or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Time Warner Cable HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 9

post #241 of 9360
SJKurzke ... that's the problem. Cable companies would love to be able to do that, but the networks, like NFL Network, ESPN, etc. won't let it happen. They put verbage into the contracts that say either you offer our network on basic cable to everyone, or you cant carry the channel at all. If TW, or any cable provider, could tier groups of networks, they would do it in an instant. But the large media entities wont let it happen.
post #242 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakesh.S View Post

If we have any insiders here, please tell us Dallas customers when we can expect HDNet, HDNet Movies and UHD on our system.

I am wondering the same. If anyone has heard anything please let us know. I'm on a promotional price until 10/1 and will probably bolt for Dish unless I hear that the HDNet's and Universal HD are on the way to TWC in Dallas.
post #243 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJKurtzke View Post

As a non-NFL fan, I feel that a sports pack would be a great way to settle this dispute. For the fans that really want the channel, you can still get it, without having to hike up the rates of people who aren't clamoring for this channel (and believe me, there are a lot of those)

this would make sense however the major point of contention here is that TWC already has higher rates than many other competitors who DO have NFL Network. So why should they have to raise rates which are higher to begin with.

As mentioned before this relates to the StarzHD situation. Starz HD is free for TWC to pick up if they take Starz On Demand. Starz will give TWC both channels for $0. The only caveat? Starz wants On Demand to be free to those people who already subscribe. TWC however, just like the NFL situation wants to charge those subscribers for it. Given the proliferation of pointless free VOD as it is they have no excuse for charging for it, except greed.

Believe it or not I don't care about watching the NFL Network but I do care about this situation because it's indicative of TWC attitude and probably why we don't have a lot more HD channels.

If TWC really does care about the customers then by all means put NFL Network in a sports tier ... along with every other sport channel they currently offer. Then give me a drop in cable rates because I won't watch them. If you're going to apply one set of standards to one network, do it to all and fight them in the same way.
post #244 of 9360
We have these now. I am not sure what you are waiting for. The only reason we have them is this is the only way we can get ESPN HD for $7 a month the HDNet and UHD are a real waste of bandwidth. The do show a baseball game about once a week in HD. You might get a hockey game once a week or so and the eating contests in HD are enough to really make you sick! I would not bother with these channels except for the ESPN HD deal. UND is a bunch of NBC repeats that you will find on many other channels.
post #245 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

If TWC really does care about the customers then by all means put NFL Network in a sports tier ... along with every other sport channel they currently offer. Then give me a drop in cable rates because I won't watch them. If you're going to apply one set of standards to one network, do it to all and fight them in the same way.

I'm all for this as long as they tier out HGTV, E! all the e-knockoffs, shopping channels, Outdoor Channels, Animal Planet

!!!!ALL THE FREAKIN USELESS XM RADIO CHANNELS!!!

GSN, Hallmark Channel, Lifetime,Oxygen, SOAP............and about 117 other channels I have never and will never watch.
post #246 of 9360
it all could be tiered and then the gd religious stations would not come into my home and spread their evil. Ala carte is what is in play here but it only works if TW or who ever offers the networks you want. If TW doesn't offer NFLN or ESPN2HD, etc it doesn't matter what tier they put them on. Remember that we only watch about 20 or less of the channels that we get in our homes. Ala carte would put a lot of the niche stations out of business because enough people would not buy them. That is why the religious stations are against Ala carte. For example we would not pay to have any shopping channels on our service but you might. We could care less about on demand services but that might be important to some people.
post #247 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjpjr View Post

UHD is a bunch of NBC repeats that you will find on many other channels.

If you know of another place where I can see HD versions of the best show on TV, Battlestar Galactica, and what once was the best show on TV, Firefly, please let me know.

That's the channel I most want on my local TWC schedule, for those 2 shows if nothing else.
post #248 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

If you know of another place where I can see HD versions of the best show on TV, Battlestar Galactica, and what once was the best show on TV, Firefly, please let me know.

I believe that could be a matter of opinion as opposed to fact.
post #249 of 9360
^Actually, as far as Firefly, it is fact

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMCecil View Post

I'm all for this as long as they tier out HGTV, E! all the e-knockoffs, shopping channels, Outdoor Channels, Animal Planet

GSN, Hallmark Channel, Lifetime,Oxygen, SOAP............and about 117 other channels I have never and will never watch.

In Raleigh, TWC moved GSN from the digital cable package to the sports tier...seriously. Although I rarely watch the channel, I dont like channels that I once got "free" being moved to a package I have to pay for. Apparently it was moved because of the "competitive" nature of the channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

As mentioned before this relates to the StarzHD situation. Starz HD is free for TWC to pick up if they take Starz On Demand. Starz will give TWC both channels for $0. The only caveat? Starz wants On Demand to be free to those people who already subscribe. TWC however, just like the NFL situation wants to charge those subscribers for it. Given the proliferation of pointless free VOD as it is they have no excuse for charging for it, except greed.

I dont get how TWC can try this manuever when HBO, Showtime/TMC, and Cinemax on Demand are all included in the price of their respective packages (at least in Raleigh). How can you set a standard for how youre going to do something, and then hold someone else to a different set of rules? And yeah, all of the pointless VOD, yet the one VOD channel that TWC has that I might want is unavailable here as well (Adult Swim on Demand).
post #250 of 9360
Time Warner in Dallas sent me a catalog telling me what they offer, since I am a cable customer.

HDNet and HDNet Movies are not listed in the HD section, but UniversalHD is shown. We don't even have UniversalHD on our system.
post #251 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENDContra View Post

I dont get how TWC can try this manuever when HBO, Showtime/TMC, and Cinemax on Demand are all included in the price of their respective packages (at least in Raleigh). How can you set a standard for how youre going to do something, and then hold someone else to a different set of rules?

If you only subscribe to one premium channel, the On Demand isn't included in the Digipic package.

For example if you subscribe to only HBO, you do not get the on demand channel thrown in. You have to pay the $4.00-6.95 for the premium on demand package just for HBO on Demand. The rest of the premium ODs are thrown into that but that's not great value if you don't subscribe to the main channels anyway.

Last I read (earlier in this thread) Starz still want it so that if you only subscribe to the Starz package you get Starz On Demand included without having to pay for all the other premium on Demand channels that you might not get anway.
post #252 of 9360
Thread Starter 
this was said in a article:
"Meanwhile, Santelle was more optimistic about ESPN2 high definition and ESPNU coming to Time Warner."
I really think we're close to making it happen, especially ESPN2 HD, and we're getting pretty close with ESPNU, Santelle said. I'll say anywhere from 30 to 60 days.
-
-
-
-
the quotes are at the bottom of the article, which also mentions the feud with the NFL.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...s/15247989.htm
post #253 of 9360
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen "we're close" on ESPN2HD. It was reported last year, "just in time for college football". Well, it's now 2006 "just in time for college football". I wonder which season we're actually discussing, 2009?
post #254 of 9360
You forgot "in time for the World Cup" !!
post #255 of 9360
Cain, can you clear you private messages please?
post #256 of 9360
I'm so tired of Time Warner!!!!!
post #257 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjpjr View Post

it all could be tiered and then the gd religious stations would not come into my home and spread their evil. Ala carte is what is in play here but it only works if TW or who ever offers the networks you want. If TW doesn't offer NFLN or ESPN2HD, etc it doesn't matter what tier they put them on. Remember that we only watch about 20 or less of the channels that we get in our homes. Ala carte would put a lot of the niche stations out of business because enough people would not buy them. That is why the religious stations are against Ala carte. For example we would not pay to have any shopping channels on our service but you might. We could care less about on demand services but that might be important to some people.

Are you suggesting that cable channel providers might have to ~shudder~ put out a product that's sufficiently good that enough people would want to pay for it to support its production? Amazing.

I've been a fan of moving to an ala carte model for some time. Let the cable company charge a bandwidth fee for every channel (yes, HD would cost more, since it uses more of the limited resources, but we'd get rid of this upside down model where analog-only customers use more bandwidth while paying less money), and pass along to the subscribers whatever fee the channel provider wants to charge. It will be up to the channel providers to figure out their own price points. It will be up to the suits at ESPN if they want to charge a higher price to milk us sports fans who will pay a bit more for the channel, or if they want to basically give away their service to keep viewer numbers higher for ad sales.

In the end, there will be far fewer channels out there to choose from, but it will free up bandwidth for the channels people really want, not to mention forcing the cable companies to notice what the customers actually want...
-JMP
post #258 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmp_nyc View Post

Are you suggesting that cable channel providers might have to ~shudder~ put out a product that's sufficiently good that enough people would want to pay for it to support its production? Amazing.

I've been a fan of moving to an ala carte model for some time. Let the cable company charge a bandwidth fee for every channel (yes, HD would cost more, since it uses more of the limited resources, but we'd get rid of this upside down model where analog-only customers use more bandwidth while paying less money), and pass along to the subscribers whatever fee the channel provider wants to charge. It will be up to the channel providers to figure out their own price points. It will be up to the suits at ESPN if they want to charge a higher price to milk us sports fans who will pay a bit more for the channel, or if they want to basically give away their service to keep viewer numbers higher for ad sales.

In the end, there will be far fewer channels out there to choose from, but it will free up bandwidth for the channels people really want, not to mention forcing the cable companies to notice what the customers actually want...
-JMP

ironically if cable had been a la carte from the beginning it's unlikely ESPN would have survived because in the early days their programming was mainly craptacular stuff no one was watching. anyone for hacky sack championships from new zealand? ok, maybe i made that up, but it's not far from what they were showing...

i cast a nay vote for a la carte, i'd rather have a station no one watches that might grow up to be something worthwhile instead of aborted shortly after birth.
post #259 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyHDTV View Post

this was said in a article:
"Meanwhile, Santelle was more optimistic about ESPN2 high definition and ESPNU coming to Time Warner."
I really think we're close to making it happen, especially ESPN2 HD, and we're getting pretty close with ESPNU, Santelle said. I'll say anywhere from 30 to 60 days.
-
-
-
-
the quotes are at the bottom of the article, which also mentions the feud with the NFL.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...s/15247989.htm

E-mail Dressler and put him on the spot (again). At the very least, it would be funny to see if he contradicts one of his henchmen. That poor guy might mysteriously disappear.
post #260 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCsoftball7 View Post

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen "we're close" on ESPN2HD. It was reported last year, "just in time for college football". Well, it's now 2006 "just in time for college football". I wonder which season we're actually discussing, 2009?

You're right- first, it was "very, very close- in time for College Football (2006)". Then it was, "we are very close-- should be there for MLB Opening Day (2006)". Then it was, "we are trying to get it in place for the World Cup". Now it's, "within 30 to 60 days". Fact is, that until Dressler's name is in (non-erasable) ink on a contract, and it shows up on your on-screen guide ... forget ESPN2HD, or anything other than religious/shopping/worthless on-demand car advertising.

No HD additions or anything of value in 2 years.
post #261 of 9360
What's depressing to me is that even when/if TWC does reach a deal with ESPN for ESPN2HD, how long before I get it? They made a deal for UniversalHD (I believe) late last year, and we still don't have it here in Greensboro! Not that I am pining for it like I do for ESPN2HD, but it's the principle of the thing. Almost everytime I visit someone else in the state, their TWC offers it but ours still doesn't!

[/whine mode off]
post #262 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrmetal View Post

What's depressing to me is that even when/if TWC does reach a deal with ESPN for ESPN2HD, how long before I get it? They made a deal for UniversalHD (I believe) late last year, and we still don't have it here in Greensboro! Not that I am pining for it like I do for ESPN2HD, but it's the principle of the thing. Almost everytime I visit someone else in the state, their TWC offers it but ours still doesn't!

[/whine mode off]

I hear ya-- we have UHD here in Raleigh. 99% of the time, it's an absolute waste of bandwidth. However, for 3 days in April (the Masters golf) and 2 weeks in August (US Open Tennis), it is inserted on my "FAV" button on my remote.

TWC is the worst, aren't they? I'm very pessimistic about ESPN2HD, and definitely do not expect them to make a deal for the NFL Network. Only megoliths like Time Warner can ignore customer demand like they do. It reminds me of IBM in the 80s. Eventually, more agressive and nimble companies will chip away as customers realize they have alternatives. One day they'll sit in their board room and wonder why so many subs left them.
post #263 of 9360
does time warner nyc have 5c enabled on non local channels?
post #264 of 9360
maybe if the NFL would ditch the Sunday Ticket exclusive with DirecTV, TWC would agree to carry both the NFL network and Sunday Ticket.

sorry, just dreaming for a minute...
post #265 of 9360
Has Time Warner added a single HD channel since this thread started? Man, I thought the "what's the next HD channel on Comcast" thread used to be depressing. This is even worse. Especially since we don't even get local CBS or Fox HD here is Hawaii.
post #266 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathRay View Post

Has Time Warner added a single HD channel since this thread started? Man, I thought the "what's the next HD channel on Comcast" thread used to be depressing. This is even worse. Especially since we don't even get local CBS or Fox HD here is Hawaii.

They've added Cinemax & Showtime HD here in San Antonio. Of course, I would have rather had the NFL Network, ESPN2 or my local Fox affiliate (owned by Sinclair so no HD feed for TWC) since I'm a big football fan.
post #267 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley_Dude View Post

They've added Cinemax & Showtime HD here in San Antonio.

that was so long ago and in such a limited market I don't think it counts for much.

Especially since we've had Showtime HD for about two years here, so you are playing catchup with that channel. No MaxHD though, so you're ahead there.
post #268 of 9360
Let's see now.

Cinemax to show all six Star Wars movies in HD in November. I don't think the original three have been seen in HD, but I could be wrong.

Cinemax is owned by Time Warner. It has almost no distribution on TWC systems. Could it be possible that this programming event could coinside with Cinemax HD launch on TWC? And if they add one HD channel, wouldn't it be a good time to roll out a few more?

Pure speculation, but they have been testing HD on a couple of channels (123 & 124) in Raleigh. Each had one 720p and three 1080i channels running (duplicates of current channels). How'd they do that ???
post #269 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

that was so long ago and in such a limited market I don't think it counts for much.

Especially since we've had Showtime HD for about two years here, so you are playing catchup with that channel. No MaxHD though, so you're ahead there.

I meant to say StarzHD instead of Showtime. We got both MaxHD & StarzHD a couple of months back. I'd still rather have my local Fox affiliate and the NFL network.
post #270 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

Pure speculation, but they have been testing HD on a couple of channels (123 & 124) in Raleigh. Each had one 720p and three 1080i channels running (duplicates of current channels). How'd they do that ???

Someone in my local NYC TWC forum mapped the frequencies of all the HD channels, with one frequency for 3 HD channels excerpted here . To squeeze in 4 HDs, even if one is in the more easily compressible 720p format, likely involves some heavy rate shaping (see link) with requantization , although rate-shaping hardware/software firms have long claimed they can fit 4 HDs where only ~2 went once (256-QAM, ~39-Mbps cable slots). Suspect the only way to judge how much PQ may have been been lost in the 'squeeze' is with direct A-B comparisons and rapid switching with 'untinkered' sources--unless someone has access to instruments such as spectrum analyzers and attempts to measure differences, or makes easier bit rate comparisons.

Just to add to the optimistic speculation, TWC, after testing switched video (SV) in a few states, supposedly plans on rolling it out nationwide, either this year or within several years, depending on what you're reading. SV, only delivering programming when it's requested--somewhat akin the video on demand--can save a lot of bandwidth on cable systems for more HD channels and other services. -- John
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Time Warner Cable HDTV