Los Angeles, CA - TWC - Page 298 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 311Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #8911 of 9566 Old 06-16-2014, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post
I received a postcard the other day which apologized for what was called a "delay" in implementing the new channel lineup, and that it was NOT going to occur on 6/17 (in my area) as originally promised by previous mailings. They provided no new date, nor any estimate of even approximately how long the delay would be.

However they did say to hold on to the new channel guide brochures which had previously been sent out, as those were definitely to be the new channel lineups. My guess is that they'll again send out another postcard someday in the future apologizing for the delay and announcing the new implementation dates.

No idea at all how long this delay will continue.
Interesting. Hmm, I never got a channel guide list. I had to print my own out. Uh. Some people said theirs got delayed until next Tuesday. Hmm! Whatever!

I am OK if TWC delays this to make things better. I don't want to deal with crappy deployments!
phildaant is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #8912 of 9566 Old 06-16-2014, 03:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
danki6x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by phildaant View Post
Interesting. Hmm, I never got a channel guide list. I had to print my own out. Uh. Some people said theirs got delayed until next Tuesday. Hmm! Whatever!

I am OK if TWC delays this to make things better. I don't want to deal with crappy deployments!
Since you did not get the first letter with line-up, you were probably not scheduled yet. Postcard also said to check the website for new dates (still says TBD) and that we would get notified when coming close. I suspect you will get letter with nicely printed tri-fold channel line-up. I actually ended up getting two in a couple mailings.

/Dan, city of Orange
phildaant likes this.
danki6x is offline  
post #8913 of 9566 Old 06-16-2014, 03:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by danki6x View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by phildaant View Post
Interesting. Hmm, I never got a channel guide list. I had to print my own out. Uh. Some people said theirs got delayed until next Tuesday. Hmm! Whatever!

I am OK if TWC delays this to make things better. I don't want to deal with crappy deployments!
Since you did not get the first letter with line-up, you were probably not scheduled yet. Postcard also said to check the website for new dates (still says TBD) and that we would get notified when coming close. I suspect you will get letter with nicely printed tri-fold channel line-up. I actually ended up getting two in a couple mailings.

/Dan, city of Orange
Interesting. The first mailer was like a few weeks ago.
phildaant is offline  
post #8914 of 9566 Old 06-16-2014, 07:01 PM
Member
 
DougDingle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post
I received a postcard the other day which apologized for what was called a "delay" in implementing the new channel lineup, and that it was NOT going to occur on 6/17 (in my area) as originally promised by previous mailings. They provided no new date, nor any estimate of even approximately how long the delay would be.
Same with me today. My area's changeover date was 6/24. Seems there are some issues...I've had to reboot my modem twice in the last weeks, only had to do it twice in the year or so before that.
DougDingle is offline  
post #8915 of 9566 Old 06-17-2014, 08:15 AM
Member
 
johnw248's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northridge CA
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I got a post card as well shortly after they missed the June 3-5 dates for my area. In it they claim that when a new date is established there will be another letter sent. That would mean to me that whatever the delay, there will be enough time to mail letters and give subscribers notice so it would seem at least two weeks from the next letter. That looks like we're moving into July at the earliest here.


Maybe they're ironing out wrinkles in San Diego....


Still doesn't seem like its something they would be doing considering the Comcast take-over and what further changes are in store, but no super speed broadband until they strip out the NTSC and duplicate SD digital feeds of HD.
johnw248 is offline  
post #8916 of 9566 Old 06-17-2014, 11:10 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw248 View Post
Still doesn't seem like its something they would be doing considering the Comcast take-over and what further changes are in store, but no super speed broadband until they strip out the NTSC and duplicate SD digital feeds of HD.
They obviously made this decision a while back. And up until very recently they still were proceeding (based on the fact that we received TWO mailers with channel lineups over a recent 2-week period).

They could have canceled the whole project, but instead they reinforced the public perception with a backup mailer. And even in the "sorry for the delay" postcard, they said we would be notified when they were back on track and the channel lineup change was soon to be implemented. Again, they could have scuttled it, but instead doubled down again.

So in my opinion they really must have run into some other unexpected coordination issues or technical problems making the lineup change impossible at the moment. I honestly don't think this has anything to do with the Comcast monopoly game.
DSperber is offline  
post #8917 of 9566 Old 06-18-2014, 07:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Post

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/tv/my-channels.html now shows "coming soon" and TBD on specific cities.
phildaant is offline  
post #8918 of 9566 Old 06-18-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Much more importantly actually, is the planned rollout (for my 90292 zip code) of the much anticipated TWC MAXX internet speed upgrade... TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT (supposedly)!!!

My "Extreme" service (30/5) is being upgraded to a rebranded "Ultimate 200" (200/20) level, theoretically occurring automatically about midnight tonight. Supposedly the software upgrade will be pushed out to my Netgear CMD31T DOCSIS 3.0 modem, followed by a "re-boot" command to restart the modem.

And then, as if by magic, I am supposedly then operating at 200/20 internet speed going forward. My Netgear WNDR4000 gigabit LAN/WAN router is fully prepared.

I will do a speedtest overnight, to see if this has really happened.

Still seems too good to be true... since it won't cost me anything. So far the only real cost has been the hardware upgrade to buy my own separate Netgear modem and router boxes (replacing the truly garbage Motorola SB6580 combined modem+router I went with at first, but eventually threw out).

Last edited by DSperber; 06-18-2014 at 03:17 PM.
DSperber is offline  
post #8919 of 9566 Old 06-18-2014, 08:10 PM
Senior Member
 
SPDICKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post
my Netgear CMD31T DOCSIS 3.0 modem.
Good luck getting 200 Mbps with that Netgear since the manufacturer states it will only "deliver usable downstream data rates of 152 Mbps
(CMD31T, DOCSIS).
"

That modem only bonds four downstream and four upstream channels, while other modems like my Zoom 5314J can bond 8 down, 4 up.

http://206.82.202.46/upload/product/..._22april08.pdf

Also, since your area hasn't yet dropped the analog signals (Marina del Rey, as well as where I live (WLA) is last on the list to be converted) and still TBD at http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/tv/my-channels.html TWC might not have enough room to turn on more bandwidth for data.

Last edited by SPDICKEY; 06-18-2014 at 08:15 PM.
SPDICKEY is offline  
post #8920 of 9566 Old 06-18-2014, 09:10 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPDICKEY View Post
Good luck getting 200 Mbps with that Netgear since the manufacturer states it will only "deliver usable downstream data rates of 152 Mbps
(CMD31T, DOCSIS).
"

That modem only bonds four downstream and four upstream channels, while other modems like my Zoom 5314J can bond 8 down, 4 up.

http://206.82.202.46/upload/product/..._22april08.pdf
You're right. (but you mean Zoom 5341J, not 5314J)

I had bought the CMD31T and WNDR4000 when I threw out the Motorola SB6580 which I couldn't stand. Until tonight, it's been perfectly adequate.

However with the TWC MAXX upgrades the TWC web site had been redone, and the CMD31T is now listed in the "Everyday Low Price Internet (ELP), Basic, Standard, Turbo, Extreme and Ultimate 50 service plans" group. So in order for me to make use of the Ultimate 200 (which is the 200/20 plan my current 30/5 Extreme is getting upgraded to), I will definitely need to upgrade the modem.

I've just ordered a Motorola SB6141, which will be here tomorrow. In the same list as your Zoom modem, and are both presumably (hopefully, fingers crossed!) acceptable for Ultimate 200 even though the TWC acceptable equipment web page only lists acceptable equipment for Ultimate 75 and 100 service plans. And the Motorola SB6183 isn't available yet, though I suspect it might be needed for Ultimate 300 plan (if not also for the Ultimate 200 possibly, immediately making the SB6141 I just bought the wrong device for maximum performance under the plan). There's no mention at all of these higher-end plans on the "acceptable equipment" page and acceptable devices, at least not yet, so who knows what's really needed!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by SPDICKEY View Post
Also, since your area hasn't yet dropped the analog signals (Marina del Rey, as well as where I live (WLA) is last on the list to be converted) and still TBD at http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/tv/my-channels.html TWC might not have enough room to turn on more bandwidth for data.
Well, all of these upgrades and changes are kind of tied together for sure. But that hasn't stopped them from rolling out Ultimate 200 (200/20) tonight... assuming I had a proper modem to support it.

I'll have speedtest.net results later tonight, and whatever it shows it shows. And I'll have additional results tomorrow, after swapping the newly arriving SB6141 in for the CMD31T, to see if that really makes the hoped-for difference.

We will see what we will see.
DSperber is offline  
post #8921 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 05:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post
You're right. (but you mean Zoom 5341J, not 5314J)

I had bought the CMD31T and WNDR4000 when I threw out the Motorola SB6580 which I couldn't stand. Until tonight, it's been perfectly adequate.

I've just ordered a Motorola SB6141, which will be here tomorrow.

There's no mention at all of these higher-end plans on the "acceptable equipment" page and acceptable devices, at least not yet, so who knows what's really needed!!
.
The 6580 is functionally the same as the 6141. Just have to disable the crappy wireless it comes with by putting it in bridge mode and using a seperate router.

The approved modem list for MAXX tiers has been available for over a month:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/conte...ovedmodems.pdf

Last edited by nyctveng; 06-19-2014 at 06:04 AM.
nyctveng is offline  
post #8922 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 06:54 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
The 6580 is functionally the same as the 6141. Just have to disable the crappy wireless it comes with by putting it in bridge mode and using a seperate router.
Too late. I threw it out (in the garbage!) many months ago. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have done that but would have now done exactly what you mention... namely used it in "bridge mode" strictly as a modem which would have supported at least Ultimate 100.


Quote:
Originally Posted by
The approved modem list for MAXX tiers has been available for over a month:
http://www.timewarnercable.com/conte...ovedmodems.pdf
Well, I guess you really have to be lucky to accidentally stumble into the correct TWC web page which gives you accurate information.

The other "approved equipment" page I pointed to previously ostensibly also provides the up-to-date list of approved equipment, but it is obviously out-of-date and incomplete. Clearly they have failed to update this page to match your page, i.e. to mention that NONE of the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE approved equipment actually supports Ultimate 200/300 service plans. They only support up to Ultimate 100.

According to your page, there is no existing or future combined (modem+router) that supports Ultimate 200/300. If you want that, you have to go with the one-and-only modem-only SB6183 currently approved (but which is not retail available for purchase until July at the earliest), and then also have a separate router. Otherwise using any other equipment at all... either any currently available separate modem + separate router or any available combined (modem+router)... will only provide up to Ultimate 100. So if you've already invested in existing equipment, you will NOT ever be able to truly get Ultimate 200/300 performance.

Great.

Last edited by DSperber; 06-19-2014 at 06:58 AM.
DSperber is offline  
post #8923 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 07:15 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
It's all moot BS anyway, as the upgrade apparently did NOT happen last night as promised. Still have 30/5 "Extreme" speed.

I will phone support right now to ask what happened. And I'll mention the apparent current unavailability of any equipment that can actually support Ultimate 200 which they claim to be rolling out now, along with the seemingly Catch-22 option of buying equipment today which can only support up to Ultimate 100 and which will never be able to support anything higher, and then buying different equipment WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE as the only way to support the Ultimate 200/300 speed down the road if that's what you've subscribed to because they said their TWC MAXX upgrade now makes it available (although you can't actually use it at that speed yet).
DSperber is offline  
post #8924 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 08:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
Arvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I thought the point was moot after receiving a postcard that a switch over for my area was changed from today 6/19 to TBD. This is for the national guide "upgrade" and consequently MAXX Internet speeds. When all this will happen is basically unknown to myself, TWC chat help, TWC in-store help, and Google, too.

In my case, I bought a SB6121 almost a year ago to avoid the modem rental price increase (I think it was $3 to $6/mo). I had Standard Internet service (15/1) at the time but was bumped up to Turbo (20/2) from a promo. The 6121 won't support MAXX Turbo speeds of 100/10 and I'd need a Gigabyte router, too. Beside that my ancient PC is only 100/10 anyway and 50/5 is sufficient speed to do my normal things even stream video. What I'll do is stick with my current promo which is saving almost $50/mo for phone/Internet/TV and downgrade the HSI to 50/5 if and when MAXX arrives.

Apparently, engineers are having quite a time of resolving the network as evident from the recent email outages and snail mailings.

Arvy
Arvy is online now  
post #8925 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 10:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvy View Post
I thought the point was moot after receiving a postcard that a switch over for my area was changed from today 6/19 to TBD. This is for the national guide "upgrade" and consequently MAXX Internet speeds. When all this will happen is basically unknown to myself, TWC chat help, TWC in-store help, and Google, too.

.
guide upgrade and maxx internet speed upgrade are unrelated
nyctveng is offline  
post #8926 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 10:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSperber View Post
It's all moot BS anyway, as the upgrade apparently did NOT happen last night as promised. Still have 30/5 "Extreme" speed.

I will phone support right now to ask what happened. And I'll mention the apparent current unavailability of any equipment that can actually support Ultimate 200 which they claim to be rolling out now, along with the seemingly Catch-22 option of buying equipment today which can only support up to Ultimate 100 and which will never be able to support anything higher, and then buying different equipment WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE as the only way to support the Ultimate 200/300 speed down the road if that's what you've subscribed to because they said their TWC MAXX upgrade now makes it available (although you can't actually use it at that speed yet).
IMHO for any speeds 200 & over, the $6 rental fee is worth it. If the modem has issues, TWC replaces it no problem. A new retail 6183 will likely cost $150 or more. Pre-retail units on ebay have sold for over $200. If you pay say $150 for it, it will take 2 years to recoup your money and by then docsis 3.1 will be out making your modem worthless. For those with 100 speed or lower, a docsis3 modem can be bought for as little as $20 making it absolutely worth it to buy rather than rent.
nyctveng is offline  
post #8927 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Finally got off the phone with "Bulk Services" (my building is on a bulk contract).

They apparently started rolling out the upgrade, but for some reason the software upgrade was "breaking" people's phone service. So they pulled the plug and postponed it for a few days or a week to give them time to figure out why there were these unexpected technical problems. Quite frankly I think it's BS, since the Arris phone modem is unrelated to the separate internet modem, but maybe there's something in the rollout involving both.

Anyway, it didn't happen. You'd think they would have tested this whole process sufficiently BEFORE STARTING IT, but it looks like this is a pretty rookie project if you ask me. Two national mailings announcing a national channel lineup change on specific dates for specific locations, and then they pull the plug and have to send out a notice announcing a new TBD non-schedule. And now the much-hyped TWC MAXX upgrade self-aborts because of unexpected technical problems.

Anyway, the only reason I had expected to use Ultimate 200 is because that's what they were upgrading my current Extreme service to. Extreme currently costs me $10 more than the Turbo service I used to have. And Ultimate 200 costs $10 more than Ultimate 100. But if there is no modem available (for retail purchase anyway, as I imagine TWC surely must have 16-channel modems for monthly rental that do support these high speeds) which can support Ultimate 200, and I've already purchased an 8-channel SB6141 (which supports Ultimate 100) to replace my 4-channel CMD31T, then I think when the upgrade actually does come out (in a few days, or next week, or whenever) that I'll just downgrade my service to Ultimate 100 and save $10/month. You probably can't tell the difference in the real world for a home user between Ultimate 100 and 200, and Ultimate 100 is still pretty fabulous.

I suspect TWC will thus see LOTS of people who currently pay premium rates for Turbo or Extreme or Ultimate and who have purchased their own modems downgrading their MAXX service tier to save $10 or $20 per month. The increased speeds at no additional charge are wonderful, but realistically I will still be very happy with Ultimate 75 or Ultimate 100 compared to today's speeds, especially if I can save $10 or $20 per month and get to use the existing modem I've already purchased.
DSperber is offline  
post #8928 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 10:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
Arvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
guide upgrade and maxx internet speed upgrade are unrelated
Perhaps I should have said subsequently as it's my understanding MAXX speed increases were due after the guide changes.

Arvy
Arvy is online now  
post #8929 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 10:40 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
IMHO for any speeds 200 & over, the $6 rental fee is worth it. If the modem has issues, TWC replaces it no problem. A new retail 6183 will likely cost $150 or more. Pre-retail units on ebay have sold for over $200. If you pay say $150 for it, it will take 2 years to recoup your money and by then docsis 3.1 will be out making your modem worthless. For those with 100 speed or lower, a docsis3 modem can be bought for as little as $20 making it absolutely worth it to buy rather than rent.
I understand what you're saying.

As I understand things, once MAXX gets implemented the Ultimate 50 service will be the new "standard" everyday speed. This is still much faster than my current Extreme service, and can still use my existing 4-channel CMD31T for Ultimate 50. So one option is to simply return the SB6141 I just bought yesterday ($92 with tax and shipping), continue to use my current CMD31T, and downgrade my service two (or three?) levels from the Ultimate 200 (which my Extreme converts into) down through Ultimate 100 and down through Ultimate 75, to Ultimate 50. That would save $20/month on service, and would not require a new modem at all. And I would still have 50Mb download vs. 30Mb today.

Or, take the 8-channel SB6141 arriving today, and downgrade from Ultimate 200 to Ultimate 100 and save $10/month.

Reducing service levels (since the new tiers are much faster than today's tiers, and most people don't really need SUPER-FAST service) will "pay off the new modem" much faster than just avoiding monthly TWC equipment rentals would.

I will definitely not open the SB6141 box for at least a week (when possibly the MAXX rollout will continue, although there's still no guarantee it will happen in my area... real crapshoot), giving me the return option without a hassle.

Last edited by DSperber; 06-19-2014 at 10:42 AM.
DSperber is offline  
post #8930 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 03:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvy View Post
Perhaps I should have said subsequently as it's my understanding MAXX speed increases were due after the guide changes.
Yes but since one is not dependent on the other, it's possible MAXX upgrades will occur before guide changes
nyctveng is offline  
post #8931 of 9566 Old 06-19-2014, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
SPDICKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
Yes but since one is not dependent on the other, it's possible MAXX upgrades will occur before guide changes

MAXX upgrades are dependant on the system going all-digital and the turndown of the analog signals. Something that will happen (slowly) after they begin the digital conversion. Mine will start July 8, 2014. Most likely with the turndown of numerous cable nets, and finally the broadcast networks to allow the phone queues some breathing room from all those who procrastinated getting DTAs from all calling in on the same day.

My postcard arrived today. Its my second notice of the all-digital conversion. Nothing new on the channel line-up change originally scheduled for next week. But still TBD on the TWC website.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	8681d0155754b3b2754b86a089f80581[1].jpg
Views:	50
Size:	92.7 KB
ID:	127354  
SPDICKEY is offline  
post #8932 of 9566 Old 06-20-2014, 06:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
nyctveng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location:
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPDICKEY View Post
MAXX upgrades are dependant on the system going all-digital and the turndown of the analog signals. Something that will happen (slowly) after they begin the digital conversion. Mine will start July 8, 2014. Most likely with the turndown of numerous cable nets, and finally the broadcast networks to allow the phone queues some breathing room from all those who procrastinated getting DTAs from all calling in on the same day.

My postcard arrived today. Its my second notice of the all-digital conversion. Nothing new on the channel line-up change originally scheduled for next week. But still TBD on the TWC website.
yes MAXX will require at 8 adjacent channel slots to their existing 8 modem downstream channels so if not a complete analog turndown, at least the 8 needed.

but guide changes can happen before analog turndown and analog turndown can happen before guide changes.
nyctveng is offline  
post #8933 of 9566 Old 06-20-2014, 08:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Arvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 45
My modem lost connectivity late last night. I rebooted it (SB6121) and it came back up with both upstream and down bonded. Previsouly, only the downstream was bonded. Over in the TWC forum in dslreports.com the follwing was posted as a timeline for MAXX and guide upgrade dating:

said by YeahBuddy :
MARKET
HUB
Call to action Letter In- Home
New Speeds Launched
Status
1
LA
Costa Mesa / Costa Mesa
4/2
4/2
Complete
1
LA
Santa Monica / West Hollywood
4/7
4/7
Complete
1
LA
Covina
5/28
5/28
Complete
1
LA
SCLA2
5/28
5/28
Complete
1
LA
Cypress
6/2
6/2
Complete
1
LA
Hoover
6/2
6/2
Complete
2
LA
Hermosa Beach
6/12
6/12
Complete
2
LA
Monrovia
6/23
WE 7/4
3
LA
Corona
6/23
WE 7/4
3
LA
Fontana
6/23
WE 7/4
2
LA
Pomona
6/24
WE 7/4
2
LA
Costa Mesa / Remaining Lineups
6/26
WE 7/4
3
LA
Ventura
WE 6/27
WE 7/4
2
LA
Santa Clarita 3 (Valencia)
WE 7/4
WE 7/4
2
LA
Santa Clarita 1
WE 7/4
WE 7/4
3
LA
Temecula
WE 7/4
WE 7/4
2
LA
Huntington Beach
WE 7/4
WE 7/11
3
LA
Idyllwild
WE 7/11
WE 7/18
3
LA
Northridge 3 (Canby)
WE 7/11
WE 7/18
2
LA
Lakewood
WE 7/11
WE 7/11
3
LA
Moreno Valley
WE 7/11
WE 7/11
3
LA
Santa Paula
WE 7/11
WE 7/11
3
LA
Seal Beach
WE 7/18
WE 7/18
3
LA
Ojai
WE 7/18
WE 7/25
3
LA
Perris
WE 7/18
WE 7/25
3
LA
Yucaipa
WE 7/18
WE 7/25
3
LA
Moorpark
WE 7/18
WE 7/25
3
LA
Camarillo
WE 7/25
WE 7/25
3
LA
Simi Valley
WE 7/25
WE 7/25
3
LA
SCLA1
WE 7/25
WE 8/1

A timeline was also posted for NYC and surrounding locales. I don't know where or how YeahBuddy got the info, though. If it's so, would those cities/areas be headend/hubs and cover nearby places, too?

Arvy
Arvy is online now  
post #8934 of 9566 Old 06-22-2014, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Question Cable boxes' signals compared to cable modems' signals...

Hello.

I was at my parents' place again, and was noticed some of their digital channels (e.g., HBO) were not always clear (pixellated, corruptions, etc.). It didn't matter which room too, through HDTVs' tuners or TWC's Motorola cable boxes, etc. I looked at Motorola's diagnostics and confused on how to read these technical info(rmation) compared to cable modems. There's a lot more than cable modems'! Am I only looking at their download and upload streams? I don't think I saw any SNR values? There were a long menu list of options!

If it is a low signal issue due to very long coax cables and many splitters due to the size of their place, then what's the best way to fix it? Put a signal amplifier in where the TWC coax cable enters the building? I remember they had issues with their Internet and phone services due to signals even when TWC technician was installing a few years ago. I assume the switch over to all digital and losing analog (they still have analog and some free digital QAM channels) will not fix this issue?

Thank you in advance.
phildaant is offline  
post #8935 of 9566 Old 06-22-2014, 10:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Arvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Have TWC send a tech out to check the signals, look at coax couplings, check the line in from a pole, etc. All you need to tell them are the symptoms just like at the doctor's office. If the problem is due to a TWC fault, there should be no charges. They will even add an amp, if needed. That's my 2 pennies.
phildaant likes this.

Arvy
Arvy is online now  
post #8936 of 9566 Old 06-26-2014, 08:41 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Here's a technical question for others who might know the answer...

In my previous comparisons between the bitrate of programs on OTA network channels received via roof antenna (fed to the Hauppauge HVR-2250 card in my Win7 Media Center HTPC) against the bitrates of the matching programs as delivered via TWC coax (fed to the Ceton InfiniTV4 card in myHTPC), I always observed that the TWC-provided retransmission of the OTA channels had a lower bitrate than the actual OTA channels via roof antenna.

And I had concluded that this was due to TWC's re-compression of the network-provided content, rather than simply passing it on through untouched and unrecompressed.

But recently I've begun to wonder about that. The OTA/ATSC mechanism is based on 8VSB tuners, and the TWC coax-provided mechanism is based on QAM tuners. And I'm wondering if the error-recovery mechanics built into 8VSB require a higher bitrate vs. the QAM version of the same content, which doesn't require as many bits used for error-recovery.

In other words, I'm wondering if the lower bitrate on the QAM version from TWC is just a natural result of conversion from the network-provided 8VSB OTA/ATSC original content to QAM for distribution over TWC's coax infrastructure, having nothing to do with "recompression" and everything to do with converting to a more reliable QAM technology that just needs fewer extra bits for error-recovery.

So, does my thinking make sense? Is it true? Is there actually no true recompression on these OTA channels available via TWC? Or am I wrong, and TWC really is recompressing OTA channels?
phildaant likes this.
DSperber is offline  
post #8937 of 9566 Old 06-26-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Your TRYING to compare Apples and Oranges....this is going to get a bit technical....

Every station can be a bit different in how they "feed" the local OTA stations....and DirecTV/Dishnet. Some provide an uncompressed (up to 40 Mbps, but it might actually only contain up to 19.8 Mbps of actual data) MPEG2 data stream which may or may NOT contain ALL of the sub-channels via the local Fibre-Optic Network. Some provide the SAME (up to 19.8 Mbps with all sub-channels) MPEG2 data stream (usually STATMUXED) that they actually transmit OTA. And I've heard that a FEW odd-ball OTA stations actually derive their broadcast signal from a (different STATMUXED) DirecTV, Dishnet or C/Ku-Band Big Ugly Dish System set up at the remote OTA Transmitter site.

There are a FEW stations that don't carry ANY sub-channels. Per DTV Market Listings found on rabbitears.info for L.A., KCOP Ch9 and KTTV Ch11 are the ONLY stations that don't have a second ATSC sub-channel...BUT each DOES carry a low data rate ATSC-M/H (Mobile/Handheld) sub-channel:
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php

KCOP's TSREADER report is found here:
http://www.rabbitears.info/screencap.../21422-0_0.htm
They have ALLOCATED (an impossible) 79.975 Mbps to their only Video Channel plus 384 kbps for the accompanying AC3 (maybe Stereo or DD5.1) Audio Channel and 96 kbps for the AC3 Audio Channel carrying SAP (in Stereo). However, looking at the ACTUAL Transmission report, at the instantaneous TIME of the SNAPSHOT, 16.32 Mbps is used for Video, 0.39 Mbps for AC3, 0.1 Mbps for SAP and 1.84 Mbps for "Unknown Usage"...which we see (see bottom of yellow block) is for ATSC-M/H (Mobile/Handheld) data stream.

KTTV Ch11 TSReader Report is found here:
http://www.rabbitears.info/screencap.../22208-0_0.htm

However, MOST OTA stations carry MULTIPLE Video programs, each of which is run with either a FIXED or much more likely, VARIABLE data rate allocations using a Statistical Multiplexer (STATMUX).

KCBS TSReader Report shows that it has allocated (an impossible) 79.975 Mbps for the HD Video and (way overkill) 14.975 Mbps for the SD Video channel and an ACTUAL INSTANTANEOUS SNAPSHOT of 14.55 Mbps for HD and 3.05 Mbps for SD channel. Assigning WAY MORE than needed data rates is a dead giveaway that the station is using an UNCONSTRAINED STATMUX. [A CONSTRAINED STATMUX would allocate only a bit more than the max "expected" data rate for a particular channel and hence could be more susceptible to macroblocking.]

KABC, Ch7 also has an UNCONSTRAINED STATMUX (total is well in excess of 19.8 Mbps OTA limit), set up to carry TWO 720p HD (24 Mbps each Allocated) and ONE SD (14 Mbps Allocated) Video channels...although the TSReader Report indicates that at the TIME of the INSTANTANEOUS report the second Video channel MAY or MAY NOT have been carrying a high-rez video program. Actual video data rates were 11.34 Mbps, 5.74 Mbps and 0.93 Mbps.

A STATMUX intelligently looks at the multiple data streams and dynamically allocates the total bit rate to each channel...depending on HOW MUCH each stream actually NEEDS, eliminating "useless" bits so the average data rate is ALWAYS reduced. Hence the HD channel will "steal" data bits away from the SD channel (and vice versa) depending on how the (proprietary) algorithms decide the bits need to go to provide the best video picture qualities and established priorities. It would be very rare for two (and esp. more) channels to need extra bit rates at the same time...but if they do, macroblocking will occur. The trick is to don't try to carry TOO many HD channels at the same time. One HD and a few SD or two 1080i HD and perhaps three 720p HD channels is commonly found in OTA stations. Multi-pass STATMUX's, such as are used on some C-Band Satellite channels (esp. Movie Premium channels) are even more efficient, allowing even lower bit rates for HD cable channels such as HBO, SHO, etc.

So when you're looking at an OTA signal, you're usually looking at a "compressed" data rate that might be "missing" bits during fast moving scenes.

Cable channels have TWICE as much data rate to work with...which means they can easily support two or three HD channels plus several SD channels on the same QAM-256 channel....or as many as 13 SD channels (as I've see on my TWC-San Diego system). It ALSO means that the STATMUX is LESS LIKELY to run out of bits to assign across the Multiple HD and SD channels...there are far more channels to "steal" from when an HD channel experiences lots of motion in the video signal. Also note that those OTA stations that provide the output of their STATMUX are ALREADY possibly degraded vs an UNCOMPRESSED MPEG2 data stream feed via Fibre-Optic network.....so YMMV.....
phildaant likes this.

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-26-2014 at 12:31 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #8938 of 9566 Old 06-26-2014, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phildaant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An Ant Farm
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post
Your TRYING to compare Apples and Oranges....this is going to get a bit technical...
Interesting. I wonder if we will ever be able to get original video feeds without any compressions. Too bad we can't download, legally, to watch later.
phildaant is offline  
post #8939 of 9566 Old 06-26-2014, 12:58 PM
Senior Member
 
SPDICKEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 81
2nd chance All-Digital letter

This letter arrived yesterday about the all-digital cut-over. We're still on for 7/8/2014 in 90272. This makes three mailed notices. Just how many will not have their DTAs installed in time?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	twc clu016.gif
Views:	41
Size:	184.7 KB
ID:	136889  
SPDICKEY is offline  
post #8940 of 9566 Old 06-26-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
DSperber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA
Posts: 5,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post
.....so YMMV.....
Thank you very very much for the detailed and cogent explanation.

I had originally thought I could compare the file size of the WTV recording (from Windows Media Center) produced from my OTA/ATSC tuner card vs. the exact same program's WTV recording produced from my Ceton cablecard-enabled tuner card. Regardless of how those bits arrived from the TWC path, I assumed that the resulting underlying MPEG-2 program content within the WTV recording wrapper was essentially a constant. So two WTV recordings of exactly the same program should theoretically be approximately equal as long as no serious re-compression (of the MPEG-2 content itself) was being done by TWC before sending it out over the infrastructure to my home. And if there was significant re-compression done by TWC then the two WTV file sizes should be significantly different.

That was my theory. Your in-depth discussion of the many factors involved (both in multi-channel OTA distribution as well as in cable system distribution) makes it clear to me that my theory was clearly far over-simplified, and that really I couldn't just compare the two WTV recorded files sizes of the identical program and conclude that there was or was not any TWC-injected re-compression of the underlying MPEG-2 content.

But that still IS my question: is TWC truly re-compressing the underlying MPEG-2 program content (so that there is image quality degradation), or are they just sending it on "untouched" (although it's entering a cable distribution system thus making simply comparing the WTV files size an invalid basis of comparison)?

I suppose one would really have to have a side-by-side pair of TV windows (or identical TV's) playing back the two WTV recordings simultaneously, in order to see if there's truly any actual image quality difference. I guess a freeze-frame of the identical single MPEG-2 frame would be the definitive proof-positive way to visually detect and confirm that re-compression (and resulting image degradation) had or had not occurred. Or, perhaps the visual difference in a single frame (where one has been re-compressed to use a lower bitrate) might not be different enough to show up... which also could be exactly what TWC might be thinking (if they were actually doing some re-compression to reduce delivery bandwidth requirements so as to support more HD channels), i.e. that "nobody can tell the difference".
phildaant likes this.
DSperber 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