Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 7Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 9385 Old 08-23-2006, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kevinivey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
We were one of the first SDV areas, and they have added 0 new channels.
kevinivey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 9385 Old 08-23-2006, 04:58 PM
Senior Member
 
scruffy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: in your mind
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wasn't Universal HD added at the same time we went SDV?
scruffy7 is offline  
post #273 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kevinivey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i believe it was before
kevinivey is offline  
post #274 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 06:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinivey View Post

We were one of the first SDV areas, and they have added 0 new channels.

Interesting. I skimmed some of the posts a while back, including those of the area TWC rep, in the local forums for your area. Believe Austin, Texas, is another test area. Wonder what your local TWC rep has to say about possible new HD, and what channels are included in the switched-video testing. Understand from the posts there that tuning the SV is indistinguishable from non-SV tuning. -- John
John Mason is online now  
post #275 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 07:25 AM
Senior Member
 
scruffy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: in your mind
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinivey View Post

i believe it was before

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post6655377

not that it matters much, it was so long ago anyway and there's been nothing since.
scruffy7 is offline  
post #276 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Riverside_Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Indeed it does seem switched video is the holy grail... although I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that. I'm no engineer, but I've been around the block enough to think I won't see seeing this until fall 07 at the earliest. Right now, I'm most anxious for them to get beyond 2.5.070 with a fix for the "no trick plays" bug with external drives so I can get an external drive into the flow.

Time Warner NYC (Man North Head End) - 8742HD DVR ODN 5.2.0_9

Riverside_Guy is offline  
post #277 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 01:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 604
I've spoken with a high-up exec at our local TWC here in Charlotte and he tells me that, along with Los Angeles, we have the tightest bandwidth situation in the country. That means no new HD content until they implement switched video, but he gave me no timetable for that. But, curiously, they seem to be able to add any bandwidth-hogging analog SD channels that come knocking at the door (especially Spanish language channels).

It's been well over 2 1/2 years, probably closer to 3, since they added any new HD channels here. It's disgraceful.
archiguy is online now  
post #278 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 02:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
dc10forlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've heard the same thing about the alleged lack of bandwidth and do not believe it. For one, UHD was added then taken away.

In any event, besides switched video, the expanded basic tier is moving into digital ("digital conversion"), saving a huge amount of bandwidth. If 50 channels are moved from analog to digital, those same fifty channels will now only occupy 10. The remaining 40 can easily hold 2 hd stations each, perhaps 3 with rate shaping. Thats room for 80-120 additional HD stations.
dc10forlife is offline  
post #279 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ReplayJanitor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc10forlife View Post

I've heard the same thing about the alleged lack of bandwidth and do not believe it. For one, UHD was added then taken away.

In any event, besides switched video, the expanded basic tier is moving into digital ("digital conversion"), saving a huge amount of bandwidth. If 50 channels are moved from analog to digital, those same fifty channels will now only occupy 10. The remaining 40 can easily hold 2 hd stations each, perhaps 3 with rate shaping. Thats room for 80-120 additional HD stations.

when they do digital conversion, I'm pretty sure it's a digital simulcast, which means it takes up more bandwidth, not less, but increases picture quality on SD channels for digital costumers. it'll be 2-3 more years until TWC and other cablecos starting knocking channels off the analog tier.
ReplayJanitor is offline  
post #280 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 04:39 PM
dj9
Advanced Member
 
dj9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayJanitor View Post

but increases picture quality on SD channels for digital costumers

Are you kidding? The digital channels are compressed at such a low bitrate that an amplified analog signal looks so much better...
dj9 is offline  
post #281 of 9385 Old 08-24-2006, 04:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 11,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I've spoken with a high-up exec at our local TWC here in Charlotte and he tells me that, along with Los Angeles, we have the tightest bandwidth situation in the country. That means no new HD content until they implement switched video, but he gave me no timetable for that. But, curiously, they seem to be able to add any bandwidth-hogging analog SD channels that come knocking at the door (especially Spanish language channels).

It's been well over 2 1/2 years, probably closer to 3, since they added any new HD channels here. It's disgraceful.

well we've got switched digital and you still have more HD than we do! Yes we have UniversalWasteofSpaceHD, but you had both UPN and WBHD.

Quote:
"We have two systems (Raleigh, N.C., and Austin, Texas) in full production with a varied number of channels and it's going quite well. But our findings have told us to pay attention to the plan and be careful about the spectrum. The results have produced 60 percent gains in efficiency, and as time passes, we'll gain even more efficiency," LaJoie said.

Thanks Mike LaJoie, CTO of Time Warner Cable. It really helped.


VisionOn is offline  
post #282 of 9385 Old 08-25-2006, 04:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 16
TWC in NYC duplicated its analog delivery with QAM digital several years ago, along with additional digital-only channels. And yes, unless the analogs are dropped (not enough have been), more cable bandwidth is needed for the duplicate 'digital simulcast' channels. NYC TWC, with a large 860-MHz system, has claimed lack of bandwidth for its slow HD additions for years now.

Spent some time comparing analog channels with the digital versions a few years back, concluding that most of the time the digitals did look better than the analog. But also suspect that squeezing 8-10 SD channels into each cable frequency slot, compared with the original satellite (C-band, etc.) downlinks to the head end, both original analog or digital signals suffer PQ-wise. TWC here, and other systems, use rate shaping , which includes PQ-diminishing requantization , to 'squeeze' signals. -- John
John Mason is online now  
post #283 of 9385 Old 08-25-2006, 07:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
EricM407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Are they contractually obligated to carry the both the East/West versions of HBO and Showtime? We don't have StarzHD or MaxHD here, and if it's a bandwidth issue, I'd really rather have some new channels instead of the duplicate of HBO/SHO showing what was on a couple hours ago. Especially since it's usually not even a movie, but just the 25th rebroadcast of Weeds or Entourage.
EricM407 is offline  
post #284 of 9385 Old 08-31-2006, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Marc Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here in Southern California, HD PQ has gone from bad to worse. The rate shaping requantization has made HDnet and TNT HD almost unwatchable. I can no longer accept HD that looks like a Madacy DVD (massive blocking).

I'm moving back to E*. My father has E* and the same TV I have and E* HD-lite blows away what I am currently getting from TWC. I had been with TWC specifically for FSN HD for the Lakers in HD. The PQ on FSN HD has never been great to say the least, and Dish's expanded HD channel lineup made the decision to switch easy.
Marc Alexander is offline  
post #285 of 9385 Old 08-31-2006, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I thought Mark Cuban does not allow rate shaping.
Gary J is online now  
post #286 of 9385 Old 08-31-2006, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

I thought Mark Cuban does not allow rate shaping.

It's done by the cable company. He has no more control over that then he does over HDLite on D* and E*, which is to say, none. He sells them the content and they do with it as they wish.
archiguy is online now  
post #287 of 9385 Old 08-31-2006, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
AndyHDTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
TWC in San Diego will be getting Starz-HD & Cinemax-HD.

http://hdtv.forsandiego.com/messages...tml?1157068156

Email Melinda Witmer at TWC Corporate, the SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF PROGRAMMING OFFICER if you want more HD Channels!!!
Melinda.Witmer@twcable.com
AndyHDTV is offline  
post #288 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 08:42 AM
Senior Member
 
squeak49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I didn't think TWC had national carriage agreements for Starz-HD and Cinemax-HD?? It figures that TWC will start adding content right after I commit to changing providers. But no regrets still. How long have we heard that ESPN2HD is "real close"???

It'll be interesting to see if any other locales add these channels.
squeak49 is offline  
post #289 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 11:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
mrkrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
more subscription based HD and yet still no WB (or rather the CW) in HD. Pretty pathetic.
mrkrispy is offline  
post #290 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
 
avjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
TWC San Diego is sucking a little lately. No WB HD, no CW HD, no MHD, no Universal HD. Yet Cox Cable just 15 miles north has them. I'm happy with the picture quality I get on TWC, and even their customer service is quite good. But they are slacking big time in keeping up with HD. I mean give us UHD please. And WB is a local, there is no reason they should be denying us that. Dish is looking better and better.
avjeff is offline  
post #291 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 12:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
dc10forlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The sad thing is that the WB and TWC are sister companies under Time Warner. You'd think they could work out a deal.
dc10forlife is offline  
post #292 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Daryl L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc10forlife View Post

The sad thing is that the WB and TWC are sister companies under Time Warner. You'd think they could work out a deal.

But it depends on who owns the local WB station wether a carriage deal is struck. Not between Warner and TWC.

Heck, I don't even have a local WB network in my viewing area. WLFL WB22 in Raleigh NC is the closest and by FCC guidelines their not considered as being in our viewing area. Even if they were, Sinclair owns the station and they ain't giving TWC HD. We're stuck with the Cable only WB network (becoming CW). Fat chance they'll be going HD in the near future. (luckly my local UPN stations going CW but their still only analog digitized SD digital and still MONO AUDIO)
Daryl L is offline  
post #293 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 01:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Harley_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl L View Post

Even if they were, Sinclair owns the station and they ain't giving TWC HD. We're stuck with the Cable only WB network (becoming CW).

Sinclair owns TWO of the local San Antonio affiliates so we have to do without Fox or WB in HD on our TWC service.
Harley_Dude is offline  
post #294 of 9385 Old 09-01-2006, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Daryl L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley_Dude View Post

Sinclair owns TWO of the local San Antonio affiliates so we have to do without Fox or WB in HD on our TWC service.

I am sincerely sorry. That sux.
Daryl L is offline  
post #295 of 9385 Old 09-02-2006, 05:15 AM
Member
 
pen15nv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yep, when I was in Greensboro, NC last year, where Sinclair owns UPN and ABC, we got neither of those in HD (plus the local WB hadn't started broadcasting in HD). Think about it...no HD superbowl, or BCS.
pen15nv is offline  
post #296 of 9385 Old 09-02-2006, 02:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
mikea28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
what's the deal with sinclair? why do they suck so much?

Westinghouse 42w2 1.00 | TiVo HD 1TB | Sony DVP-NS70H | Panasonic SA-XR55 | Paradigm Monitor 9 & CC-350 v1 | Harmony 676 | Vista MCE HTPC
mikea28 is offline  
post #297 of 9385 Old 09-02-2006, 04:38 PM
Member
 
bennyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Carolina
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
does sinclair own any of the local charlotte stations?

XBL: Badd Omen
bennyt is offline  
post #298 of 9385 Old 09-02-2006, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Their stations are on their website.
Gary J is online now  
post #299 of 9385 Old 09-03-2006, 07:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Harley_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikea28 View Post

what's the deal with sinclair? why do they suck so much?

It's not that they suck so much as they just won't allow TWC to send out thier local feeds in HD. Sinclair believes that TWC should pay them for that priviledge since it cost them so much to upgrade. TWC believes that Sinclair should be able to recoup their government mandated capital upgrades via advertising revenues. SO, it's John Doe consumer that gets screwed while they have a stare-off.
Harley_Dude is offline  
post #300 of 9385 Old 09-03-2006, 10:30 AM
Senior Member
 
gparris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Racine, Wisconsin
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
In Milwaukeeland, our local UPN and WB channels started broadcasting awhile ago in HD and TWC did not want to pay the "ransom" for carriage.
So now, CW has allowed carriage with this Sinclair O&O station, even though it still has affliations with Time Warner (and CBS) and we are screwed with HD local service...once again.

You know, what with all the increases in my cable bill, add-on charges and tiers, it would be great of TWC asked us or even required us, if we want to pay for this HD carriage, just like we do ordering the HD package or some premium channel.

If this meant the NBC, etc. affiiates started to want some cash, so be it.
Satellite companies charge for locals, so with HD channel locals, until 2009 (when it becomes must-carry because it is only digital delivery), I don't see why not - at least for now.
This would be great for some to be able to finally get these HD stations, as it is difficult, if not impossible (for apartment and condo dwellers especially) than getting HD OTA, too.

Honestly, if I wanted OTA for HD locals like Sinclair keeps pushing (are you listening, both of you - TWC and Sinclair?), I would not be subscribing to cable service...they just don't "get it".
gparris is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off