AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Minneapolis, MN - Comcast
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Minneapolis, MN - Comcast - Page 9

post #241 of 2735
4/26/04 at 2:23pm
Raidbuck that isn't true. Here in Mpls ABC (hubbard) is only requiring Comcast not to compress the crap out of the signal.. And Comcast is refusing. They aren't asking for Money... Just that the Comcast Subscribers get the FULL signal. Comcast is bad!
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #242 of 2735
4/26/04 at 3:23pm
Quote:


Originally posted by etoop
Here in Mpls ABC (hubbard) is only requiring Comcast not to compress the crap out of the signal.. And Comcast is refusing. They aren't asking for Money... Just that the Comcast Subscribers get the FULL signal. Comcast is bad!

Eric,

Your statement is absolutely incorrect. Please don't make statements which are false as if they were true.

Comcast does not compress HD signals. A 256 QAM slot allows for 38.8 Mbs and Comcast puts two HD channels in each slot-- allowing for 19.4 Mbs per HD channel.

Comcast establishes direct fiber feeds to the local station's signal so that is does not have to pluck it off the air, and the quality from everyone who has done a true A/B comparison is that Comcast is equal (or even better if the viewer has geography, weather or other interference problems with OTA).

Please tell us what the source of your information is regarding the negotiations between Hubbard and Comcast. Then we can judge how reliable your supposed information is. However, the fact that you say that Comcast compresses its HD signals already casts your information in doubt.

(P.S. Here is a scenario which does not directly involve an exchange of money between Comcast and Hubbard:

Hubbard may be asking for Comcast to agree to carry all its digital signals if and when it multicasts. For example, even if Hubbard's ABC station has only one digital channel now-- no multicasting-- it may be asking Comcast to sign a contract that requires Comcast to carry all multicast channels if and when Hubbard starts multicasting.

But perhaps Hubbard is refusing to tell Comcast what those multicast channels might be-- 24 hour weather, 24 hour infomercials, 24 hour shopping channel, 24 hour something else with no redeeming value. In which case, Comcast says forget it... we'll agree to carry a value-added multicast, but not a whatever-Hubbard-wants-it-to-be multicast.

So, assuming that to be what is going on, you should thank Comcast for preserving picture quality. Because if Hubbard could sell 24 hour infomercial multicasting and thereby reduce HD picture quality, it would-- and automatic cable carriage would only help it do that.)
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 2735
4/27/04 at 6:32am
Funny there was an article in the paper just a few months ago and about this whole thing and that was exactly the issue.

Source was the Star Tribune in the paper version.

Comcast confirmed they compressed the signals but would not say how much.
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 2735
4/27/04 at 10:53am
There is no article which can be found from searching the articles on the Star Tribune's website.

So I would like to see a copy of the actual article. Comcast does not compress HD signals anywhere else, so I think you probably misread the article.

Standard definition channels are a different matter, but I can't imagine that Hubbard would be demanding non-compression on SD signals.

Does Hubbard multicast (or have plans to multicast) on its digital bandwidth?
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 2735
4/27/04 at 11:01am
Here is a snip from the hdtvtwincities.com forum.

KSTP is owned by Hubbard Broadcasting. They do not yet have their digital signal on any cable system. The cable cos. want the right to modify the signal, including compression if they want to. HBI has been unwilling to allow that. My understanding is that this is the basis of the impasse.
Hubbard broadcasting wants Comcast to carry the full bandwith of KSTP digital signal. Comcast wants to compress it so it takes up less space on their system.

Wish I still had the article. I would have scanned it for you but I'm in the porcess of selling my house and decided to toss it 2 weeks ago.

I know it was either from startribune.com or pioneerplanet.com but both charge to read the full articles of past stories. I'm not about to pay 2.95 just a prove a point sorry
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 2735
4/27/04 at 11:39am
The fact that KSTP's digital signal is also not carried by Time Warner or Charter says something-- whatever the issue is, it is not unique to Comcast. None of the cable companies want to buy into whatever Hubbard is offering.

I checked out the hdtvtwincities forum also, and this is what KSTP's engineer said about it:

Quote:


The additional services could be data, multiple SD program streams, or even a second HD program stream.

A simplified view of the problem is that broadcasters want the cable companies to carry their digital signals and (in most cases) are offering those digital signals free of charge, but the broadcasters want the cable companies to consider the signal as being the entire 19.39 Mbit ATSC service licensed by the FCC. The cable companies instead want to consider the digital signal as only one program stream within that licensed service.

For example, the cable companies are willing to allocate 19.39 Mbit of space on their systems to carry the individual broadcasters HD signal if the signal uses the entire 19.39 Mbit of bandwidth (which most do), but they are not willing to allocate that same 19.39 Mbit space on their system for an HD signal that has been combined with other services.

Cable is currently in about 52% of the households in this market and it is widely believed that number will increase as HD viewers try to obtain the largest selection of HD programming that they possibly can. (DBS of course figures into this but it'll be clearer to just concentrate on cable at this time). Broadcasters provide their signal free of charge to the cable companies (in most retransmission agreements) and the cable companies then charge their subscribers to receive that same signal as part of the basic tier of programming. The cable subscribers will then typically abandon their home over the air antenna systems because they're receiving the local stations via cable. The result is eroded viewer support of free local television.

HD program origination is a very significant expense for a mature business that has a highly diluted market as described above. It will be the demise of free over the air local broadcasting if broadcasters are not allowed to provide all of their services to their entire market area.

One of the reasons that ABC, ESPN, Fox, and KSTP have decided to originate and/or pass-through a 720p signal is that 720p originated material is considerably more bandwidth efficient than 1080i originated material at a given perceived quality. That bandwidth efficiency will allow more flexibility to provide additional services to the viewer. For example, we're stretching current (authorized) encoding technology by muxing the HDNet 1080i and KSTC 480i signals into one ATSC 19.39 service. The efficiency of 720p origination will allow us (when the time comes) to mux several SD's with the HD or even two high quality HD signals into that same amount of bandwidth.

So what I posted above is correct, in that Hubbard wants whatever it puts within the 19.4 Mbs to be carried by the cable company, regardless of whether it is one HD stream, two 720p HD streams or 8 SD streams. The cable companies are going to balk at giving Hubbard wide-open rights to whatever it wants-- I doubt the cable companies want to be stuck with a 480i simulcast of analog plus seven shopping and infomercial channels and a weather radar screen.

If Hubbard could identify the exact multicasting it wants to do in the future, the cable companies easily might agree to do it... for example one HD channel + one 24 hour news channel + one 24 hour weather/radar channel. But Hubbard is refusing to limit its options.

So the cable companies' refusing to carry KSTP-DT for now is actually good, as it may deter Hubbard from some horrible non-HD multicasting plan. Without cable carriage, any non-HD multicasting plan would be worth much less.

PS: Couldn't find any article on the pioneerplanet website either.
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 2735
4/27/04 at 11:43am
Yes you are correct... but comcast is also saying NO to this because they want to compress the signal so save space, Hubbard is saying no to the compression because they might want to use that space for additional things.

It is a catch 22
Reply
Reply
post #248 of 2735
4/27/04 at 11:55am
I don't think it is a matter of compression, as I understand that term.

What Comcast probably wants is to simply send the KSTP HD signal on at the SAME bit rate which KSTP transmits its HD OTA. So if KSTP is using the full 19.4 for its HD programming, Comcast will also send it on at 19.4 Mbs.

However, if KSTP is sending out its one stream of digital upconvert and HD at 15 Mbps (very conceivable since it uses 720p), and reserves the 4.4 Mbps difference for other uses, then Comcast says it will only agree to send the HD signal out at the 15 Mbps-- exactly what KSTP sends it out at OTA.

Of course, if KSTP were to increase its HD bit rate from 15 Mbps to 19.4 Mbps, Comcast would have no problem matching the increase-- again, matching whatever KSTP does with its bit rate for the HD programming stream OTA.

So it is not a matter of "compression", it is a matter of Comcast offering that it will only send out one program stream-- the HD program stream-- at whatever bandwidth KSTP provides it at.

Thus, in the 15 Mps example, Comcast would be providing 15 Mbps instead of 19.4 Mbps to KSTP's digital signal, for one program stream, but that would NOT constitute compressing the HD signal. Quite the opposite, it would be devoting all the bandwidth to the HD signal that KSTP does OTA.

Whereas Hubbard is offering that Comcast must send out whatever KSTP can pack into 19.4 Mbps, regardless of number of channels or streams, and Hubbard is not specifying what those multiple digital channels or streams would be.
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 2735
4/27/04 at 12:25pm
I'll see if the article is still in the trash.....its in my den. Hopefully I can find it. I want to say it talked about comcast compressing it to 11mps almost half. I'll check tonight and scan it if I have it.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 2735
4/27/04 at 1:32pm
This is why I just threw my hands up and installed a good OTA antenna in my attic. Every cable or Sattelite option was forcing to me to give up local channel access, so I would have had to go to an antenna anyway. The massive price increase necessary to just get a handful of additional HD channels via cable or satellite just wasn't worth it.
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 2735
5/4/04 at 9:20pm
Hi Tom.

So guys,
Did any of you get the Timberwolves game in HD on FSN-HD tonight (Tuesday night)? When we went to it, it was just frozen. So we had to watch the game on TNT. I want to invite friends over to watch the next playoff game, but I'm afraid FSN-HD might not have it just like tonight.
Reply
Reply
post #252 of 2735
5/5/04 at 7:53pm
Hi,
I'm having comcast upgrade my standard service to HDTV and was wondering:

- Do you have to pay installation for HDTV? They quoted me $30.
- Why is the second HDTV receiver $10 when the first is $5?
- What channels are available via HDTV? DiscoveryHD?
- Do you have to ask for specific HDTV tunner or does everyone get the same one?

Thank you.
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 2735
5/5/04 at 8:39pm
On page 9 of this thread, MrBlonde wrote,

"I suppose I should post an update for you.

I was able to order the standard cable and the $5 hdtv package, WITHOUT having to order the digital cable package. At first the rep said I couldn't do it, but then they checked with "someone else" and they said it was possible. So I know have the DCT-6200 Moto box in order to get the HD channels.

The HD is phenomenal by the way."

You may wish to check out the surrounding messages for a little more info.

Also go to http://www.hdtvtwincities.com for a current listing of what is available.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 2735
5/5/04 at 9:07pm
Wingnut, Thanks for the information but comcast reps insist I need to upgrade to digital cable.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 2735
5/6/04 at 5:44am
StoneyHome:

I hope you enjoy the channels in HD you are getting now. Evidently, Comcast doesn't see the necessity or value in adding HD channels. You will not get DiscoveryHD (even though, after ESPNHD it is the most-desired HD channel). It appears we won't get TNT-HD, and for sure we will never get BravoHD or HDNET. We do get a lot of sports, though. From what I've read, all other major cable systems far out-weigh Comcast for HD carriage.

Your other alternative is to use Comcast for local HD and INHD1&2 (which we watch a lot) and a satellite service for HD programming. I'm just not sure I can afford it.

Rich N.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 2735
5/6/04 at 6:31am
If you don't get the digital package you will not get ESPN-HD, INHD 1 or 2... You will only get the 112-NBC, 113-CBS, 114-FOX

They consider all the reset part of the digital packages...even though their website doesn't say that. Website only says you get all of them for $5 a month.
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 2735
5/6/04 at 7:14am
From a personal point of view as a Comcast subscriber, my choice for HD right now would be to stay with analog cable service and receive HD over the air. As long as Comcast can't supply what I want and I have no need for digital cable for extra cost premium channels like HBO, Comcast can keep it.

If one can live without ESPN-HD and HDNET, you won't be missing out on anything and getting more locals than Comcast can provide. Over the air you will get, WCCO-4, KARE-11, and KMSP-9 enhanced wide screen like Comcast offers. Additionally you will get KTCA-2, KSTP-5, KSTC, and KMWB. Either way you will not receive Discovery-HD. Even if you go with satellite, as I understand the situation, you will still have to get many of the locals over the air.

When "they" start selling what I want (including the Twins) rather than what "they" want to provide, then I will make a final choice as to where to spend my money.
Reply
Reply
post #258 of 2735
5/6/04 at 7:19am
Sorry, I wrote "If one can live without ESPN-HD and HDNET. . ." I meant to say INHD 1/2 not HDNET. Lost my track of brain for a second.
Reply
Reply
post #259 of 2735
5/6/04 at 7:46am
I'm gonna have to agree with you Wingnut. When I change locations again, I won't be going back to comcast if I can help it. ESPNHD and INHDs are great but they really should be offering more. And now they are making me order a digital package on top of the regular cable and hdtv charge.

So in order to get the three extra HD channels that they offer (besides the local, you get the local HDs even if you don't have digital service, and besides the premium channels) you have to pay the $5 hdvtv charge and you have to have one of the digital packages. Really not worth it.
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 2735
5/6/04 at 8:05am
How much is OTA HTDV receiver? Without cable I don't get good reception for local channels so will the HTDV reception be better with HTDV receiver OTA?

Did all of you guys have to pay $30 installation per TV for comcast HDTV?

Also one of my TV is Sony KP61XBR300 and I was told it was HDTV ready when I bought it. My question is since this TV is 4:3 how is the HDTV programs displayed on this set? Does it have the black strips on top and bottom for these programs? Can you watch HDTV in full screen mode on this TV?
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 2735
5/6/04 at 12:46pm
An OTA receiver will probably run several hundred dollars. You will have to shop around. Unlike analog where you get differing quality of reception from fuzzy to good, digital is either received or not. You get a great picture or you get nothing. My stepson lives nearly seventy miles from the towers and he gets a good signal with "rabbit ears."

I have heard that Comcast is slowly working their way around the neighborhoods and forcing folks to go digital. They offer no charge conversion and no increase in monthly rates when it suits them to get you converted. If you call them and request an "upgrade" from analog to digital, yes, they will ding you for an installation charge.

Your TV will display black bars on the top and bottom of 16:9 formatted HDTV. The capabilities of your tv will determine if you can "pan/scan", stretch, distort, or in some other manner screw up the original formatting to fit your screen. The exact same thing is true when displaying 4:3 material on a widescreen tv so don't feel bad.
Reply
Reply
post #262 of 2735
5/6/04 at 9:11pm
We use Comcast HDTV in the bedroom where our TV is HD-ready (no outboard tuner) but on our main TV in the family room that has a built-in tuner we just use a Zenith Silver Sensor indoor antenna. This pulls in all of the local digital channels and the picture is great. Any TV that I buy in the future will have the HD tuner built in.
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 2735
5/7/04 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wingnut
An OTA receiver will probably run several hundred dollars...

Sorry if this seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but the HD-DirecTiVo has two OTA HD tuners and can record two OTA shows at once. Why wouldn't anyone (who has $500 extra to toss at the problem) buy one of those instead?

I'm waiting impatiently for mine, so I can ditch Comcast.

BTW, in another thread a poster declared that D* is planning on offering a pay-as-you-go (rental) HD-DirecTiVo. Maybe $10 or $15 per month, with a loooong contract.
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 2735
5/7/04 at 2:06pm
If one could buy a Tivo for a couple of hundred, that might be a good solution. However, a recent ad shows the dual HDTV receiver Tivo around a thousand bucks. The small print states that "subscription to DIRECTV High Definition packaged required. Monthly subscription to Tivo required for full functionality." I don't want DIRECTV or Tivo, just HDTV. Is that what you are doing to ditch Comcast?
Reply
Reply
post #265 of 2735
5/7/04 at 10:07pm
Doesn't anyone else care about Timberwolves playoffs in HD?
Reply
Reply
post #266 of 2735
5/8/04 at 11:19am
Now that Victory Sports is history and the Twins are back on FSN (http://www.startribune.com/stories/509/4765575.html), do you think there's any chance we'll start seeing the Twins in HD?

Do they even use HD cameras for the games?

If so, will Comcast pick-up FSN-HD for the Twins like they did for the Wolves?
Reply
Reply
post #267 of 2735
5/8/04 at 9:09pm
"Doesn't anyone else care about Timberwolves playoffs in HD?"

Timberwolves? Playoffs? Are they some new soccer team in town or maybe an arena football team? I miss the Kicks and the Minnesota Moose, but the Timberwolves is a new one on me.
Reply
Reply
post #268 of 2735
5/10/04 at 7:53am
Time Warner just added KSTP on May 7th.

TWC Picks Up KSTP

Rumors are floating that Comcast is close (I know - they always are).
Reply
Reply
post #269 of 2735
5/10/04 at 7:55am
Quote:


Originally posted by DaveMN
Now that Victory Sports is history and the Twins are back on FSN (http://www.startribune.com/stories/509/4765575.html), do you think there's any chance will start seeing the Twins in HD?

Do they even use HD cameras for the games?

If so, will Comcast pick-up FSN-HD for the Twins like they did for the Wolves?

With Victory gone this should make things much more clear to get full-time FOX-HD added to Comcast.
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 2735
5/10/04 at 2:58pm
I was wondering why FSNHD (North) hadn't already been added to Comcast's lineup. Though I doubt that Fox has very many HD trucks available right now.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Minneapolis, MN - Comcast