looks better with Comcast."

The ad goes on to say that "satellite customers" chose Comcast's high-def picture in a "side-by-side" picture quality test.

The ad does not reveal any details of the test such as how many people participated or when it was conducted.

However, at Comcast's web site, the cable operator cites a Frank N. Magid and Associates study conducted in March 2007 that says respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen.

According to the Magid study, Comcast was the preferred choice of the three.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/comcastdish050107.htm

Full pages ads appeared today in the two Philly papers.

The ad is also in the Minneapolis StarTribune.

This is great maybe this will wake up D* but I doubt it

Anybody got a jpg of the ad?

Also in the San Jose Mercury News

FIOS owns all!

As a DirecTV customer, this makes me very happy.

As a DirecTV customer, this makes me very happy.
Care to explain why?

I think this is a great place to discuss personal experiences between Comcast and Directv HD. As a Comcast customer, I have been mulling over whether or not to get a directv hd dvr. I'm running a Panny AX100 on a 105 inch screen.

Here is my pro and con list for the Comcast HD DVR

Pros:

2 tuners, 2 recording capabilities
halfway decent HD


Cons:
Machine putzs out when you are around 80% full. FF and RW don't work well if at all when the hard drive is almost full.

Tiling issues on DiscoveryHD and other channels random and on both HD and regular programming

Horrible search functions, very labor intensive, and you thought texting was a pain!

Unit gets hot.

Not really a lot of choices in HD, for example, we have our local HD channels which look kinda bad, Pay channels have only one or two HD channels and then you have MOJO, TNTHD, UHD and that's about it.

Only 20 hours of HD recording capacity

Boston Globe also.

Care to explain why?

I think this is a great place to discuss personal experiences between Comcast and Directv HD. As a Comcast customer, I have been mulling over whether or not to get a directv hd dvr. I'm running a Panny AX100 on a 105 inch screen.

Here is my pro and con list for the Comcast HD DVR

Pros:

2 tuners, 2 recording capabilities
halfway decent HD


Cons:
Machine putzs out when you are around 80% full. FF and RW don't work well if at all when the hard drive is almost full.

Tiling issues on DiscoveryHD and other channels random and on both HD and regular programming

Horrible search functions, very labor intensive, and you thought texting was a pain!

Unit gets hot.

Not really a lot of choices in HD, for example, we have our local HD channels which look kinda bad, Pay channels have only one or two HD channels and then you have MOJO, TNTHD, UHD and that's about it.

Only 20 hours of HD recording capacity

While important, there is more to deciding between hd services than the receiver, like channel selection and picture quality.

While important, there is more to deciding between hd services than the receiver, like channel selection and picture quality.
Did you read my post?? I talk about just that.

Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture

The ad, which appears in today's editions of The Washington Post, includes the headline, "Comcast Wins the HD Picture Challenge...Satellite customers agree: HD looks better with Comcast."

It was in the Wall Street Journal today as well (full page, A7). This was huge ad-buy for Comcast.

Did you read my post?? I talk about just that.

I guess you did, but you really framed the discussion and mixed it in with mostly talk about the dvrs, I assumed you were talking about technical issues the dvrs would cause with the different types of hd channels.

I'm really surprised Comcast hasn't done this earlier. I'm sure their marketing department could cherry pick a few examples for their regular promotional materials. Although not common, I've certainly seen instances where the DirecTV's HD signal was a pixelizated mess, while artifacting in the Comcast signal was minimal to non-existant.

February '07 Comparison from the D*HD-Lite vs E*HD Screenshot (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=704350&page=1&pp=30&highlight=Clarence) thread.
Robots HD cable:File Size Processed: 7.09 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:42s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.93 fps Telecine), 25.00 Mbps (10.46 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 51.23 KB/Frame, 0.20 Bits/Pixel.Robots D*:File Size Processed: 6.10 GB, Play Time: 01h:29m:57s
1280 x 1088, 29.97 fps (24.68 fps Telecine), 65.00 Mbps (9.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 44.60 KB/Frame, 0.26 Bits/Pixel.So how much difference does that really make?

For comparison, I found the same frame from my HD cable:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c-th.jpg
(http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c.png)

Here's an unresized 256x256 PNG crop from each of the sources...

Cable:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c256.png

D*:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-d256.pngCable = Comcast, D* = DirecTV

Care to explain why?

I think this is a great place to discuss personal experiences between Comcast and Directv HD. As a Comcast customer, I have been mulling over whether or not to get a directv hd dvr. I'm running a Panny AX100 on a 105 inch screen.

Here is my pro and con list for the Comcast HD DVR

Pros:

2 tuners, 2 recording capabilities
halfway decent HD


Cons:
Machine putzs out when you are around 80% full. FF and RW don't work well if at all when the hard drive is almost full.

Tiling issues on DiscoveryHD and other channels random and on both HD and regular programming

Horrible search functions, very labor intensive, and you thought texting was a pain!

Unit gets hot.

Not really a lot of choices in HD, for example, we have our local HD channels which look kinda bad, Pay channels have only one or two HD channels and then you have MOJO, TNTHD, UHD and that's about it.

Only 20 hours of HD recording capacityI would guess he's happy because he hopes it will spur D* to improve their PQ once they have the capacity to do so.

You sound like you have a bad DVR. I have a Moto 3416 and I don't seem to have any issues with FF or RW working and mine is almost always over 80% full. I will agree that the search function is pathetic and essentially useless though. Here in PDX the HD does show some effects of over compression, but it's not nearly as bad as the D* HD service I had previously. At least with Comcast you receive full resolution and that's something that is clearly evident to my eyes. If you are just mulling it over I'd wait to see what D* does once they have their new sats up and running late this year. It's possible they *may* restore full resolution and up the bandwidth. Or not...


ron

For years on this board t has been asked if Comcast or some other cable co will come out with something like this. So it's about time.

Now the questions remain:
1) Will this push D* to provide better HD PQ?
2) Can we see specs on the tests?
3) Will D* claim they have the best HD signal?
4) How will the effect the lawsit against D*?
5) Will this go to court and they will have to stop printing the ad? :p

Some ones May budget was high in advertising LOL

Hopefully this will wake someone up and actually do some good. D* keeps saying they'll put their HD pciture quality up against anyone elses. Well it appears someone has finally done so and it's not good news for D* (apparently for E* either). Next move D*?

Hopefully the ads will nudge DirecTV and Dish to offer better PQ.

But one contrarian thought: If DirecTV had run this ad, without giving any parameters of how the study was conducted, derisive posts would be flaming the study immediately.

In almost any serious poll the methodology is revealed: how many people were polled, when, what specific questions were asked, where the respodents were, the margin of error, etc.

While I don't discount the validity of the findings, were any of the details of the poll mentioned in the ads?

(And we should recall that several years ago Starz ran an experiment at a national cable convention asking people to decide -- in side to side tests -- whether ED or HD had better PQ. And an overwhelming majority of the cable professionals at the show picked ED.)

"However, at Comcast's web site, the cable operator cites a Frank N. Magid and Associates study conducted in March 2007 that says respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen."


Good thing they didn't include OTA, or they wouldn't have had a campaign!

Does anyone really think that a provider, whether it's a cable or sat provider is actually going to turn around its huge ship and make a change b/c a competitor says something bad about it? Directv is going to do what its going to do regardless of what Comcast or anyone else says. Now if all of the cable companies and Dish started running adds all of this country and taunting Directv's HD everywhere you turned, then Directv may react, but this one campaign in select markets, markets where Directv isn't as big as it is in the west, sw, midwest or se isn't going to do it.

"However, at Comcast's web site, the cable operator cites a Frank N. Magid and Associates study conducted in March 2007 that says respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen."


Good thing they didn't include OTA, or they wouldn't have had a campaign!

Agreed. And does the ad mention any of the other parameters of the study?

How many people were polled? Where? What questions were asked? Viewing on what kind of screen? What programming? Dark room? Their ages? What is the study's margin of error?

As I noted in the other thread, if this kind of story had been posted regarding a DirecTV study with such murky (if not non existent) origins, the posts would be flaming DirecTV immediately.

All that being said, perhaps this will encourage DirecTV to improve PQ when the new satellites are working.

But even if it does, as you say, OTA will be the leader.

Agreed. And does the ad mention any of the other parameters of the study?

How many people were polled? Where? What questions were asked? Viewing on what kind of screen? What programming? Dark room? Their ages? What is the study's margin of error?

As I noted in the other thread, if this kind of story had been posted regarding a DirecTV study with such murky (if not non existent) origins, the posts would be flaming DirecTV immediately.

All that being said, perhaps this will encourage DirecTV to improve PQ when the new satellites are working.

But even if it does, as you say, OTA will be the leader.

I'll go a step further. Were the picture settings on both tvs the same or was it like when you go into Best Buy or Circuit City and one tv has the brightness turned all the way up and the other tv doesn't? What flavor of Directv's hd were they showing, MPEG 2 or MPEG 4? How were the recievers connected to the tvs? How close where the participants sitting? Was it a side by side comparison?

"However, at Comcast's web site, the cable operator cites a Frank N. Magid and Associates study conducted in March 2007 that says respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen."


Good thing they didn't include OTA, or they wouldn't have had a campaign!

My Locals in HD from Comcast are the exact same as OTA, even better in the case of our ABC because of how week their signal is.

I wouldn't be surprised if D* sued. they've gotten sued over there commercials, they may just play the game.

The timing is good for the D* customers, since the mpeg4 nationals will be active in a few months. Any excuse to maintain picture quality in that process is a good thing IMO.

After mpeg4 nationals are running, Comcast won't be able to air any such commercials without doing an updated comparison test. So I suppose it's wise to do this now while they can get D* at their worst.

But even if it does, as you say, OTA will be the leader.

Funny thing is, Mr. Mercer of D* says D* beats everything, including OTA.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/05/01/rabbit.ear.revival.ap/index.html

"The difference in picture quality is a matter of opinion, said Robert Mercer, spokesman for satellite provider DirecTV Inc.
"We believe the DirecTV HD signal is superior to any source, whether it's over-the-air or from your friendly neighborhood cable company," Mercer said."

This kind of blatent dishonesty is why I'll never use D* again, even if they were the last HD provider on earth. When you are that apt to spin, regardless of the truth, it has "sleazy" written all over it. And yet some are excited about the MPEG4 rollout? As if D* has in any way earned the benefit of the doubt?

Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:

Depending on how you define it, you can argue that the DirecTV HD picture quality is significantly better than OTA in some cases. (i.e. Smart Travels via HDNet on D* blows away the presentation on the local PBS HD).

OTA can look pretty bad when they have sub channels attached to them so that is not true in a lot of cases I know here in Boston our NBC does not look all that hot especially with sports regular programing is ok.

"The difference in picture quality is a matter of opinion"

There's nothing incorrect about that comment. If people are to accept Comcast's claims as true (or false), they have to accept Mr Mercer's comments just the same. It's all opinion. You can compare numbers like bfdtv posted above all day long but they don't replace people's eyeballs.

As I noted in the other thread, if this kind of story had been posted regarding a DirecTV study with such murky (if not non existent) origins, the posts would be flaming DirecTV immediately.
I think one reason would be because D* is broadcasting HD-Lite and constantly says their HD is better than anything ever created, which we know is not true.

My Locals in HD from Comcast are the exact same as OTA....

Same here.

i <3 comcast's HD. no buyers remorse here.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. But "some cases" is a different animal then "any source" as Mercer says. Of course by saying "we believe", he covers his rear-end--hey, it's his "opinion" right? And how could an opinion be wrong? (Nevermind that it may be misleading coming from a company spokesman.)

The spirit and implication of his comments bother me, and if you guys want to nit-pick the exceptions, fine, go right ahead. I'm not interested in winning a debate as I am pointing out that this is more spin from a snake-oil salescompany that is pushing off HD-Lite (*gasp*, not that debate again) as true, full HD.

And you know what? He can get away with it, because there aren't enough people who are educated or care enough to call him on the carpet. Those who do are ignored for obvious reasons.

If you all want to defend D* and have it, great, more power to you. But them implying their product is one thing when it's obviously something else is just plain sleazy. How about they actually make it the very thing they claim it to be?

Peace.

ok some of you questioned how the study was conducted, here are some highlights...

wasn't sure how to link the pdf, but you can grab it here: http://www.comcast.com/hdchallenge/viewstudy.html

- surveyed 146 sat customers
- 66% preferred comcast over d*, 70% perferred comcast over e*
- shown 3 live feeds on 3 identical screens, fed randomly.
- shown HBO, Discovery, ESPN and locals.

TWC is better than
Zoom
Zoom is better than
Direc TV
in So. Cal
LOL
my 2 cents
;)

I guess you did, but you really framed the discussion and mixed it in with mostly talk about the dvrs, I assumed you were talking about technical issues the dvrs would cause with the different types of hd channels.

Well if you can separate the HD DVR from the Signal, by all means post away! :) I don't think honestly you can separate the two. But that's just me.

I've got tiling on HD Discovery during very active scenes when watching live, but don't when I pre-record and watch it later. That to me is Comcast being non-preferred and overly compressing their signal combined with the DVR issue.

I thought is was comcast policy to not compress hd at all?

Care to explain why?


Perhaps DirecTV will move to improve their picture quality now that they've been called out. I have not been happy with D* PQ for quite some time, and the only reason I keep them around is because of NFL Sunday Ticket. I'd like to have my cake and eat it too.

Screen caps from the PDF document.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20070501-130652.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20070501-130828.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20070501-130849.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/SP32-20070501-130900.jpg

BTW, I think it's outstanding that Comcast did this, the remarks by our local Comcast VP Marketing have now been substantiated by the mothership itself. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit surprised they did this, but I'm glad they finally did do it.

Salt Lake City market:

OTA: 7 HDTV Channels, 16 SDTV channels, 20 Analog channels....all in their original format and quality.

Comcast: 5 HDTV locals, 17 analog locals (and, presumably 16 digital copies ready for ADS).

DirecTV: 3 HDTV locals (new dish and receiver required), 16 SDTV of locals and some national feeds.

Dish Network: 3 HDTV locals, 17 SDTV of locals and some national feeds.

Nothing obvious about the testing method used jumps out as being "wrong" or flawed. That's unusual when one of the companies being part of the test pays for it ! :D

When we are having a classic southern thunderstorm, aka "frog strangler", I have no doubt my HD picture is better than my neighbors from his dish. :)

BTW, I think it's outstanding that Comcast did this, the remarks by our local Comcast VP Marketing have now been substantiated by the mothership itself. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit surprised they did this, but I'm glad they finally did do it.

Yes except you don't know how many time they paid for a study. This may be the first that ranked Comcrap ahead of D* or E*. The other studies are in the trash.
I did find that study interesting that based upon the respondance D* PQ is better then E*. :D

I've had Comcast and Directv for 2 years, and Comcast wins hands down on HD.
Fios is coming soon, so I'll switch if it is better.

If I was D* this is the counter ad I would run.

"100% of satellite and cable customers think our picture on HD Net and Sunday NFL Ticket HD is better than those channels on Comcast."

I would then show a side by side picture of a football game in HD that represents D* and a blank screen that represents Comcast.

E* could do the same with channels they have that Comcast doesn't.

My point is the dish companies would remind people that they have channels not found on Comcast since they can't compete with Comcast on PQ.

Hey, they even give you the confidence level (95%), which means they would have to pay for a heck of a lot of studies in order to get the result they wanted - if the rest of them didn't turn out how Comcast wanted.

David

Yes except you don't know how many time they paid for a study. This may be the first that ranked Comcrap ahead of D* or E*. The other studies are in the trash.
I did find that study interesting that based upon the respondance D* PQ is better then E*. :D

I've had Comcast and Directv for 2 years, and Comcast wins hands down on HD.
Fios is coming soon, so I'll switch if it is better.

Well get ready to switch.

Hey, they even give you the confidence level (95%), which means they would have to pay for a heck of a lot of studies in order to get the result they wanted - if the rest of them didn't turn out how Comcast wanted.

David

The confidence level is from that study group. Other group studies will not be known. Also confidence is determined on how much you pay for the study. ;)

ok some of you questioned how the study was conducted, here are some highlights...

wasn't sure how to link the pdf, but you can grab it here: http://www.comcast.com/hdchallenge/viewstudy.html

- surveyed 146 sat customers
- 66% preferred comcast over d*, 70% perferred comcast over e*
- shown 3 live feeds on 3 identical screens, fed randomly.
- shown HBO, Discovery, ESPN and locals.


Thanks for the link, nikeykid.

Interesting how Comcast won by an even bigger margin overt Dish than over DirecTV.

Care to explain why?

I think this is a great place to discuss personal experiences between Comcast and Directv HD. As a Comcast customer, I have been mulling over whether or not to get a directv hd dvr. I'm running a Panny AX100 on a 105 inch screen.

Here is my pro and con list for the Comcast HD DVR

Pros:

2 tuners, 2 recording capabilities
halfway decent HD


Cons:
Machine putzs out when you are around 80% full. FF and RW don't work well if at all when the hard drive is almost full.

Tiling issues on DiscoveryHD and other channels random and on both HD and regular programming

Horrible search functions, very labor intensive, and you thought texting was a pain!

Unit gets hot.

Not really a lot of choices in HD, for example, we have our local HD channels which look kinda bad, Pay channels have only one or two HD channels and then you have MOJO, TNTHD, UHD and that's about it.

Only 20 hours of HD recording capacity


Its still better and easier to operate than what Fios offers.

Yes except you don't know how many time they paid for a study. This may be the first that ranked Comcrap ahead of D* or E*. The other studies are in the trash.
I did find that study interesting that based upon the respondance D* PQ is better then E*. :D
To each his own, but I've never even seen a study about PQ comparisons from either DirecTV or Dish, I wonder why... :)

I thought is was comcast policy to not compress hd at all?What you are probably thinking about is the policy often mentioned that they pass full resolution and don't down rez any HD programming.


ron

To each his own, but I've never even seen a study about PQ comparisons from either DirecTV or Dish, I wonder why... :)

Why waste a million dollars when Mr. Mercer already made his study that D* beats every other provider. ;)

Screen caps from the PDF document.


Thanks!
I've posted a link directly to your post over at dbstalk.com (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=928788#post928788)

I ventured there, curious to see if anyone had brought this up yet, or whether they would censor the truth :D
I haven't been there since I dumped Dish HD for Comcast HD.

Thanks!
I've posted a link directly to your post over at dbstalk.com (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=928788#post928788)

I ventured there, curious to see if anyone had brought this up yet, or whether they would censor the truth :D
I haven't been there since I dumped Dish HD for Comcast HD.

Censor the truth? Thanks for the vote of confidence...

After reading the PDF (BTW.. thanks for the link)...
I am very curious on what... the COMCAST customers results were.

We have only see the results for SAT customers...
Did COMCAST customers prefer SAT?

The results for 146 of the participants are not in the results... (1/4 from D*, E*, Comcast Digital, Comcast Analog)... would mean if 146 SAT subscribers, there are 146 Comcast subscribers not represented in the results.

Anyone know were the tests took place? As that is a vital piece to the Locals (ABC, NBC, CBS)... were they the MPEG-4 locals? The MPEG-2 DNS Nationals? Or OTA's (thus questioning the hardware).

While I don't think the testing companing did anything improper or incorrect, as it looks like they did do their job well...

Why not just post..... the raw results for all 292 respondants:
Respondant #1: HBO - Prefered DirecTV; DSC - Preferec Comcast; ESPN - Dish; ABC- ect... and ect..
Respondant #2: ....
Respondant #292 ....

If the want the "truth" out there... then why hide 146 respondants... and the details about each individual channel...

Couldn't there be cases where they prefered the national channels on the SAT carriers, and the Locals on Cable? or a mix?

If 6 channels were tested... what if it was 3 and 3... which way did that go?

I hated STATs class... but one thing I did learn... you can make the results state what ever you want... it is all about how you phrase the question, and summarize the results.

You never do group test like this. You should always do testing like this one person at a time, not in groups of 8 to 10.

Directv and Dish should ask why didn't they use HDNET :}

If I was D* this is the counter ad I would run.

"100% of satellite and cable customers think our picture on HD Net and Sunday NFL Ticket HD is better than those channels on Comcast."

I would then show a side by side picture of a football game in HD that represents D* and a blank screen that represents Comcast.

E* could do the same with channels they have that Comcast doesn't.

My point is the dish companies would remind people that they have channels not found on Comcast since they can't compete with Comcast on PQ.

As long as they include the following disclaimers:
- Still presented in glorious HD - Lite!
- Additional charge for NFL Sunday Ticket
- Another Additional charge for NFL Sunday Ticket in HD
- OH yeah You still get commercials during the games too!

:D

Is it Full HD? 1920x1080i?

Is it at 17+ mbps bitrate?

If yes to both it will look better than E* or D*.

There IS truth in advertising!!!!!

Does anyone really think that a provider, whether it's a cable or sat provider is actually going to turn around its huge ship and make a change b/c a competitor says something bad about it? Directv is going to do what its going to do regardless of what Comcast or anyone else says.

Remember the old Cable TV ads? The ones that said, talking about the satellite providers, "But'cha can't get yer local stations......!" ?

That one campaign forever changed the satellite TV industry. Now, 3/4 of their capacity is tied up with local-in-to-local service.

The Cable TV industry is much smarter than people give it credit for.

Censor the truth? Thanks for the vote of confidence...


Agreed earl ... I *did* project my disappointment with Dish/D* (see my posting history over on dbstalk) and the way some sponsors' lackeys came down on me for expressing dissatisfaction with the Dish HD quality as well as the 211->811 issue I had back when I switched to Cable HD.

Shouldn't have called the entire forum/site a hotbed of censorship, but then again - and you can't disagree - it is far from comfortable to post an opinion (especially anti-E*/D*) there when all the Satellite lackeys attack in droves if you do :)

Cable vs. DBS on HD: It’s Comcast’s Turn

Cable Operator Launches National Ads Claiming Its HD Image Tops DirecTV’s, EchoStar’s

By Linda Haugsted -- Multichannel News, 5/2/2007 12:15:00 PM

Comcast launched a broadside in the HD superiority wars against direct-broadcast satellite.

In a new series of national print and radio ads, Comcast cited the results of a side-to-side comparison from a polling the company commissioned by Frank N. Magid Associates indicating that Comcast delivers a better HD image than DirecTV or EchoStar Communications’ Dish Network. The polling was conducted in March, including 309 people in the survey, according to Comcast.

Participants were asked if they saw a difference in quality between HD pictures on unlabled sets carrying images from Comcast, DirecTV and Dish. According to the survey, among those who expressed a preference, 65.6% picked Comcast over DirecTV and 69.92% picked Dish.

The ads will also counter DirecTV's claims it has more HD channels available. One ad stated that on April 24 at 9:17, Philadelphia viewers could select from among 16 HD channels on DirecTV but had 200 choices on Comcast, including PBS and MyNetwork TV affiliates unavailable from the competition. The Comcast count included 180 on-demand selections.

This is just the latest salvo by an operator against claims by DBS companies that they will offer more channels and offer better signal quality than cable TV.

A federal false-advertising suit is pending in U.S. District Court in New York brought by Time Warner Cable against DirecTV. That operator was granted an injunction that bars DirecTV from airing a TV ad claiming that its HD quality is better than cable until the false-advertising claim can be adjudicated.

Time Warner was refused a second injunction request against an ad, featuring actor Christopher Lloyd in his character from the Back to the Future films, claiming that DirecTV will soon have more HD channels than cable. Judge Laura Taylor Swain said the ad as a whole wasn't false because the firm used the term "soon."

http://multichannel.com/article/CA6438545.html

Depending how people read things, a "better HD image" could be construed to have some technical basis or validity over saying a "better looking HD image", could it not ?? Or am I asking too much of the general population (whom this ad is targeted at) ??

Also, did Judge Laura Taylor define "soon" when she said that word made the ad okay ?? :D Merriam-Webster says "at once" and "in a prompt manner". To me, that means maybe a month at the most....

Comcast and DirecTV talk about new ad war:

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11987


This week Comcast launched a major ad campaign that opened a new battlefront in the HD service provider war: comparative picture quality.

Touting a study by Frank N. Magid Associates, Comcast took out full-page newspaper ads in 15 markets claiming its HD picture quality is superior to satellite competitors DirecTV and Dish.

"We always knew we offered more HD choices, and we always thought we had more convenient HD service and better HD picture quality, but now we can prove it by a fairly overwhelming margin," said Page Thompson, senior VP and general manager of video services at Comcast.

Though Comcast said the study has been long planned, the ads could be seen as a response to DirecTV's ongoing television campaign featuring celebrities touting the satellite provider's HD service as better than cable. Cable operator Time Warner has filed lawsuits over the DirecTV ads, claiming they're false advertising.

"They're talking about service they'll have in the future because the product they have today doesn't compare," Mr. Thompson said.

MORE INCLUDING DIRECTV RESPONSE HERE:

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11987

I hate Comcast's guts, but their HD is excellent

Let's see, reasons that I won't be switching to Comcast:

1. I have HDTIVO with DirectTV.

2. The reviews I have heard from friends concerning Comcasts DVR are about as
enthusiastic as reviews on a 5 day old dead fish.

3. Comcast customer service is barely tolerable. For example, I have their internet
service, and it has "storms" of outtages that come and go at random. These are
apparently related to a LinkSys router I own, but Comcast has offered ZERO help
to resolve it other than stating that it isn't "their fault".

4. Comcast charges me $10 extra a month NOT to take their TV service, which I consider
monopoly making. For example, I use AT&T internet phone, a not particularly good
provider, and would like to switch to Comcast, but they want me to take their entire
package in order to get their phone service, at considerable cost markup to my
present package of Comcast internet, D*, and AT&T phone. Ie., it only would make
sense if I dropped everything else but Comcast.

5. Comcast's channel lineup here is only larger than D*if you consider local broadcasts,
which I get free from an off the air antenna, with a quality that is likely better than
Comcast. Why would I pay extra to get what I now get in better quality for free?

Its about time someone used this to hurt D*. Hats off to Comcast.

Its about time someone used this to hurt D*. Hats off to Comcast.I don't think the advertisements I've seen so far will hurt DirecTV much at all, primarily because many customers don't understand what "better quality" means. Comcast didn't qualify that in its materials. Comcast didn't state that reviewers found more detail, less pixelization, and less blocking on the Comcast channels relative to DirecTV. I believe DirecTV would have far fewer HDTV viewers if most customers knew they could eliminate much of their pixelization and blocking by switching to Comcast.

If Comcast were to compare screens, as shown on the first page of this thread, with a channel like HBO or Discovery, then I think they would do much better to convince more customers. It's unfortunate Comcast no longer carries Hdnet, because they could show some pretty stunning differences with that channel. I can tell the difference between the FiOS and DirecTV Hdnet feeds near instantly in most cases.

Let's see, reasons that I won't be switching to Comcast:

1. I have HDTIVO with DirectTV.

2. The reviews I have heard from friends concerning Comcasts DVR are about as
enthusiastic as reviews on a 5 day old dead fish.

3. Comcast customer service is barely tolerable. For example, I have their internet
service, and it has "storms" of outtages that come and go at random. These are
apparently related to a LinkSys router I own, but Comcast has offered ZERO help
to resolve it other than stating that it isn't "their fault".

4. Comcast charges me $10 extra a month NOT to take their TV service, which I consider
monopoly making. For example, I use AT&T internet phone, a not particularly good
provider, and would like to switch to Comcast, but they want me to take their entire
package in order to get their phone service, at considerable cost markup to my
present package of Comcast internet, D*, and AT&T phone. Ie., it only would make
sense if I dropped everything else but Comcast.

5. Comcast's channel lineup here is only larger than D*if you consider local broadcasts,
which I get free from an off the air antenna, with a quality that is likely better than
Comcast. Why would I pay extra to get what I now get in better quality for free?

1. But your HDTiVo (note correct capitalization) is incapable of receiving MPEG4 channels. Switch to Comcast, get CableCards and buy an S3 HD TiVo.

2. See 1.

3. This is regional, and definitely unfortunate. Your only justifiable reason. Knock on wood, my Adel-Cast system is incredibly robust & reliable. So much so, that I won't even consider switching to FiOS, lest I upset the boat!

4. It's called a package discount. think if it NOT as $10 extra NOT to have TV from them, but $10 off to ALSO have internet with TV. Extend to your other comparison. It's called 'business'.

5. SIZE of lineup means nothing when you have a robust DVR (S3 TiVo) that has a non-empty Now Playing List, IMO :) And it handles OTA ;)

I have Comcast, and have been very pleased. But I will say this, without Dish and Direct as competition, I'm quite sure my Comcast wouldn't offer nearly as much as they do . Competition is always good, and I would never say never to any service change, if it really was a step or three above. I'm looking for Verizon FIOS to come into this are at some point, for even more competition.

I've had good luck with my DVR from Comcast, the local office will even give them out over the counter.

I believe Comcast is passing the same quality on the OTA HD.

Comcast and DirecTV talk about new ad war:

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11987


This week Comcast launched a major ad campaign that opened a new battlefront in the HD service provider war: comparative picture quality.

Touting a study by Frank N. Magid Associates, Comcast took out full-page newspaper ads in 15 markets claiming its HD picture quality is superior to satellite competitors DirecTV and Dish.

"We always knew we offered more HD choices, and we always thought we had more convenient HD service and better HD picture quality, but now we can prove it by a fairly overwhelming margin," said Page Thompson, senior VP and general manager of video services at Comcast.

Though Comcast said the study has been long planned, the ads could be seen as a response to DirecTV's ongoing television campaign featuring celebrities touting the satellite provider's HD service as better than cable. Cable operator Time Warner has filed lawsuits over the DirecTV ads, claiming they're false advertising.

"They're talking about service they'll have in the future because the product they have today doesn't compare," Mr. Thompson said.

MORE INCLUDING DIRECTV RESPONSE HERE:

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11987
Good read, thanks. :)

Regarding Mercer's statement about test procedures, what exactly does he want? It appears Comcast went out of their way to have the survey done as impartial as possible. Frankly, I hope Mercer has the chutzpah to put the DirecTV image quality up in a showdown with the rest of the providers as I'm confident no matter what survey procedures he uses, the DirecTV image will simply not stand up against it's cable competition.

In other words, bring it on, show us what you have and quit complaining about the testing format. If I recall, at CES, Mercer, or other DirecTV execs were asked to do this very thing but they declined, or ignored, the request to do a comparison, and now they're complaining that someone else has done it, and their PQ doesn't measure up?

In the end, I'm glad that PQ has become a battleground among providers, it should force them all to try and make improvements, we can hope anyway.

3. Comcast customer service is barely tolerable. For example, I have their internet
service, and it has "storms" of outtages that come and go at random. These are
apparently related to a LinkSys router I own, but Comcast has offered ZERO help
to resolve it other than stating that it isn't "their fault".

Most high-speed providers won't support user-installed networks on equipment that they don't own. And to be honest, I don't blame them. They have no way of knowing how you've setup your internal network. They don't know what weird stuff you might have done with your router to mess things up. They will support you up to the modem, and if you get a Comcast-provided router, they'll usually support you on that, too.

It's gotten a lot better than it used to be. In years past, if you even mentioned the word router to a cable or DSL support rep, they'd just about hang up on you. They wouldn't even bother to check your modem status.

The official Comcast press release:



The Choice Is Clear: Comcast Tops Satellite in HD Picture Quality Survey

Satellite's Own Customers Say Comcast Has a Better HD Picture in Side-by-Side Tests

PHILADELPHIA, May 2, 2007 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- The results of a new survey show that when it comes to high-definition (HD) picture quality, Comcast is the clear winner - even among customers of the two leading national satellite TV services.

In side-by-side comparisons, two-thirds of satellite customers expressing a preference between Comcast and DirecTV and between Comcast and Dish Network said Comcast delivered a better HD image. More than 65% of customers ranked Comcast higher than DirecTV, and almost 70% chose Comcast over Dish Network.

Among customers of both satellite and cable, Comcast was selected as providing a better HD picture than DirecTV by 60% of respondents with a preference. Comcast was selected as providing a better HD picture than Dish Network by 66% of respondents indicating a preference.

"This survey shows that consumers agree with what we've known for years: Comcast has the best HD picture," said Dave Watson, Executive Vice President, Operations, for Comcast Cable. "Whether it's feeling like you're in the front row at your favorite sporting event or concert, or watching a movie the way a director intended it to be seen, the quality of the picture is as crucial as offering the most choices, and we're the source for the best HD and home entertainment experience."

Comcast is the leader in bringing customers HD entertainment, with about 200 HD viewing options at any time, including an industry-leading 100 hours of HD movies and shows as part of its signature ON DEMAND service, making HD programs available anytime a customer wants to watch them. This year, Comcast will be doubling the amount of HD ON DEMAND programming available. To date, Comcast customers have watched more than seven million HD ON DEMAND programs.

The company was one of the first video providers to offer HD service, beginning in 2001. Its high-definition lineup now includes affiliates of all major broadcast networks; comprehensive sports coverage with ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD, as well as regional sports networks across the country; premium HD networks including Starz, HBO, Cinemax and Showtime; and the most popular HD cable networks, including Discovery, Universal HD, Mojo, MHD and TNT.

Methodology and Results

Frank N. Magid Associates, a leading research consulting organization, conducted the survey; Accenture, a management and technology consulting company, oversaw the technical aspects of the test; and Loeb & Loeb, a national law firm, provided legal guidance on the survey process. Participants were asked if they felt there was a difference in quality between the HD television pictures displayed on three identical, unlabeled television sets (one set displaying a picture from Comcast, one from DirecTV and one from Dish Network).

Among satellite customers in the survey, 65.60% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast, and 69.92% who expressed a preference between Comcast and Dish Network chose Comcast. Among all participants in the survey, 60.3% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast, and 65.6% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and Dish Network chose Comcast. The survey has a 5%-7% margin of error.

About Comcast

Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) (http://www.comcast.com) is the nation's leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services. With 24.2 million cable customers, 12.1 million high-speed Internet customers, and 3.0 million voice customers, Comcast is principally involved in the development, management and operation of broadband cable systems and in the delivery of programming content.

Comcast's content networks and investments include E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, The Golf Channel, VERSUS, G4, AZN Television, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One, four regional Comcast SportsNets and Comcast Interactive Media, which develops and operates Comcast's Internet business. Comcast also has a majority ownership in Comcast-Spectacor, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in Philadelphia.

SOURCE Comcast Corporation

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/14/147565/NewImages/quality2.gif

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/14/147565/NEWimages/choices.gif

http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=994400&highlight=

From the article:


"Our plan is to launch every HD channel that really matters to our customers," he said. "To put out an arbitrary number of HD channels without regard for the quality of the channels seems like a strange strategy.

"In addition to the channels, we have 100 HD video-on-demand hours. We'll double that by the end of the year and double again by the end of next year."

Until we see the new HD channels up and running we don't know how good or bad the PQ will be. So to say they are doing it without regard to PQ is premature. And to compare 100 hours of HD VOD to 100 national HD channels is laughable at best. I will give Comcast credit for taking this approach in their advertising because I hope it will force D* to improve their PQ.

I think it is marketing spin at its finest to say that Comcast has 200 HD channels when 180 of them are VOD. If Comcast is going to do this then people should stop complaining about D* counting EI HD and NFL Sunday Ticket HD as part of their 100 HD channels. I guess this opens the door for D* to add the HD offerings in their upcoming VOD to their 100 channels count as well.

Any campaign that gets DirecTV and Dish to improve their PQ is a good one.

"I think it's outstanding Comcast did this," said one poster on AVS Forum.

"As a DirecTV customer, this makes me very happy," enthused another.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11987

Finally the satellite and cable companies are fighting over who has the best picture quality. It will be good whoever wins.

"I think it's outstanding Comcast did this," said one poster on AVS Forum.

"As a DirecTV customer, this makes me very happy," enthused another.

How could he tell I was enthused? :D

i agree that it's good whoever wins.

but i'm surprised the numbers weren't better for comcast.

i mean those stats are for "those who expressed a preference" which according to the study was 85% of surveyed satellite customers.

so that means when you count all the satellite respondents (not just those with a preference) you get (I'm just doing DirecTv versus Comcast but Dish would be similar):

15% = no preference
56% = prefer comcast
29% = prefer DirectTV

so only slightly more than half had a preference for comcast. i would have thought it would be more than that.

and for some odd reason comcast customers obviously rated comcast worse (or DirecTV better) than satellite customers based on the fact that the press release posted above says "Among all participants in the survey, 60.3% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast" -- which is lower than the satellite customer numbers.

i agree that it's good whoever wins.

but i'm surprised the numbers weren't better for comcast.

i mean those stats are for "those who expressed a preference" which according to the study was 85% of surveyed satellite customers.

so that means when you count all the satellite respondents (not just those with a preference) you get (I'm just doing DirecTv versus Comcast but Dish would be similar):

15% = no preference
56% = prefer comcast
29% = prefer DirectTV

so only slightly more than half had a preference for comcast. i would have thought it would be more than that.

and for some odd reason comcast customers obviously rated comcast worse (or DirecTV better) than satellite customers based on the fact that the press release posted above says "Among all participants in the survey, 60.3% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast" -- which is lower than the satellite customer numbers.
Actually, I think it gives the study more credence as they used a group that was not predisposed to picking a winner among PQ going in to the study. They took a group and sat them in front of 3 TVs and asked them to pick which they thought had the best PQ, apparently 15% didn't have a preference, or didn't care.

Actually, I think it gives the study more credence as they used a group that was not predisposed to picking a winner among PQ going in to the study. They took a group and sat them in front of 3 TVs and asked them to pick which they thought had the best PQ, apparently 15% didn't have a preference, or didn't care.

i agree that it is perfectly valid.

but if you asked me ahead of time what the results would be I would say that 75% (at least) would prefer the comcast picture. when in fact only 56% showed a preference for comcast (versus D*).

i also wonder why comcast customers didn't rate comcast as well (given that it was a blind study and they didn't know who they were rating). Maybe cable custumors are less educated about PQ than satellite customers.

What you are probably thinking about is the policy often mentioned that they pass full resolution and don't down rez any HD programming.


ron


Ahhhh so it's not nessiceraly 19.2...... it could be lowered or multiplexed.

Still beats the bat sh*t outta d*

Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture...


Yeah right,

I have used both services in my lifetime and theres noway Comcast looks better than Sat, not in an HD perspective anyway, I signed with Dish a few months back because of the HD programming and will probably switch back to Direct when they finally launch their satellite near the end of this year.

i agree that it is perfectly valid.

but if you asked me ahead of time what the results would be I would say that 75% (at least) would prefer the comcast picture. when in fact only 56% showed a preference for comcast (versus D*).

i also wonder why comcast customers didn't rate comcast as well (given that it was a blind study and they didn't know who they were rating). Maybe cable custumors are less educated about PQ than satellite customers.
I think it shows that while there is a difference in quality among the providers, to at least those who took part in the survey, the difference may not have been that great, but the difference was definitely there.

The important part is that a difference has been noted, and hopefully will become a marketing point to prompt all providers to improve the quality of their signals and not just concentrate on having the most HD channels.

Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture...


Yeah right,

I have used both services in my lifetime and theres noway Comcast looks better than Sat, not in an HD perspective anyway, I signed with Dish a few months back because of the HD programming and will probably switch back to Direct when they finally launch their satellite near the end of this year.

Your area must have serious issues then. A few family members in the Lansing area have D* and each has commented about how much better the national HDs look via Comcast. We don't have LiL yet, so they get their locals OTA and they equal the Comcast signal.

I know that all areas are different, but I've never seen screen caps from a DBS source that have better PQ than Comcast.

[QUOTE=jefbal99]Your area must have serious issues then.

Yeah as a matter of fact when I moved to Jacksonville in August of 2004, it was during one of those Hurricane moments when comcast lost service for over a month. The problem was that 60mph winds should not keep a cable company out of business for such a long period of time, the eye was over 300 miles away.If their signal and HD content improved in such a significant manner , then I stand corrected.

Let's see, reasons that I won't be switching to Comcast:

1. I have HDTIVO with DirectTV.

2. The reviews I have heard from friends concerning Comcasts DVR are about as
enthusiastic as reviews on a 5 day old dead fish.

3. Comcast customer service is barely tolerable. For example, I have their internet
service, and it has "storms" of outtages that come and go at random. These are
apparently related to a LinkSys router I own, but Comcast has offered ZERO help
to resolve it other than stating that it isn't "their fault".

4. Comcast charges me $10 extra a month NOT to take their TV service, which I consider
monopoly making. For example, I use AT&T internet phone, a not particularly good
provider, and would like to switch to Comcast, but they want me to take their entire
package in order to get their phone service, at considerable cost markup to my
present package of Comcast internet, D*, and AT&T phone. Ie., it only would make
sense if I dropped everything else but Comcast.

5. Comcast's channel lineup here is only larger than D*if you consider local broadcasts,
which I get free from an off the air antenna, with a quality that is likely better than
Comcast. Why would I pay extra to get what I now get in better quality for free?

As a Comcast subscriber I can tell you that their DVR[HD] is a joke. My old Replay TV DVR was far more reliable and had much better guide too.
Comcast's technical crew [over the phone] is clueless at best. I know more about their hardware then they do. They didn't know what "firmware" was when I inquired about it regarding my STB DVR.
They HD does look good as long as the image is steady, once there is either a fast motion or fast changing lights[like on music concerts] the picture breaks up to pixel squares, due mostly to heavy compression of the signal.
Their pricing is ridiculous. I had to buy channel package[standard def] because I have DVR service also, it cost me $15.00 for no reason on top of the $12.00 for DVR rent/service. They unable to tell me why I have to buy that package in order to have DVR. I must say however that their service is rock solid, I haven't had an outage since it was connected over 7 months ago.Both internet and CTV. I used to had Charter cable they had a much flexible price structure with no BS upselling.

They HD does look good as long as the image is steady, once there is either a fast motion or fast changing lights[like on music concerts] the picture breaks up to pixel squares, due mostly to heavy compression of the signal.
How did you determine Comcast was causing this? It sounds like every 1080i station that multicasts.

Yeah as a matter of fact when I moved to Jacksonville in August of 2004, it was during one of those Hurricane moments when comcast lost service for over a month. The problem was that 60mph winds should not keep a cable company out of business for such a long period of time, the eye was over 300 miles away.If their signal and HD content improved in such a significant manner , then I stand corrected.

That's funny, I lived through the same hurricane season in Jacksonville and had no cable outages. If there were system-wide outages for over a month as you say you experienced, it sure didn't make the news...very, very strange.

How did you determine Comcast was causing this? It sounds like every 1080i station that multicasts.

Sure it could be HBOs fault, that's where I see that most often, however if Comcast or any other carrier prides themselves of providing excellent service, they should pressure providers to have the necesarry bandwith so they[telcos] can provide the picture they brag about.

Sure it could be HBOs fault, that's where I see that most often, however if Comcast or any other carrier prides themselves of providing excellent service, they should pressure providers to have the necesarry bandwith so they[telcos] can provide the picture they brag about.If your system was formerly run by AT&T, Time Warner, Adelphia, or another cable co, then you may have an older system without the same bandwidth.

At the end of 2006, Comcast said ~90% of its systems were 750MHz or better, of which about half were 860MHz or better. That leaves ~10% of its systems that can't yet deliver the same quality+quantity of HD channels.

If your system was formerly run by AT&T, Time Warner, Adelphia, or another cable co, then you may have an older system without the same bandwidth.

At the end of 2006, Comcast said ~90% of its systems were 750MHz or better, of which about half were 860MHz or better. That leaves ~10% of its systems that can't yet deliver the same quality+quantity of HD channels.
In the SF bay area they've already started to implement 1GHz systems which should start coming online in the next 6-12 months. That, along with SDV and dropping Expanded Basic analog will provide Comcast will plenty of room for just about any and all HD channels among other things.

Sure it could be HBOs fault, that's where I see that most often, however if Comcast or any other carrier prides themselves of providing excellent service, they should pressure providers to have the necesarry bandwith so they[telcos] can provide the picture they brag about.
If it's HBO's fault then Comcast is doing their job of delivering the best possible picture to you. They have nothing to worry about since their competition can't deliver a better picture.

No doubt Direct TV is locked into HD Lite and Comcast (in effect) via this advertising campaign - is announcing they will be putting out primarily regular HD (HD Lite-free) signals going forward - with everything except possibly VOD

Comcast always had this marketing card ready to play and they are playing it now

Comcast always had this marketing card ready to play and they are playing it now

well they have to play it now, D* is about to launch dozens of new HD channels in mpeg4 and so the study will be useless at that point.

For the next few months they can advertise their pq and channel selection as a sort of preemptive strike.

well they have to play it now, D* is about to launch dozens of new HD channels in mpeg4 and so the study will be useless at that point.

We can hope the study (or another similar one) will be useless. That will be if D* really works to keep the picture quality exceptionally high. It's been years since D* made PQ a priority.

As much as I hate comcast, I appreciate their campaign because I believe this is the only way DirecTV will bump up its resolution. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Formal group comparisons, for legal/ad purposes, might seem suspect to some. It's so easy to stack results one way or another. With all the big legal/ad fees bouncing around, perhaps they'll decide to make some measured comparisons between 1280X1080 and 1920X1080, using spectrum analyzers, to record actual differences in effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) (resolvable details) and how often images become unwatchable or very degraded from blocking artifacts. Judges and juries like hard data (from neutral authoritative sources). -- John

well they have to play it now, D* is about to launch dozens of new HD channels in mpeg4 and so the study will be useless at that point.

For the next few months they can advertise their pq and channel selection as a sort of preemptive strike.
Unless DirecTV changes it's policy on down-rezzing, the study/ad will be valid indefinitely.

The amount of HD channels is a separate issue and was not part of the PQ study.

There is so many factors that go into judging "HD quality" that I find the Comcast claim to be absolute hogwash. I don't know what problems those sets or recievers had that Comcast used for comparison or what others may be seeing and I could care less.

All I know is that my D* HD DVR HR20-100 set up renders absolutely perfect PQ. My new HD locals blow me away with how sharp and clear they are.
Pixelation? What pixelation? Everything's crystal clear, ultra sharp, and it feels like you are actually in the movie/program, so everything's perfect on my end. One satisfied D* customer here.
My assessment: Comcast ad = a giant steaming pile of bull****.

Netmaster, you just don't know better - try OTA someday, if it is available to you :) (assuming your local stations don't overdo the multicasting)

Your use of the word 'perfect' is excessive - you mean 'satisfactory' to YOU.

Netmaster, you just don't know better - try OTA someday, if it is available to you :) (assuming your local stations don't overdo the multicasting)

Your use of the word 'perfect' is excessive - you mean 'satisfactory' to YOU.Well said.

Years ago, some members on this forum argued there was no need for Blu-ray and HD-DVD because DVD quality was already "perfect." No one with a 1080p TV and a Blu-ray player would make such a claim now, just as no one with a 1080p TV and FiOS (or Comcast on a 750+MHz system) would make such a claim about DirecTV.

Unless DirecTV changes it's policy on down-rezzing, the study/ad will be valid indefinitely.

it will only be valid for any mpeg2 HD channels still available, not the bulk of the new hd channels which will be mpeg4.

That's not to say mpeg4 channels will definitely have better pq (although I'm optimistic they will) but you simply can't make a statement about a study which doesn't reflect current technology.

they can always do a new study once the sats are up and running.

It's been years since D* made PQ a priority.

not quite, it had been years, but D* mpeg 4 hd lils have been a huge improvement PQ-wise, first time in five years I'd actually call any D* HD PQ an improvement.

I'm hoping it's a trend that continues, and any sting that this ad might deliver only helps.

it will only be valid for any mpeg2 HD channels still available, not the bulk of the new hd channels which will be mpeg4.

That's not to say mpeg4 channels will definitely have better pq (although I'm optimistic they will) but you simply can't make a statement about a study which doesn't reflect current technology.

they can always do a new study once the sats are up and running.
That's why I said, "unless DirecTV changes it's policy on down-rezzing", I don't care what kind of compression scheme you use, you can't replace resolution that's lost when you down-rez from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080.

Personally, I think DirecTV is going to concentrate, and no doubt expand, on their subscription sports offerings, and will not return to using full resolution signals. Those that want the best PQ will go with Comcast/cable, those that want a lot of sports will go with DirecTV, which is actually oxymoronic as sports is the content that can really benefit from the higher resolution.

HD Image Quality comparions;

The comparison was apparently made with 8-10 people at a time viewing the TV sets .
This suggests a problem with viewing distance - in that we may have had many observations made at a a distance too far back to fully resolve the HD image. For example a 60 inch rear projector must be viewed at about 7 feet or closer to allow the eye to resolve a 1080i image.
With 8-10 people competing for the space in front of these sets I would have had a problem positioning myself to judge resolution and artifacts.

What if the sets were smaller than 60 inch?
What if some of the sets were 720p -not 1080i ? --they still qualify as presenting HD images. If they were 720p ..were they being fed 720p or 1080i ? -remember apparently all sets were running at the same time.

Viewing 720p displays requires stepping back further than 7 feet from a 60 inch display or the image resolution will be dominated by the screen door effect. If the image were displayed on 720p sets did people step back? Because the viewers were not critical viewers ...all this is unlikely.

Now, there are many other factors that could influence the viewers to prefer Comcast over Sat services but I suggest for the above reasons resolution differences (DirecTV light etc ) was probably not the deciding issue.

KT

it will only be valid for any mpeg2 HD channels still available, not the bulk of the new hd channels which will be mpeg4.

That's not to say mpeg4 channels will definitely have better pq (although I'm optimistic they will) but you simply can't make a statement about a study which doesn't reflect current technology.

they can always do a new study once the sats are up and running.

You're making certain assumptions that give D* the benefit of the doubt--a benefit they have not in any way, shape, or form earned.

Netmaster, you just don't know better - try OTA someday, if it is available to you :) (assuming your local stations don't overdo the multicasting)

Your use of the word 'perfect' is excessive - you mean 'satisfactory' to YOU.

Don't put words in my mouth. :mad:

I'm not ignorant to OTA and the comparison of it to Satellite locals.
I have seen OTA and I know very well how amazing an OTA signal looks.
I know what I am seeing with my own two eyes. I meant exactly what I said.
This isn't a stinkin newbie you're talking to.

Newbie enough not to have seen vastly better HD PQ from D* in the past.

I'm one D* customer who hopes Comcast sucessfully gets this (factual) point across to the marketplace. If they do, D* will have no choice but to follow suit. Then all those that think they are getting perfect PQ will know what they've actually been missing.

I haven't been following this thread as closely as when it first started, but how many D* customers have even suggested they might leave D* and go to Comcast ?? Any existing Comcast customers who get an HDTV are likely to just stay where they are too....

The study may "prove" something but I doubt it will change anything.

FWIW, I left D* and went to Comcast because of this very issue. If I've paid thousands of dollars for my HDTV(s), and I'm an HDTV enthusiast, why should I accept subpar, HDTV-Lite? Furthermore, for D* to outright lie about what they're doing with these signals is downright insulting.

BTW, I originally chose D* to begin with because of Sunday Ticket. But as my HDTV enthusiasm grew, it just became a no-brainer for me to switch.

When I first saw the Comcast HD signal on one of the national HD channels, I noticed the difference almost immediately.

My experience anyway.

Any existing Comcast customers who get an HDTV are likely to just stay where they are too....

I understand the point you're making, but I would respectfully counter that HDTV enthusiasts with Comcast most likely have less incentive to leave Comcast--as opposed to D* customers dealing with HD-Lite.

(All other issues, i.e., Customer Service, etc. notwithstanding).

I haven't been following this thread as closely as when it first started, but how many D* customers have even suggested they might leave D* and go to Comcast ?? Any existing Comcast customers who get an HDTV are likely to just stay where they are too....

The study may "prove" something but I doubt it will change anything.

The study does not change anything for me, but I have already made the switch largely due to PQ and the increased cost of ST with SF. If I didn't read these forums, I wouldn't have known that cable PQ was superior.

An ad like this will likely put a seed of doubt into the minds of a number of D* subs. The next time they see pixellation, which maybe they just accepted as a part of having HD, they'll begin to realize that it doesn't have to be that bad.

I haven't been following this thread as closely as when it first started, but how many D* customers have even suggested they might leave D* and go to Comcast ?? Any existing Comcast customers who get an HDTV are likely to just stay where they are too....

The study may "prove" something but I doubt it will change anything.
I currently out of contract with D* and have seriously considered Comcast, mostly for the HD PQ. But now they have dropped HDNet here in Memphis so I'm not sure what I'll do.

On a side note, I feel sorry for those who feel that the D* HD PQ is perfect.

Some here have questioned about the actual equipment, STBs, TVs, etc, that were used in the study. I have contacted a neutral third party about contacting the folks involved in the study to find out that information, hopefully they'll be successful.

Some here have questioned about the actual equipment, STBs, TVs, etc, that were used in the study. Does it matter ?? If people don't like the results, they'll continue to question one part of the study after another.

That's why I said, "unless DirecTV changes it's policy on down-rezzing", I don't care what kind of compression scheme you use, you can't replace resolution that's lost when you down-rez from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080.


well we've seen mpeg4 locals that look about the same as OTA in LA and other regions. we've also heard of secret tests taht say these channels have been downrezzed.

If both are true. Then obviously downrezzing mpeg4 doesn't have the same negative PQ results as downrezzing mpeg2. At least not at the extent they've been doing it.

regardless. my point was that the commercial and the statement would be invalid when discussing mpeg4 hd broadcasts as we're talking aples and oranges.


That's why it's smart for them to do this commercial now.

You're making certain assumptions that give D* the benefit of the doubt--a benefit they have not in any way, shape, or form earned.

well their most recent trend has been an improvement in PQ through mpeg4. You're assuming it's an anomaly ratherthan a trend.

The facts are we saw years of PQ decline with mpeg2 and immediate pq improvement with mpeg4. The new sats will be broadcasting in mpeg4. I'd say the odds favor an improvement in PQ over mpeg2. But we won't know for sure till it arrives.

Newbie enough not to have seen vastly better HD PQ from D* in the past.

I'm one D* customer who hopes Comcast sucessfully gets this (factual) point across to the marketplace. If they do, D* will have no choice but to follow suit. Then all those that think they are getting perfect PQ will know what they've actually been missing.
See my previous post.
I don't know your setup either so I'm not gonna pretend that you don't know what you are talking about. Just say what you want and I'll say what I want, but don't tell me what I have and have not seen. :mad:
If you don't believe me, fine. You don't have to. Just don't say I'm this or that when you have no idea.

Does it matter ?? If people don't like the results, they'll continue to question one part of the study after another.
No doubt. In fact, there's a better than even chance that the info will add even more validity to the study, making a fact more of a fact, if that's even possible. :D

The bottom line is that the final image seen on the screen speaks for itself. For those with the equipment, and the experience to see the difference, it's certainly noticeable and they'll make their choice based on whether they want PQ or more channels. Some, like me, choose both/all providers. :p

Those that have equipment that doesn't reflect the difference, primarily smaller display sizes, and haven't seen what DirecTV used to be and haven't done direct comparisons with current DirecTV PQ, are probably perfectly happy with what they have, in which case the results of this study shouldn't bother them at all.

Curious thing is, of that group, it does seem to bother some of them.

well we've seen mpeg4 locals that look about the same as OTA in LA and other regions. we've also heard of secret tests taht say these channels have been downrezzed.

If both are true. Then obviously downrezzing mpeg4 doesn't have the same negative PQ results as downrezzing mpeg2. At least not at the extent they've been doing it.

regardless. my point was that the commercial and the statement would be invalid when discussing mpeg4 hd broadcasts as we're talking aples and oranges.


That's why it's smart for them to do this commercial now.
Unless they used LA or NY, then it does have validity as the DirecTV/Dish locals would have been MPEG4, at least for that market.

I can't speak about DirecTV locals in the SF market as I don't have them(still have the HR10-250), but I do have Dish MPEG4 locals, and in direct comparison with Comcast locals there is a definite softness with the Dish locals.

Unless they used LA or NY, then it does have validity as the DirecTV/Dish locals would have been MPEG4, at least for that market.

yeah but the test covered overall impressions after seeing mpeg2. Even with comparable local quality, after seeing the hbohd and other mpeg2 hd, people will heavily favor comcast over either d* or E*.

but in a few months D* HD offerings will mostly be mpeg4, who knows whether they will maintain the PQ that many mpeg4 customers have seen (especially in LA)? They apparently have the ability to provide good pq with mpeg4.

I can't speak about DirecTV locals in the SF market as I don't have them(still have the HR10-250), but I do have Dish MPEG4 locals, and in direct comparison with Comcast locals there is a definite softness with the Dish locals.

You oughta check em out one of these days. I have only seen LA mpeg4 and it is very similar to OTA (With a few occasional exceptions). I don't know about sf pq.

Now I realize some places have received poorer pq on mpeg4, but many areas have seen a big improvement. I suppose I'm lucky to get the LA feed (the downside of course, is living close to LA :) )But I have seen an improvement, and I do appreciate it. After declining pq for years, any improvement is appreciated.

Plus I'd be a hypocrite if I complained about hd lite for the last 5 years and wanting better pq, and then didn't acknowledge a positive when it finally occurred.

I don't feel like wading into the argument here (mostly because basically anybody who's ever compared D* and Comcast HD services side by side, as I did after I switched from Comcast to D* and then switched back, knows that there is simply no comparison).

However, I'm confused by the people claiming that D* is launching "hundreds of new HD channels" that Comcast should be worried about. Although they like to continually say this, it was my understanding that all of these channels are simply HD feeds of local affiliates in the various markets they serve. It's not like they're launching a slew of new NATIONAL HD channels. But some here seem to be claiming they are.

Am I missing something here? Are there new national networks (other than the news I heard about the History Channel) that are launching HD channels in the immediate future? If so, I have a REAL hard time believing they're going to invest all that money and sell the rights only to D*, and prevent the cable companies that serve the majority of viewers in the country from getting them.

I don't feel like wading into the argument here (mostly because basically anybody who's ever compared D* and Comcast HD services side by side, as I did after I switched from Comcast to D* and then switched back, knows that there is simply no comparison).

However, I'm confused by the people claiming that D* is launching "hundreds of new HD channels" that Comcast should be worried about. Although they like to continually say this, it was my understanding that all of these channels are simply HD feeds of local affiliates in the various markets they serve. It's not like they're launching a slew of new NATIONAL HD channels. But some here seem to be claiming they are.

Am I missing something here? Are there new national networks (other than the news I heard about the History Channel) that are launching HD channels in the immediate future? If so, I have a REAL hard time believing they're going to invest all that money and sell the rights only to D*, and prevent the cable companies that serve the majority of viewers in the country from getting them.
DirecTV has marketed that they will be launching a bunch of new HD channels towards the end of the year. Many of them were announced at CES and actually took the actual content providers by surprise as many of them were not ready to make their plans public. DirecTV marketing has been saying for over year they will have the capacity for over 150 national HD channels when their new birds go up. Fact is, there's only about a third of that amount available now and by the end of the year into next it may be up to 70, maybe 100, actual channels.

Bottom line, Comcast will have no issues with bandwidth for all those current and prospective channels in the very near future. Moving 30-35 analogs off standard cable to digital will give them room for 50-60 more right there.

IOW, while bandwidth is always a concern among providers, only old cable systems that are still 550MHz bandwidth will be truly crippled as far as adding all those extra channels, the newer and still being upgraded systems will have no issue matching DirecTV, national channel for national channel. It will be more a case of what channels each provider wants to carry, not if they have room for them or not.

Thanks, that's what I thought. I remember reading the story from CES, but yeah, I had gotten the impression that most of those national networks weren't actually going to be operational anytime soon, and when they were, there were no plans to offer those channels exclusively to DirecTV.

Though I'm sure DirecTV will continue trying, like they did with the Extra Innings package. They're facing a serious uphill battle, and if they can't get exclusive content, they're looking at becoming purely a niche player. Or more of a niche player than they are already.

espn.com the other day had a huge advertisement on their front page about this study.

Unless they used LA or NY, then it does have validity as the DirecTV/Dish locals would have been MPEG4, at least for that market.

I can't speak about DirecTV locals in the SF market as I don't have them(still have the HR10-250), but I do have Dish MPEG4 locals, and in direct comparison with Comcast locals there is a definite softness with the Dish locals.


do you get ota locals? how do they compare to your comcast signal.







(just waiting in saramilgatos for comcast to complete 1mhz upgrade)

do you get ota locals? how do they compare to your comcast signal.

(just waiting in saramilgatos for comcast to complete 1mhz upgrade)
No, too far away and tucked behind a hill. I can get KBCW-HD usually and it looks great, but that's about it, or at least the only one I care about.

Doing the same, waiting for that 1GHz upgrade...

do you get ota locals? how do they compare to your comcast signal.







(just waiting in saramilgatos for comcast to complete 1mhz upgrade)

Yup and they are exactly the same, actually my Comcast locals I consider better because the signal is much more reliable. My ABC is a crappy signal, but the feed via Comcast is rock solid.

EchoStar Blasts Comcast On HD Ads

The satcaster says cable op is losing credibility.

By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (May 9, 2007) -- One week after the launch of a Comcast ad campaign saying that dish owners prefer its high-def picture to satellite, EchoStar has finally offered a retort.

In a shareholders meeting yesterday, EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen said Comcast's boast hurts the cable operator's credibility, according to an article in The Rocky Mountain News.

"That's not what our customers tell us," Ergen said, referring to Comcast's contention that satellite customers by a 2-1 margin picked Comcast's high-def picture over both DIRECTV and EchoStar.

In the ad, Comcast cited a Frank N. Magid Associates study conducted in March 2007 that said respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen.

According to the Magid study, Comcast was the preferred choice of the three.

Ergen charged that Comcast is making the claim because the cable operator is losing customers to satellite TV services.

"Most cable executives have satellite (TV) in their homes," he said, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/ergentwo050907.htm

The biggest surprise is what took Comcast so long to claim this. It has been mentioned on these pages for many years now and I was once a D* sub and can validate that study because thats why I switched. Charlie can yell back all he wants but it is what it is and the people have spoken for now.

The biggest surprise is what took Comcast so long to claim this.

they probably figured they'd get sued.

Butnow with D* and E* about to launch dozens of new channels they may be scared. Also, like I said earlier, their study won't be valid once the mpeg4 sats are up for either provider. They'll have to do a new study, and it's quite possible they won't look so good on the next one.

do you get ota locals? how do they compare to your comcast signal.


Same as some others posting here. PQ btwn OTA HD and Comcast in the Fresno CA market is essentially identical. WHich works great for me, since even though I'm in town, OTA reception has always been spotty at best. Anything less than perfect weather = pixellated dropouts. My house is surrounded on all sides by massive old trees. Never used to affect sat signal (former E* and VOOM--when it was still VOOM---subscriber), but OTA was horrific. Only one or two local HD/digital signals were remotely reliable. And I tried several antennas (indoor and rooftop).

Comcast gives me rock solid local HD. Despite the lack of the local FOX affiliate's HD signal up until last year, Comcast has been the most satisfying provider I've had. Not the cheapest way to go, but PQ, signal reliability, and the huge amount of OnDemand content will keep me a cable subsciber for the foreseeable future.

If/when D*/E* can give me:

--Same SD/HD PQ as Comcast gives me now (that's right, Comcast SD PQ smokes both sat providers--at least in my area. Same goes for HD).

--A dual-tuner HD-DVR at no extra upfront cost (E* will, but no Fresno HD locals over sat--OTA obviously out of the question)

--Equivalent or more OnDemand programming.

--$$ reason to switch (substantial savings per month)

then I might consider switching. Until then, it's digital cable all the way.

ANd Comcast STB equipment has also made a diff. for me, at least in SD PQ. Had the Comcast/Moto 6412 HDDVR for quite some time. A few months back, I returned it to my local Comcast office and swapped it for the 6416 Series III. HD PQ is the same (great), but not only did I gain 40GB more storage space, less buggy operation and an HDMI out (which I don't use) but SD PQ improved quite a bit.

The newer Moto units have a better video chip (so I'm told) which improved SD PQ, esp. on the "analog" 2-99 channels. Of course, Comcast Fresno is due to make the ADS (analog/digital simulcast) happen later this year, so "analog" PQ will become a non-issue.

So, if anyone is gonna switch to cable, make sure you get the latest STB available.

Several master feeds still available directly from the main source is still available from C-Band. Images are extraordinary.
Audio is top notch too...
Next to nothing video and audio digital compressions...

their study won't be valid once the mpeg4 sats are up for either provider.

Again, I would say this is more of a "hope" for D* subscribers than it is a "fact".

EchoStar Blasts Comcast On HD Ads

The satcaster says cable op is losing credibility.


"That's not what our customers tell us," Ergen said, referring to Comcast's contention that satellite customers by a 2-1 margin picked Comcast's high-def picture over both DIRECTV and EchoStar.

In the ad, Comcast cited a Frank N. Magid Associates study conducted in March 2007 that said respondents were shown high-def signals from Comcast, DIRECTV and EchoStar. and asked to rate each screen.

According to the Magid study, Comcast was the preferred choice of the three.

Ergen charged that Comcast is making the claim because the cable operator is losing customers to satellite TV services.

"Most cable executives have satellite (TV) in their homes," he said, according to the Rocky Mountain News.



So, how many cable exec's homes has Mr Ergen spent time in? And do we have a list of testimonials from E* subscribers to back up Ergen's claim?

I used to be an E* subscriber and my in-laws still are. PQ for both SD and HD from Comcast in my area is far superior to that of E*. Other relatives have D* and the same can be said from them, too.

"Most cable executives have satellite (TV) in their homes," he said, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

So what, that doesn't mean they have sat for the PQ, that's the best retort Ergen could come up with with? Besides, there's all sorts of cable executives, some who probably don't even watch TV.

Now if Dish were to come out with their own independently conducted study as Comcast did, I'd be very interested in the results, I get the sense that we won't ever see that though...but the above quote? Meaningless.

Again, I would say this is more of a "hope" for D* subscribers than it is a "fact".

no it's a simple legal (and logical) fact. You can't use a study focusing on mpeg 2 broadcasts and apply it to mpeg4 broadcasts once the transition takes place.

They can do a new study, and nobody knows what the results will be, and advertise that.

My point is that what comcast is doing right now is smart. They have a study that benefits them, and joe 6 pack doesn't know Directv is adding hd channels, and he doesn't know what the quality will be. All he knows is that comcast has a study showing they have a superior picture right now.... and if he signs up for a one year contract, then D*'s release of these new channels in a few months will be meaningless to him. And perhaps by the time his contract is going to expire, comcast will have these same channels.

Anything cable companies can do to get customers into contracts before D* starts advertising all their new channels is good strategy.

Again, I would say this is more of a "hope" for D* subscribers than it is a "fact".
True, it's pure speculation at this point. Besides, DirecTV has already convinced themselves their PQ is the best already, why would they make the effort to improve it?

While I would love nothing more than to see DirecTV go back to full-res signals, I really have my doubts they will ever do so. Never say never though..

Some cable execs do have DBS in their homes but in addition to their cable feeds. They do so not for better PQ but to monitor the competition, pure and simple. To say that Dish subscribers think that their HD PQ is better than Comcast is laughable as few of those subscribers have probably ever compared the Dish HD feed to those on Comcast in their homes. While I am sure that their are issues to deal with with Comcast's study, Dish's response is far from convincing.

Anything cable companies can do to get customers into contracts before D* starts advertising all their new channels is good strategy.
Cable doesn't do contracts for cable TV, it's only the satcos that do that as far as I know.

no it's a simple legal (and logical) fact. You can't use a study focusing on mpeg 2 broadcasts and apply it to mpeg4 broadcasts once the transition takes place.

They can do a new study, and nobody knows what the results will be, and advertise that.Whether DIRECTV uses MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 is irrelevant to the study and Comcast's claims. The fact is that DIRECTV can change their broadcasts at any point (channel allocations, bit rate, encoders, etc.). The best Comcast can do is to say that they did a study on such-and-such date, stating the methods and the results. It's up to the consumer to decide the relevance of the test results, given the age of the results and what the consumer might know about recent changes to DIRECTV's broadcasts.

If DIRECTV makes some major technical change to the way they broadcast, and they want to advertise that fact, then Comcast would be prudent to redo their study.

I find it very interesting that so many of the study participants chose DBS as the better looking system. It's a fair guess that the Comcast system used in the study does not recompress their HDTV. So it should absolutely look better than DBS, to everyone.

I have two theories:

* DBS is using some noise reduction that delivers a cleaner, albeit less detailed picture that is subjectively better to some people's eyes.

* A better theory: the TVs used in the study were small enough and/or the source material not demanding enough that many people simply could not tell any difference between cable and DBS. I.e. they were picking at random when they could not tell the difference.

no it's a simple legal (and logical) fact.

I disagree. I submit your "fact" is based on your assumption of what exactly they intend to use the MPEG4 change for. D* as already stated they intend to use it for extra channels--ok, fine. They also contend that their PQ is already, i.e., currently, the best out there, or is on-par with anything or everybody else.

So if it's already the best, or on par, or whatever laughable statement their making about it, what does it matter (PQ wise) if they're rolling out MPEG4? Again, many "hope" this is the natural result of things, but given D*'s history of NOT making PQ a premium, it doesn't make it a given.

After all, why allocate more bandwith or bitrate to an HD channel when you can just add more shopping channels?

Their behavior, spin, and performance of the past are very indicative of the future, IMO.

...and if he signs up for a one year contract, then D*'s release of these new channels in a few months will be meaningless to him. And perhaps by the time his contract is going to expire, comcast will have these same channels.

Anything cable companies can do to get customers into contracts before D* starts advertising all their new channels is good strategy.


Not trying to be rude, but do you have any information, from anywhere, indicating that DirecTV will have ANY new national HD channels that Comcast won't carry in the coming months? I realize DirecTV continually talks about all the new channels they're going to offer, but you seem to have taken that to mean that these channels will be exclusive to DirecTV. I'm sure DirecTV is happy to have customers and prospective customers believing that, but I'm wondering if there is any evidence anywhere to support it. Because I don't think there is.

Comcast (in my area at least) carries all of the HD channels DirecTV does now (with the exception of NFL Sunday Ticket and HDNet), in full-res HD, as well as several that neither satellite provider offers. Effectively, DirecTV has no choice but to keep claiming that one day, they promise, they'll have a whole bunch of new HD channels, because what they're offering today just doesn't compete with what Comcast delivers--at least for anyone who's actually had them both.

I also have a hard time believing that Comcast (or any other cable provider, or IPTV provider for that matter) is worried about ANYTHING any satellite provider is doing right now, simply because they recognize that the satellite companies are severely limited technology-wise, and are basically just desperate to try to survive the next few years. There's a reason Rupert Murdoch wanted nothing to do with these companies. They have no future.

If you can get a good deal for yourself now with DirecTV or Dish, and the reduced picture quality isn't noticeable on your setup or otherwise a problem for you, then more power to you. But these notions that entrenched cable providers are quaking in their boots about what DirecTV is going to offer in a few months are just laughable.

I disagree. I submit your "fact" is based on your assumption of what exactly they intend to use the MPEG4 change for. D* as already stated they intend to use it for extra channels--ok, fine. They also contend that their PQ is already, i.e., currently, the best out there, or is on-par with anything or everybody else.

So if it's already the best, or on par, or whatever laughable statement their making about it, what does it matter (PQ wise) if they're rolling out MPEG4? Again, many "hope" this is the natural result of things, but given D*'s history of NOT making PQ a premium, it doesn't make it a given.

After all, why allocate more bandwith or bitrate to an HD channel when you can just add more shopping channels?

Their behavior, spin, and performance of the past are very indicative of the future, IMO.

Theoretically, MPEG4 lets a provider deliver nearly the same quality picture as full res, with far less bandwidth (ideally allowing them to add more channels without decreasing picture quality, or in this case, even improving it). It's a pretty complex technology, so it's possible, if they put the time and effort into it, they could produce better picture quality than they have now or than they had when they first rolled out the MPEG4 channels. But when I tried DirecTV for a week a few months ago, I was receiving HD channels in MPEG4, and it was just terrible. I can't speak to the difference between that and previous MPEG2 picture quality, but it wasn't good.

I find it very interesting that so many of the study participants chose DBS as the better looking system. It's a fair guess that the Comcast system used in the study does not recompress their HDTV. So it should absolutely look better than DBS, to everyone.

I have two theories:

* DBS is using some noise reduction that delivers a cleaner, albeit less detailed picture that is subjectively better to some people's eyes.

* A better theory: the TVs used in the study were small enough and/or the source material not demanding enough that many people simply could not tell any difference between cable and DBS. I.e. they were picking at random when they could not tell the difference.
I suspect the second theory is probably the likely one as well, and while I can tell the difference when using smaller displays(things like macroblocking due to insufficient bandwidth will show up no matter how small a display) most people probably can't, or don't care, and for them sat is probably a good choice. But having a 73" CRT-RPTV I can definitely tell the difference in providers, in fact when going from a 38" to a 55" and then to the 73", it was easily apparent how much worse the satco PQ was each step up in size.

Theoretically, MPEG4 lets a provider deliver nearly the same quality picture as full res, with far less bandwidth (ideally allowing them to add more channels without decreasing picture quality, or in this case, even improving it). It's a pretty complex technology, so it's possible, if they put the time and effort into it, they could produce better picture quality than they have now or than they had when they first rolled out the MPEG4 channels. But when I tried DirecTV for a week a few months ago, I was receiving HD channels in MPEG4, and it was just terrible. I can't speak to the difference between that and previous MPEG2 picture quality, but it wasn't good.

Sorry to hear that. I'm lucky enough to live somewhere with very good mpeg 4 hd from D*.... And regardless of your bad experience, or anyone else's good experience, the bottom line is that mpeg4 hd looks different than mpeg2 hd. Therefore the study will be invalid when D* goes primarily mpeg 4.

As for your other question, I don't know whether Comcast will pick up the same HD channels as D* or not. I do think D* is going to do a lot of advertising when they have the channels though. And anything comcast an do to dissuade potential D* customers is probably good for them

the bottom line is that mpeg4 hd looks different than mpeg2 hd.

IF D* chooses to, and actually does it, correctly (or at least the way HD enthusiasts would prefer). And as Slightlyjaded's experience illustrates (as well as some others I've seen post who have D* MPEG4 locals), there's no guaranteeing that they will.

the bottom line is that mpeg4 hd looks different than mpeg2 hd.
To be clear, you mean DirecTV's MPEG4 HD looks different from their MPEG2 HD. There is only one way it's supposed to "look", and that's the way it was sent from the content provider.

can I take my COMCAST cable to a NFL tail gate party?

No seriously, cable does offer better quality right now, but MPEG4 will change that next year.

but MPEG4 will change that next year.
MPEG-4 CAN change that. There is no guarantee it will.

To be clear, you mean DirecTV's MPEG4 HD looks different from their MPEG2 HD. There is only one way it's supposed to "look", and that's the way it was sent from the content provider.
In a perfect world, perhaps, but in reality, the end product via, cable, and sat, and even OTA rarely arrives intact. That's why there are opinion tests to begin with. And if source material was available as an option, it should be the clear winner every time.

Right now, the general consensus among D* users here is that mpeg 4 pq looks equal to or better than their mpeg2 hd (pq appears dependent on location also). It's a step in the right direction.

Now personally, I believe that comcast's ad is just the beginning of the PQ wars. It's gonna be a long process, but the market is changing. More and more customers have large screen HDTVs. They also have HD DVDs and Blu Rays and will start to notice the differences in picture quality between these sources, cable and sat (I wish more people had OTA to compare, but I don't see that increasing).

When the hdtv market was small, it was easy enough for D* to get away with HD-lite cause the consumer didn't know any better. I don't think that will be the case in the future. I doubt they'll go full hd right away, but I do expect a gradual improvement in PQ as providers start to market these studies.

In a perfect world, perhaps, but in reality, the end product via, cable, and sat, and even OTA rarely arrives intact. That's why there are opinion tests to begin with. And if source material was available as an option, it should be the clear winner every time.


What I meant was, the signal as sent from the provider, such as an OTA broadcaster, which could be crappy to begin with. With Comcast you get that same signal, crappy as it may be. With DirecTV they manipulate the signal from the get-go so it will never be the same as the original, good , bad or ugly.

I agree, hopefully the Comcast study will push the marketplace to focus more on PQ which is a good thing for everyone regardless of provider.

Funny; I found this thread because I had comcast installed yesterday. I already have Dish HD and currently have both systems running via HDMI to a panasonic 50" plasma. The reason for my search was that comast HD picture looks extremely grainy and full of motion artifacts compared to the dish picture... not sure how comcast came up with these results.

there is no way Comcast is going to be able to keep up with the hd channels DTV has now let alone what they will have by the end of dec.

not for a long time. luckily for comcast they are beting fios tv but will be 2nd to DTV for hat looks like some time to come.

its a new era and DTV has moved into 1st place and should be able to maintain that for a realtively long time with the others struggling to catch up.

I just switched back to D* from a small, 11 community former SusCom cable system that Comcast acquired when it bought SusCom holdings last year. I thought Comcast was going to really upgrade the cable system to at least equal some of its other MSOs. So I went back to cable. Big mistake.

Comcast moved a few channels around, dropped some in favor of others, but hid behind the claim that it was only a 55MHz system and further expansion of HD channel offerings was bandwidth constrained. SusCom upgraded most of the system before it sold, leaving less than 15% of its wire miles to complete the upgrade. Comcast has done nothing. Result: no MLB playoffs in HD, no WS in HD, no Super Bowl in HD. No thanks. I moved back to D* and this time it's for good.

The D* PQ is fine. But, anything is better than nothing, which is what Comcast offered me.

Dana