New York, NY - TWC - Page 40 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1171 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 02:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have heard that digital cable should not go through anything (amplifiers, filters, cleaners, spliters).

There are newer splitters and such that are specifically desgined for digital cable. Most older things are not.
dkan24 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1172 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 02:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
cinemagotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by dkan24
I have heard that digital cable should not go through anything (amplifiers, filters, cleaners, spliters).

There are newer splitters and such that are specifically desgined for digital cable. Most older things are not.

That's a good point. I have it running through a splitter too but I doubt it's a "digital" cable splitter. I looked over the regular and digital ones and decided to just get the regular one (it was cheap). I wonder if that's causing it? Anyone know for sure that there's a difference?
cinemagotham is offline  
post #1173 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 02:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have my cable going through 2 digital splitters:

The first split goes to the cable modem and another splitter. The second split goes to the DVR and HD box. My reception, VOD, HD, and DVR recordings are all perfect, and cable modem is very fast.
dkan24 is offline  
post #1174 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 02:50 PM
Senior Member
 
vlapietra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: New York City, New York, USA
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe any splitter you use for digital cable should be rated over 1ghz. Check the splitter, it should be marked something like 5-1100Mhz. Make sure the second number is > 1000Mhz or > 1Ghz.

-- Vinny
vlapietra is offline  
post #1175 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 03:04 PM
Member
 
jheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My cable also goes through a splitter which I bought at Radio Shack and I believe is just your basic splitter, nothing special. My analog and HD TV reception as well as my cable modem speed is fine.

XBOX Live: JROC9

My DVD Collection
jheart is offline  
post #1176 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 05:46 PM
Member
 
BelB64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My understanding has been that INHD1&2, with HDNet and HDMovies will be added as soon as the bandwidth increases. This happened in the other TWC systems. I would love both FSNY-HD and MSG-HD but there will only be very few times when the Mets and Rangers or Knicks are home the same day. These are the only programs that are HD on these stations. TWC-of NYC probably feels most NY'ers rather see a NYC team than an out of town team if there is limited bandwidth. I certainly agree.
BelB64 is offline  
post #1177 of 26665 Old 05-24-2004, 08:18 PM
Member
 
Mobert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


My understanding has been that INHD1&2, with HDNet and HDMovies will be added as soon as the bandwidth increases

It looks like that won't happen anytime soon. Not any time in the next couple of years from what people are saying would need to happen to free some bandwith up.
Mobert is offline  
post #1178 of 26665 Old 05-25-2004, 09:01 AM
Member
 
mrkaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by dkan24
I have heard that digital cable should not go through anything (amplifiers, filters, cleaners, spliters).

There are newer splitters and such that are specifically desgined for digital cable. Most older things are not.

I have the same splitters that TWCNYC (or possibly the company that existed before TWCNYC with the turn knob cable box) installed in my apartment way before my memory begins (i am 22). There are 4 splitters right into each other and I never have a problem with my tv and my modem speed is great. I don't think it really matters. Then again I think that monster clean power thingie is a overpriced waste. I may be wrong.

- JB
mrkaos is offline  
post #1179 of 26665 Old 05-25-2004, 09:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
dkan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by mrkaos
I have the same splitters that TWCNYC (or possibly the company that existed before TWCNYC with the turn knob cable box) installed in my apartment way before my memory begins (i am 22). There are 4 splitters right into each other and I never have a problem with my tv and my modem speed is great. I don't think it really matters. Then again I think that monster clean power thingie is a overpriced waste. I may be wrong.

- JB

I bought a used Monster Power HTS-3000 on Audiogon for $100 2 years ago. I figured that I might as well have some decent protection for all my equipment. I did not expect to get better audio or video.

After plugging everything in, the difference in audio was obvious. Everything sounded better.

I still don;t believe that digital cable should go through it. I guess we will all find out the answer soon enough.
dkan24 is offline  
post #1180 of 26665 Old 05-25-2004, 12:35 PM
Member
 
BelB64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mobert-Whoever said it will take a few years to increase bandwidth is wrong unless Bob Watson of TWC-NYC is a complete liar. If you read my response from him a few days ago, he believes that by the end of THIS year we will have INHD1&2 and HDNet and HDNet Movies and hopefully we then get the MSG and FSNY on INHD when the contract for all of MSG and FSNY is complete. He assured me that this time frame is very doable.
BelB64 is offline  
post #1181 of 26665 Old 05-25-2004, 02:31 PM
Member
 
mrkaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That is him providing hope. There is no technological breakthru at the moment to change the amount of bandwidth. I am currently working with another major cable company trying to design networks to provide bandwidth. The only way they will get more hd this year is if they remove some other service.

- jb
mrkaos is offline  
post #1182 of 26665 Old 05-26-2004, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
drew138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 1,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is an interesting HD related extract from Cablevision's investor conference call by the new COO talking abuot ability to broadcast HD content. About mid-way through they talk about deploying freed up bandwidth in the most economic way possible. In our case, TWC-NYC has more economicly beneficial ways to deploy bandwidth. I'd like to know more about what he means when he says "switched video technology will be feasible commercially"; Maybe John Mason can translate

RICHARD BILOTTI, MORGAN STANLEY: Good Morning. You have taken the lead in terms of HDTV both on satellite and on cable, and I'm intrigued to understand, it seems to be raging throughout the industry, on a 750 system, such as the systems you built in New York, in the beginning stages of the roll-out, how many H.D. channels can you actually physically accommodate on those systems today before you run out of bandwidth? And then looking at it one more level, if you wanted to go an even greater number of channels, Tom, you all have looked at a lot of different strategies, where do you come out on all digital versus an 860 upgrade, versus a node split as a way to add bandwidth?

TOM RUTLEDGE: Rich, the math is fairly simple. You can compress today about three to one, and so it's a typical 750 cable system could carry about 330, all high-definition channels if we wanted to make it all digital, all HD. It's 450, 750 channels on a 750, right? 115.

WILLIAM BELL: So 300, you're right.

TOM RUTLEDGE: Well, whatever, it's large capacity.

RICHARD BILOTTI: But given that you have existing customers and obviously assume to be getting in a lot have you configured today what is practical in terms of the number that can be carried? How many six megahertz slots can you turnover to HD?

TOM RUTLEDGE: That's an evolving question. As our penetration of digital increases, which it's doing rapidly. We can take back spectrum by taking services that have historically been delivered in analog and converting them to digital. Pay TV and pay-per-view are the first services that are being converted that way, and we are rapidly doing that conversion.

As that spectrum gets freed up, that's available for high-definition. It's available for video on demand. So we can see how the marketplace dictates usage and allocate the spectrum the way that maximizes our utility to the customer. And is most economic. It looks like that by the ends of this year that switched video technology will be feasible commercially, which means that essentially we have an unlimited channel capacity for linear services, meaning traditional broadcast services.

Because we can use the plant that we've built, which is small node, already split node in essence relative to the rest of the industry, and use that capacity to deliver essentially unlimited products from around the world in a linear form on demand. And the initial products that we want to launch in that form would be low penetrated or low use services. But as the network continues to evolve we can do any kind of product in that form.

So 750 is sufficient plant for the foreseeable future. There's no need to go to 860 and do an upgrade. We can manage this plant going forward in a completely customer satisfactory way and have unlimited services without having to put additional capital into the infrastructure.

RICHARD BILOTTI: That's exactly the topic I was interested in. Thank you
drew138 is offline  
post #1183 of 26665 Old 05-26-2004, 08:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:


Originally posted by mrkaos
That is him providing hope. There is no technological breakthru at the moment to change the amount of bandwidth. I am currently working with another major cable company trying to design networks to provide bandwidth. The only way they will get more hd this year is if they remove some other service.

Noted the big splash of multiple full-page Cisco ads and Matt Richtel's NY Times article yesterday about new router hardware. Was speculating then, since I've read NYC TWC uses some types of Cisco routers, if these new extremely fast routers might play a role in upgrading TWC's capabilities for video. (Sure looks, though, like TWC and others are planning on diminishing analog channels for more space. That wouldn't diminish service, IMO, because all analogs are already duplicated in digital.)

Each new Cisco router can deliver 1.2 terabits/sec (trillion bits) and up to 72 routers can be linked for a 92-Tbps system. By contrast, one HD channel, via TWC's 256 QAM, requires up to ~19 Mbps (million bits per second).

I've pictured cable-network switched-broadcast techniques as being similar to video-on-demand (VOD), except instead of programs being stored on hard-disk drives they're available at the head ends, or more-localized nodes, for instant all-electronic switching. Just like the Internet, it seems you could tune any TV channel in the world if it's collected and waiting at the head end, or perhaps by further bit routing (to other sites).

No doubt mrkaos can't disclose proprietary Cisco details, but perhaps he could elaborate on switched systems. Noticed a recent CED news item (about 7/8 down) indicating switched broadcast technology isn't all that reliable yet. (I cited two articles on Ethernet-like cable systems in an earlier post .) -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #1184 of 26665 Old 05-26-2004, 11:26 AM
Member
 
jheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Someone just mentioned to me that it takes the removal of about 4 analog channels to add one HD channel. Is this true ?

XBOX Live: JROC9

My DVD Collection
jheart is offline  
post #1185 of 26665 Old 05-26-2004, 12:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Removing about four digital channels would provide bandwidth for one HD channel. A 6-MHz cable slot (frequency) handles one analog, or it's ~39 Mbps digital used for about 2 HDs or 8-10 SDs (with typical 256 QAM delivery). That's overlooking digital manipulation from rate shaping and statistical multiplexing, which somewhat reduces bandwidth demand. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #1186 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 06:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
anthonymoody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: ny, ny usa
Posts: 5,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Sooooo....does this mean we're getting more HD channels or not?

TM

Stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking, nerf herder.
Double True!
anthonymoody is offline  
post #1187 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 06:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Believe Bob Watson's comment a while back that TWC is out of spectrum for new HD channels until the 4th quarter is probably accurate. It'd be nice to learn how they're upgrading--cutting analog, switched broadcasting, etc.--from insiders, but it looks like waiting for the hardware upgrades is necessary. My choices for whacking 12+ SD channels for three or more new HD channels would no doubt differ from others.
John Mason is offline  
post #1188 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 06:50 AM
Member
 
perrycampf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ran across the following while reading the latest issue of Wired:
Quote:


Cable TV is like a crappy pizza joint: You can order a small, medium, or large pie, but you can't design your own - and no slices. Put off by increasing cable TV fees, US senator John McCain aims to introduce legislation to force providers to offer an Ã* la carte menu as a way to rein in monthly bills and expand subscribers' choices. We asked Time Warner Cable chair and CEO Glenn Britt to get in front of any regulation and give his customers the option now.

WIRED: You're already giving us video-on-demand and DVRs. Isn't Ã* la carte cable TV the logical next step?
BRITT: Ã la carte is really a step backward - you would end up with a lot less choice, less diversity. People like having maximum choice. We carry many channels that appeal just to niche groups and minorities. It's by no means clear those could survive in an Ã* la carte regime.

So those channels aren't really supported by the marketplace. If I could pay for just the channels I want, I'd be a lot more valuable to advertisers.
Cable isn't about having a few channels that appeal to everybody, it's about having a lot of channels that appeal to everybody. You may not watch C-Span every night, but it's good to know it's there.

Sure, good for C-Span and Time Warner. But as a consumer, I'd rather lower my bill by paying for only the channels I actually watch.
The myth is that if you pay $60 a month and get 100 channels, then you could buy 50 and cut your price in half. That isn't how the economics work; there are a lot of fixed costs. You'd most likely end up with people paying the same amount of money for fewer channels. It's analogous to a newspaper or magazine. Hardly anybody reads every article in the paper; you read selectively. But nobody says, "Gee, you should only buy the sports section if that's all you want."

Cable and satellite are in cutthroat mode. Couldn't Ã* la carte be an opportunity for you to differentiate Time Warner Cable from its competitors?
If that's what people wanted, yes. But the assumption is wrong. Every time we've tried to offer more packages with fewer channels - more toward Ã* la carte - consumers always went for the big packages. People actually like this service, which is why 90 percent of the homes in the country buy it.
- Lucas Graves

dpc
perrycampf is offline  
post #1189 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
drew138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 1,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ã* la carte channels would be a nightmare from an operations/billing point of view. These guys can barely get a bill for basic, premium, high speed data, and now voice, let alone an infinite # of possible channel combinations. Besides, Ã* la carte would only benefit me if I could de-select the 28 channels I never watch so that I could add 7 HD channels I would.

Drew
drew138 is offline  
post #1190 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 08:19 AM
Member
 
jheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fresh Meadows, NY
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Voom here I come !

XBOX Live: JROC9

My DVD Collection
jheart is offline  
post #1191 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 08:38 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
anthonymoody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: ny, ny usa
Posts: 5,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 63
John,
My vote would differ from yours only in that I'd whack 2x as many SD channels for 2x as many HD channels

TM

Stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking, nerf herder.
Double True!
anthonymoody is offline  
post #1192 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 08:23 PM
Member
 
Mobert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Agreed Anthony.
Mobert is offline  
post #1193 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 08:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
DjPiLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To answer a previous question.... At this point I would rather get the HD-DVR instead of INHD1 & 2, HDNET. I love the non-HD DVR... and yeah it sucks to have to go to the bedroom to watch recorded show. A 3rd party HD-DVR like a Reply just isn't the same.... and I already own a Reply. The PIP feature of the TWC DVR makes it right there.

Now if they were offering ESPN-HD, FOXHD, MSGHD... then maybe i'd take those over the DVR.

Im also || this close to switching to RCN... they just announced adding Starz-HD to their lineup. Shouldn't take long for them to roll it out to Manhattan... since Manhattan seems to be one of their "test" markets. They already have the HD-DVR in Manhattan, but its not dual-tuner PIP though.
DjPiLL is offline  
post #1194 of 26665 Old 05-27-2004, 09:57 PM
Member
 
mrkaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
John Mason -
I have not forgotten your question. I will answer it in detail when I have more time and reread my NDA about what I am working on. Sorry for the delay but I am a contractor and I just got out of a 16 hour day. I will be in nyc on Sat and will answer in detail including the CRS boxes.

- JB
mrkaos is offline  
post #1195 of 26665 Old 05-28-2004, 09:58 AM
Member
 
jmp_nyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I won't get into the details of why I was calling, as it's not relevant, but I found myself on the phone with a TW Customer Service supervisor just now after he did something that the rep claimed wasn't possible in trying to fix a TW screwup.

As the supervisor was ending the call, he said "Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable."

"Excuse me?" I responded, in a somewhat offended tone.

"Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable," he repeated.

"I would ask that you not thank me for something I did not do. I did not choose Time Warner Cable, nor would I do so in the future if given the option."

"Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable," he tried again, knowing that the call might be recorded for quality assurance, and that he needed to end with the appropriate sign off.

"After I moved in, my building signed an exclusivity deal with Time Warner Cable, my windows face north, and I get no over the air reception. I would hardly call doing business with Time Warner a choice."

"Thank you for choosing Time Warner Cable."

I finally hung up on him, as I couldn't take any more of it. I'm tempted to drop them a letter suggesting that they only use that line with me if they're going to let me choose to to business with someone else.
-JMP
jmp_nyc is offline  
post #1196 of 26665 Old 05-28-2004, 12:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
DjPiLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
LOL... I guess you "chose" to have a TV... so you "chose" Time Warner as compared to watching say... DVDs.

Sorry... had to say it.
DjPiLL is offline  
post #1197 of 26665 Old 05-28-2004, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drew138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 1,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Classic.
drew138 is offline  
post #1198 of 26665 Old 05-29-2004, 07:41 PM
Newbie
 
nycsm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was looking for info on TW HD and found this site. Thanks for the info.

FYI: Time Warner was swapping out all old cable boxes and converting users to DTV by the end of June, even giving 30 dollars or so to customers for doing this. I don't know if this will help clear the way for more HD channels.

I just got digital cable and was trying to find out about Yankee games and ESPN HD and the other channels since TW is mandatory in the building here.

Thx for your info
nycsm is offline  
post #1199 of 26665 Old 05-29-2004, 11:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
dkan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally posted by nycsm


FYI: Time Warner was swapping out all old cable boxes and converting users to DTV by the end of June, even giving 30 dollars or so to customers for doing this. I don't know if this will help clear the way for more HD channels.


Thx for your info

Has anyone else heard about this?
dkan24 is offline  
post #1200 of 26665 Old 05-30-2004, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:


Originally posted by nycsm
FYI: Time Warner was swapping out all old cable boxes and converting users to DTV by the end of June, even giving 30 dollars or so to customers for doing this. I don't know if this will help clear the way for more HD channels.

Welcome to the forums. Could you provide a source for this? If accurate, as outlined here for years, that could eliminate the ~600-Mhz bandwidth (out of 860+) needed for ~100 analog channels (now duplicated in digital). That's enough space for ~300+ HD channels! -- John
John Mason is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

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