Stations don't want cable to downconvert HDTV to DTV - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 04:32 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Regardless of the debate over multicast must-carry, whether pro or con, there's no disagreement that it is not good for HDTV or the HDTV viewer - correct?

If there's anyone out there that feels it is good for HD, I'd love to hear the reasoning.
CPanther95 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 05:28 AM
Senior Member
 
waltinvt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bradford, Vermont 05033
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
<snip>....
Now, with all that out of the way, can't we have a calm discussion, foxeng, without you getting all excited and immediately insulting people who don't agree with your own stridently stated views?

Folks can disagree with you, or me, or Ken H, or CPanther95, or David Bott or Alan Gouger or anyone else and still be responsible, intelligent people.

Not only that, they just might have an opinion worth listening to. (Heck, they might even be right.)

Just because they disagree with you doesn't make their opinions "laughable" and surely doesn't mean they need to go back to school.

Even if I dosagree with you a lot, foxeng, you have a valuable point of view. Many of your posts are really helpful to people trying to understand how things work at a station.

You also keep us abreast of doings at Fox.

So, I ask you, please don't lose all the good will you have gained over the years by turning every disagreement into a personal grudge match.
Well said Fred

A moral wrong is not a civil right
waltinvt is offline  
post #93 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 05:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
Regardless of the debate over multicast must-carry, whether pro or con, there's no disagreement that it is not good for HDTV or the HDTV viewer - correct?

If there's anyone out there that feels it is good for HD, I'd love to hear the reasoning.
When did any broadcast, cable, or satellite entity EVER care what was good for HDTV, much less an HDTV viewer? All any company ever cared for in their heart of hearts was the bottom line and continuation (and maximization) of revenue. That doesn't make it good, or say that I like it that way, but that's the way it is, as Walter used to say. The only way to effect change is to make it attractive to the bottom-line types.
hphase is offline  
post #94 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 05:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
Regardless of the debate over multicast must-carry, whether pro or con, there's no disagreement that it is not good for HDTV or the HDTV viewer - correct?

If there's anyone out there that feels it is good for HD, I'd love to hear the reasoning.
Multicast must-carry is a dumb idea with little justification. I'm surprised the debate on that has managed to completely hijack this thread away from the original topic.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at www.trbarry.com
trbarry is offline  
post #95 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 05:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfoster
I am sure there are a few, but in the top 100 markets I would venture to guess the number is much closer to zero than it is 400. :D
The number in top 100 may surprise you. With operators like Sinclair must carry sometimes is the only way they can get on after a nasty retrans meeting.

Quote:
I have, during the original round. Not long after a weather channel was launched. It consisted of a radar sweep generated on a PC that got it's updates from the VBI.
They have changed a little since then.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #96 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 06:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
Now, with all that out of the way, can't we have a calm discussion, foxeng, without you getting all excited and immediately insulting people who don't agree with your own stridently stated views?
Let me see if I have have this straight, if I don't agree with you, I am excited and insulting? Isn't that pot calling the kettle black? Just because I don't live on the left coast, doesn't mean I have no clue to how this business works. LA likes to think they have an edge, but the only edge it seems is the San Andres fault. You have always dismissed me for anything much more than FOX info, when in fact, history has shown, as I have pointed out before to you, that I do have a pretty good handle on things in the business, non FOX and in Washington. (an advantage of living on the right coast I guess) My eyes are not blinded by the big city lights of LA, NYC or DC. I consider that an advantage. You may consider that "small town" or "hick" or "uninformed" or "unintelligent", I don't know. It is certainly a different point of view and I think we can agree on that.

Quote:
Folks can disagree with you, or me, or Ken H, or CPanther95, or David Bott or Alan Gouger or anyone else and still be responsible, intelligent people.
I have never said you were not intelligent, quite the contrary. I seem to have to keep reminding you of that fact when you pontificate from a not so stable base of facts. I guess that bugs you. Sorry.

Quote:
Just because they disagree with you doesn't make their opinions "laughable" and surely doesn't mean they need to go back to school.
When someone makes a statement that money doesn't matter to big business, everyone who reads that laughs because they know that statement is flawed. It isn't true. Just ask any large modern company broadcasting or not, including my own, News Corp, or Viacom, or GE or Disney, or GM, or Proctor and Gamble or Dow or (you fill in the blank).

Quote:
So, I ask you, please don't lose all the good will you have gained over the years by turning every disagreement into a personal grudge match.
I can honestly say there are few people who I hold a grudge with in life and no one on this board. If you take my debates as grudges, then you really don't know me. If I don't like you, I don't talk to you. Period. So I guess your a friend. How does that make you feel? :D

Any good will lost has been to people who will not see beyond their own TV sets (and that is a shame) and not consider that broadcasters do what they do to say in business (not with the single goal in mind to piss people off) and keep pictures coming to their sets (which in the end benefits all). I don't think you want us all to go out of business and have the government do it. I cringe on the thought.

As I have stated before, my personal feeling is like yours, multicasting harms the HD PQ and I am not a fan of it but I understand the reasoning behind it and I try and live with the compromise of it. Hopefully in the future, as codecs become better, things will improve, but as of right now, things are still in their infancy and will be for a while, but the future does look better than most people here picture it. Unfortunately, we will have to suffer some before we get there so strap in and get ready for a bumpy ride. That is the reality and I nor you can change it. Sorry,

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #97 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 06:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltinvt
Well said Fred

Ditto. He's gotten way out of hand.
vurbano is offline  
post #98 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 06:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
Ditto. He's gotten way out of hand.
Thanks for the compliment! From you, that means a lot.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #99 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry
Multicast must-carry is a dumb idea with little justification. I'm surprised the debate on that has managed to completely hijack this thread away from the original topic.
I think the irony of broadcaster claims about not wanting cable to reduce HDTV quality while many of them themselves are doing it (as pointed out by CPanther, Fred, and others) is an important aspect of this topic. As I see it with the cable downrezzing we may have the option of finding another provider who would give us better HDTV quality on the content of our choice, but with broadcasters' exclusive content contracts once they reduce it there is no place else we can go.
Rich Peterson is online now  
post #100 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 07:13 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that this statement in the subject article:

"Allowing cable to "degrade" HDTV, they argue, would disenfranchise viewers who have bought HDTV sets to be able to watch the Super Bowl, Nascar or other programs in high-def. "

makes the multicast must-carry mandate they are concurrently pushing, on-topic, and not really a hijack of the original topic.

Had they argued that as the owners (or rights owners) of the programming, they should be allowed to dictate how that programming is delivered, it would be a different story. But if the case is being made that the degradation of HDTV disenfranchises HD viewers, and that should be given significant weight in their decision making - then there is a direct parallel to multicast must-carry.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #101 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bfoster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Weeksville, NC
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng


When someone makes a statement that money doesn't matter to big business, everyone who reads that laughs because they know that statement is flawed. It isn't true. Just ask any large modern company broadcasting or not, including my own, News Corp, or Viacom, or GE or Disney, or GM, or Proctor and Gamble or Dow or (you fill in the blank).

There was nothing in my post about money or the bottom line. It was about how affiliates of the Big Boys will get their sub-channels on cable without invoking must carry. Which I believe is what this thread was about, sorta. :D
bfoster is offline  
post #102 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
12A to 9A? No daytime? No primetime? .
LOL ... you asked for examples. For the record, when they (WKYT) first started they ran the shopping channel from 12AM to Noon ... they've since managed to scare up 3 more hours of non-shopping channel "filler." BTW, "Primetime" is exactly two hours long on this sub-channel. ;)

For the further record, I almost never watch CBS-HD (720p, DD2.0) on WKYT, given that WLKY is now running CBS at 1080i (at full throttle with DD5.1)

BTW, WKYT has never been in the poor house, they spend 8mil a year for the rights to UK sports yet they've consistantly had the poorest analog (and now digital) picture quality digital in the market.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #103 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 10:36 AM
Senior Member
 
pedrojunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't get the big deal. As long as the cable companies aren't replacing the HD feed with the SD feed I don't care. Honestly I really couldn't care less how slow the cable companies are at the transition. As long as they are competitive with their HD offerings I would love for them to stay analog with as much as posible for as long as possible.

SDTVs aren't going away, analog TVs aren't going away why piss off eleventy million legacy tv owners by making them either buy a new tv or rent a silly decoder box. Americans are lazy lazy people who dont like being inconvinenced and I'm sure it would be terrible for buisness.

I know this fight is mostly with the DTV conversion, but the same thing applies. if I have my 14" tv in my bedroom I sure as hell don't want it letterboxed, and i dont want the hassle of having to change aspect ratios or anything stupid like that.
pedrojunkie is offline  
post #104 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 11:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedrojunkie
I don't get the big deal. As long as the cable companies aren't replacing the HD feed with the SD feed I don't care.

Youve got a lot to learn. But hey, look on the bright side, your a prime candidate for Directv HD service. LMAO :D
vurbano is offline  
post #105 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let's kill retransmission consent.

Let's kill must-carry.

Both are obsolete in their original intent, to protect non-cable households from losing access to programming by protecting the financial viability of broadcasters. There are simply too many communication and information options available to continue to justify protecting "fledgling" broadcasters any longer.

Let's get back to the business model where broadcasters make money off selling advertising by producing programming viewers want to see, not off subscription fees and subsidies. And if they can't, let them die.

Let's not allow broadcasters to cozy up to certain providers in order to blackmail others.

Let's let the marketplace decide, because that's the ONLY way we're gonna get the best quality product from both a content and technological perspective.

The only real winners with all this legislation and retransmission negociation are the bloody attorneys.
posg is offline  
post #106 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 12:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95

..
Had they argued that as the owners (or rights owners) of the programming, they should be allowed to dictate how that programming is delivered, it would be a different story. But if the case is being made that the degradation of HDTV disenfranchises HD viewers, and that should be given significant weight in their decision making - then there is a direct parallel to multicast must-carry.
Actually I believe that under the current retrans consent laws the stations could already specify how the programs are delivered, or even demand multi-must-carry. Of course those would only be 'demands', and have no force of law unless the cable (and/or sat) companies agreed as part of the retrans contract. Failing that, the stations could either withhold the content or demand standard must-carry, without expecting to have their other demands met. It's a fairly confusing system.

My own preference is for a "no substantial degradation" clause in digital must-carry, but only for the single primary channel. This would give everyone the most incentive to create and carry good HD and the least incentive to add filler sub-channels full of infomercials and televangelists.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at www.trbarry.com
trbarry is offline  
post #107 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 02:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that this statement in the subject article:

"Allowing cable to "degrade" HDTV, they argue, would disenfranchise viewers who have bought HDTV sets to be able to watch the Super Bowl, Nascar or other programs in high-def. ".
Many cable companies rate shaping degrades the quality of the HD signal far more than multicasting does. Many blame the broadcasters for not giving the HD full bandwidth, when in fact even if they did, cable would rate shape the signal down to enable more channels to be added. Having compared OTA to cable signals here, it is being done to the extent of imparing the HDTV. And, I might add, legally per FCC rules.

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #108 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano
Youve got a lot to learn. But hey, look on the bright side, your a prime candidate for Directv HD service. LMAO :D
Count me in as one that has alot to learn. Can someone educate me why adding a SD DTV version hurts HD? Correct me if I'm wrong, but around 12 SD DTV channels can exist on one 6Mhz channel. In most markets one or two 6 Mhz channels would suffice for the OTA stations. Why would we want analog versions that are 12x less efficient? Doesn't that cramp bandwidth for HD far worse than DTV? If anything I think the move should be to eliminate the analog channels, although I understand why that's a problem too.

If we are lucky enough that digital must carry is defeated, and broadcasters give up on multicasting, we would still have the same bandwidth being transmitted for each OTA channel on cable if the bit rate is not reduced: 2 HD stations per 6Mhz channel. MPEG 4 could improve that by a factor of 2-3x. Can someone explain why using a couple 6MHZ channels for OTA DTV would reduce HD PQ?
TVOD is offline  
post #109 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
"Let's get back to the business model where broadcasters make money off selling advertising by producing programming viewers want to see, not off subscription fees and subsidies. And if they can't, let them die."

I thought that's what we already DO! Most stations do not get paid for their programming thru subscription fees or subsidies. We get paid by the advertisers (period). The amount advertisers pay us is determined solely by how many "eyeballs" are watching the shows. The shows that we give away.

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
post #110 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 03:25 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe
Many cable companies rate shaping degrades the quality of the HD signal far more than multicasting does. Many blame the broadcasters for not giving the HD full bandwidth, when in fact even if they did, cable would rate shape the signal down to enable more channels to be added. Having compared OTA to cable signals here, it is being done to the extent of imparing the HDTV. And, I might add, legally per FCC rules.
No doubt - it's not good for us. My problem is bringing up the poor consumer who invested in HDTV equipment - only selectively when it serves their purpose. It's not surprising, but it's disingenuous.
CPanther95 is online now  
post #111 of 287 Old 05-31-2006, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry
Multicast must-carry is a dumb idea with little justification. I'm surprised the debate on that has managed to completely hijack this thread away from the original topic.
Not necessarily. I'll note a couple of situations where multicasting can offer real service to viewers.

The first is in expanding choices in smaller market. In many smaller markets, multicasting is the only way that full five network service will become available. Note the number of CW affiliation agreements that involve multicasting once you get below the top 100 major markets, as one example.

While my preference as a viewer would be to see all five commercial network affiliates (plus PBS) running as full bit-rate HD on independent channels, I recognize that in small markets that just isn't going to happen. If it's a choice of not receiving those networks at all, then I'd take the multicasting. Note that not everyone chooses to subscribe to cable/satellite -- and that in rural areas that are part of smaller markets, cable may not be available even to everyone who would like to subscribe, and local broadcast channels may not be available over satellite. Multicasting can increase the choices for *all* viewers in those markets.

The second situation where multicasting is a viable choice is for "minor" stations in major markets. The former Pax (now Ion Networks) stations come to my mind immediately: no high definition content, and no likelihood of any for years to come. But the parent company is proposing to multicast a bilingual kids channel and a dedicated health and fitness channel. Two new choices available to viewers, off the air, and free of charge -- and at no cost in HD quality, since Ion isn't offering HD anyway. Where's the problem with that?
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #112 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 04:17 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 bdfox18doe
Many cable companies rate shaping degrades the quality of the HD signal far more than multicasting does. Many blame the broadcasters for not giving the HD full bandwidth, when in fact even if they did, cable would rate shape the signal down to enable more channels to be added. Having compared OTA to cable signals here, it is being done to the extent of imparing the HDTV. And, I might add, legally per FCC rules.
That [rate shaping] has been my suspicion, too, and vaguely recall your citing OTA/cable comparisons here earlier. Mind elaborating a bit on your comparison? For example, was it requantization mostly at fault, too much bit rate reduction, or both? Comparing PQ subjectively is very ambiguous, so did you use something like a spectrum analyzer or Tektronix's PQA300 picture quality unit?

Here, NYC's TWC has admitted to using rate shaping for SD and HD. My only 'hard data' on the possible result, though, is that HDNet's resolution wedges appear at only 1290 lines/PW maximum horizontal resolution. A local ISF tech measured about the same with a 1366X768 display, as have others. These wedges should be close to 1920 lines, but it's unclear whether STB limitations or rate shaping, or both, are the cause (~634 'missing' lines). Of course, a true-1080p display is needed to see full test pattern resolution, and sampled, Nyquist-limited video can't deliver resolvable 1920X1080, at least not without oversampling. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #113 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 04:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish
"Let's get back to the business model where broadcasters make money off selling advertising by producing programming viewers want to see, not off subscription fees and subsidies. And if they can't, let them die."

I thought that's what we already DO! Most stations do not get paid for their programming thru subscription fees or subsidies. We get paid by the advertisers (period). The amount advertisers pay us is determined solely by how many "eyeballs" are watching the shows. The shows that we give away.
With all due respect, cash payment is where retransmission is headed. Essentially I am paying my cable or sat provider a portion of my bill to subsidize the local broadcaster. At $6/year per household, we're not talking a small amount of money here. It is an extreme departure from the "free tv" model no matter what color bow you wrap around it.
posg is offline  
post #114 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 04:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
With all due respect, cash payment is where retransmission is headed. Essentially I am paying my cable or sat provider a portion of my bill to subsidize the local broadcaster. At $6/year per household, we're not talking a small amount of money here. It is an extreme departure from the "free tv" model no matter what color bow you wrap around it.
So it is perfectly OK for a company to pick the signal out of air FOR FREE just for the cost of the equipment just like anyone else and then turn around and charge others for this FREE signal for a profit? Don't know what you call it, but it smells a lot like stealing to me.

Gee, I need to setup a system where I sniff the cable signals out of the cable passing by my house, with all of the signal egress leaking out of the cable that isn't hard at all! (heck at this point I can do it now. Aim my antenna at the cable line on the pole and watch cable for free!!)At that point, signal is FREE to anyone who can pick it up since it has leaked out of the cable and I am not attached to their system at all, just pulling it out of the air with my own equipment, resell it for my neighborhood and make money too! Oh, wait, I can't do that. Cable calls that "pirating." But if I want to BUY the signals from them and do that for my neighborhood, they are on board with it!!

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. You can't have it both ways.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #115 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 04:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdfox18doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
That [rate shaping] has been my suspicion, too, and vaguely recall your citing OTA/cable comparisons here earlier. Mind elaborating a bit on your comparison? For example, was it requantization mostly at fault, too much bit rate reduction, or both? Comparing PQ subjectively is very ambiguous, so did you use something like a spectrum analyzer or Tektronix's PQA300 picture quality unit?
John
Noticed artifatcs on CATV that weren't there OTA, and spoke with one of the local tv repairman who asked me why cable and satellite didn't look as good as OTA.Had viewer complaints as well.
Using MPEG analyzers, began looking at the streams. CATV denied rate shaping, but looking at their QAM's proved otherwise. Found up to 4 mb/s being shaved off at times from some of the local HD's. None were/are being passed at full bit-rate at all times. Our data has been presented to the local operator who has yet to respond.

More data can be found here, It's intended for IP delivery, but the rate shaping info applies.

http://www.terayon.com/tools/static_...5f2b264f42def8

Bob

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the FOX,ABC,CBS,or CW Networks,MeTv, my employer or its parent company. Nor my wife for that matter!
bdfox18doe is offline  
post #116 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 05:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe
Noticed artifatcs on CATV that weren't there OTA, and spoke with one of the local tv repairman who asked me why cable and satellite didn't look as good as OTA.Had viewer complaints as well.
Using MPEG analyzers, began looking at the streams. CATV denied rate shaping, but looking at their QAM's proved otherwise. Found up to 4 mb/s being shaved off at times from some of the local HD's. None were/are being passed at full bit-rate at all times. Our data has been presented to the local operator who has yet to respond.

More data can be found here, It's intended for IP delivery, but the rate shaping info applies.

http://www.terayon.com/tools/static_...5f2b264f42def8
I have not done so recently but I have done similar experiments with Comcast, both in Detroit and here in Jacksonville. And I got the opposite results, no obvious rate shaping or tampering. So Comcast did not appear to be tampering with the shows.

Note it is not even necessary to use MPEG analyzers. Anyone with PCHD cards that can record the programs can record a network show on both cable and OTA. (may take 2 cards or computers) Then use something like the free HDTVToMPEG2 utility to trim out a single program stream, removing the control info, sub-channels, padding, etc. If the results are the same size then likely nothing has been trimmed out by the cable company and there is no serious rate shaping.

In any given larger city it is probably possible to find a couple folks with PCHD cards that could collaborate and perform this check. I'd probably even recommend any HDTV station do it if they were being told their signal was being passed intact over cable but they had suspicions otherwise.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at www.trbarry.com
trbarry is offline  
post #117 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
So it is perfectly OK for a company to pick the signal out of air FOR FREE just for the cost of the equipment just like anyone else and then turn around and charge others for this FREE signal for a profit? Don't know what you call it, but it smells a lot like stealing to me.

Gee, I need to setup a system where I sniff the cable signals out of the cable passing by my house, with all of the signal egress leaking out of the cable that isn't hard at all! (heck at this point I can do it now. Aim my antenna at the cable line on the pole and watch cable for free!!)At that point, signal is FREE to anyone who can pick it up since it has leaked out of the cable and I am not attached to their system at all, just pulling it out of the air with my own equipment, resell it for my neighborhood and make money too! Oh, wait, I can't do that. Cable calls that "pirating." But if I want to BUY the signals from them and do that for my neighborhood, they are on board with it!!

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. You can't have it both ways.
Why then don't broadcasters simply scramble their OTA signals and charge everybody to watch their signal. Fair's fair.

Why place the burdon on cable and satellite viewers, because at the end of the day, it's NOT the cable companies that will pay, it's the viewers. In fact, cable, just like satellite, will mark up their costs and turn the whole thing into a profit center.

Broadcasters DO NOT pay a premium to programmers when that programming is funneled through a third party distribution system. There are no incremental costs involved, just incremental profit.

No matter how you slice it, it puts you in the subscription revenue business, in which case "controlled competition" and market exclusivity needs to go away.

"You can't have it both ways" ;)
posg is offline  
post #118 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 06:04 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 bdfox18doe
Noticed artifatcs on CATV that weren't there OTA, and spoke with one of the local tv repairman who asked me why cable and satellite didn't look as good as OTA.Had viewer complaints as well.
Using MPEG analyzers, began looking at the streams. CATV denied rate shaping, but looking at their QAM's proved otherwise. Found up to 4 mb/s being shaved off at times from some of the local HD's. None were/are being passed at full bit-rate at all times. Our data has been presented to the local operator who has yet to respond.

More data can be found here, It's intended for IP delivery, but the rate shaping info applies.

http://www.terayon.com/tools/static_...5f2b264f42def8
Thanks for the information. Recall Terayon's claim several years back about fitting 3-4 HD channels in 256-QAM cable slots where only 2 were/are typically fit.

If 4 Mbps was missing locally (cable vs. OTA), wonder how much of that resulted from the cable firm stripping away the PSIP (program guide) info or other bits not used for cable delivery, and how much resulted in PQ loss? Also, it's not clear how rate-shaping requantization, which AIUI just lessens the higher-frequency energy by changing the quantization coding to a lower number, factors into bit rate changes. Just lower quantization number = low bit rate? Like trbarry reports above, there have been other reports of OTA/cable bit rate comparisons with the numbers matching; believe dr1394 ran a comparison (no differences) here a few years back from reader-supplied files. Perhaps that's just Terayon etc. rate shaping use versus none. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #119 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vurbano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg
Why then don't broadcasters simply scramble their OTA signals and charge everybody to watch their signal. Fair's fair.

Why place the burdon on cable and satellite viewers, because at the end of the day, it's NOT the cable companies that will pay, it's the viewers. In fact, cable, just like satellite, will mark up their costs and turn the whole thing into a profit center.

Broadcasters DO NOT pay a premium to programmers when that programming is funneled through a third party distribution system. There are no incremental costs involved, just incremental profit.

No matter how you slice it, it puts you in the subscription revenue business, in which case "controlled competition" and market exclusivity needs to go away.

"You can't have it both ways" ;)
But having it both ways is what they now have and is what these greedy bandwidth pimps will fight to the death for. Fairness is a word they only understand when using it to increase their own profits. They have what amounts to designated hostage areas where they distribute their signal under protection of the FCC much like the Mafia has its own drug dealing areas and no one else is allowed in. They dont scramble their signal because they survive based on shoving commercials down our throats. Scramble the signal and they go out of business. But more importantly they lose their soap box. They would no longer be doing us a service :rolleyes:
vurbano is offline  
post #120 of 287 Old 06-01-2006, 06:23 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdfox18doe
Noticed artifacts on CATV that weren't there OTA, and spoke with one of the local tv repairman who asked me why cable and satellite didn't look as good as OTA.
That's bad fo the HD'er, and the broadcaster should be able to dictate how his product is presented - just like any other business. But multicasting can be just as bad, or worse, for HD'ers - otherwise how do you explain why our local FOX HD looks better than our local CBS HD (and don't say superior engineering personel ;) ).
CPanther95 is online now  
Closed Thread 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