Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 2

LIsten I have both D* and TWC and the PQ side by side does look better on TWCNY..

I'll go you one better:







I didn't say Directv beat Time Warner in terms of Customer Satisfation - I said they beat them hands down in Picture Quality of HD. Learn the first rule of research about comparing apples to apples.

Go find a HD Study - not a Cable Study.

This is about Picture QUALITY, not ignorance.

And let's not forget the #3 Airline in Customer Satisfaction, Independence Air went out of business before the rankings were released 2 weeks ago.

I was wrong about DirecTV HD and I stand corrected. But, I would still rather have HD-Lite than no HD (the original topic was about ESPN2HD, etc).

SD: 640x480=307,200 pixels
HD-Lite: 1280x1080=1,382,400 pixels

If you read my original post, other than the last sentence, they are all facts. The last sentence was opinion. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Interesting when proven wrong people claim its a flame war, but whatever.

Let's look again at the original statement:

[quote=ready71]1. I get 14 HD channels all at full bandwidth 1920x1080 or 1280x720.

You get what the network source passes to TWC. TWC then compresses the digital signal. This is exactly what DirecTV does.

[quote]

Proven Wrong


Ok...making headway - Your statement is that you don't use On Demand, which will assume is true.


While not as good as a Tivo, neither will the new Directv HD DVRs - as they won't be TIVOs and cannot have identical functionality without a patent lawsuit.

Since we don't know what !!!!! you have used, we are unable to judge if its the biggest piece of !!!!! you have ever used and must take your word for it.


Why you went with Directv instead of FIOS for HD is the real mystery here, but FIOS clearly has better prices and higher speed. RoadRunner is high priced and different systems have different levels of performance. And if you are in the .1% of the country that has FIOS, you should go for it. However, if you are in the other 99.9% of the country, Cable might be the best you can get at this time.

The good news is competition is good for EVERYONE.


Again these were based on your individual circumstance, which is what all decisions should be based on - A KNOWLEDGABLE CONSUMER.

You are congratulated for doing your homework and deciding that 1 HD Channel and 3 SD channels were worth more to you than better quality HD.

At this point ALL HD DECISIONS are compromises.

You made compromises and so must the OP.

But those do not make Directv the slam dunk over TWC that you make it out to be.

Its about quality vs quanity to me. In that regard, TWC is far superior to D* or E* in my area.

If TW would give us what the customer wants -- ESPN2HD, ESPNU, NFL Network for example but they keep adding god shows to my list -- must be to keep GW happy. I wish I could have a dish but I live in a condo with no exclusive use areas outside so no dish so we are stuck with what TW wants us to have not what I would like to have.

As I said, read my original post.

The only reason I still have TWC is because I can't get satellite because of the trees on my property.

I have FIOS internet. Most areas with FIOS internet still don't have FIOS TV avaialable. That's my case.

Enough of the personal comments. Keep on topic.

Interesting because at least my local TWC doesn't.

Here's news (see sublink) about TWC and so-called switched broadcasting or video I posted in my local TWC thread. Google sent me an e-mail yesterday listing the link, a newer Google feature that monitors news items for you.

Regarding whether TWC 'compresses' network sources: Cable folks often deny it. As this 2003 Broadcast Engineering article points out, cable firms certainly 'repackage' HD signals. They strip away some or all PSIP data (channel/program information), plus any subchannels within the 19.39-Mbps (OTA) channel signal not being relayed by cable. Then, varying amounts of rate shaping may be employed, such as removing null zeros--'filler' data sent to complete a transmission format--that doesn't influence PQ. Rate shaping can involve requantization, modifying MPEG-2 video without having to decode it. "This process achieves further bit-rate reductions. But requantization is a lossy process and, under stressful conditions, it may result in artifacts," the article notes. "Rate-shaping systems perform best when reducing rates by less than 25 percent," it adds. Also, programs delivered at constant bit rates may be changed to variable bit rates (VBR), then the VBR may be reduced.

Next, whether rate-shaped or not, video is combined with other programs (remultiplexed), often using statistical multiplexing (statmuxing), which allocates bit rates between a number of channels depending on detail and motion present at each instant. Statmuxing high bit rate channels such as sports with mostly talking-head sources helps ensure capacity is available when it's needed. "A disadvantage of this process is that the coincidence of high motion and high detail in two or more program streams can adversely affect the picture quality of a third, low-motion, low-detail program," notes the article.

Cable STBs can limit effective resolution (resolvable detail) to <1300 lines. Using HDNet test patterns relayed by NYC's TWC, my SA8300HD measures 1290 lines. Another cable STB, from RCN, delivered 1335 line resolution. And remarkably, a briefly used SA8000HD from NYC's TWC only provided 890 resolvable lines. Measured effective resolution (~1280 resolvable lines from 1920X1080) differs from 1920X1080 reformatted to 1280X1080 (DirecTV's 'HDLite') since a delivered 1280X1080-re-formatted signal must still be MPEG decoded in homes, which reduces effective resolution.

Of course, using HDNet test patterns to estimate received video quality generally isn't necessarily valid. A cable company could easily 'tweak' the video quality of one or more channels. With so many variables involved, perhaps only unbiased professional organizations, using calibrated spectrum analyzers or similar gear, could pin down how much cable-delivered HD/SD video quality differs from that delivered to head ends by video sources. -- John

Done. Let's all join in!

I sent him a note, will post any reply here for all to read.

Done as well. Made sure to stress that I want more of the premium movie channels in HD, which will result in more subscription fees from me since I refuse to subscribe to any movie channel w/o an HD feed.....

Posted this in the local raleigh thread also..

Ok, got a call back. The local VP for raleigh told me that ESPN2HD is going to be launched very soon here in raleigh. he does hold some credit with me because this is the same guy that told me that Universal will be here to stay after the olmypics before anyone else knew.

he is actually on his way to a meeting in Wilmington and one of the topics is HD programming for our area. he said he will give me a call back again when the meeting is over and he has new info. for now though, he says ESPN2HD launch in raleigh is very soon and many of the other are in the works.

Here's what I got back from Fred...looks like ESPN2 is coming soon but we are S.O.L. on the NFL Network. I will have to switch back to DirecTV this fall if they can't get this work out by football season

Could he be any more vague and non-committal?

He got a response to his email. I don't think he got an answer.

my understanding of very soon is anything between 2 weeks and 3 months. do you know if the Raleigh launch will be the start of a national rollout or is it somehow just a local deal? Anyway, let us know when you are able tune into ESPN2HD on cable over there in Raleigh.

He didnt say if it would be on here in Raleigh first or not. He just sounded really sure that it will be very soon. I will let you know when he calls me back after the meeting.

Pleasent, but no information. At least we know someone is reading our comments.....


"thanks for your thoughful note. we are trying to offer as much HD as we can. we
have technical and economic considerations to worry about, but we are diligently
working on adding more content."

In light of the massive profits released by Time Warner Cable today, I wonder what "economic considerations" he's talking about?

AndyHDTV - you are being played like a chump as are others. And the other poster said the ESPN2 was done and would be on by first pitch of MLB according to FD.

If there were any truth to these posts, then where is TMC-HD which you posted he said was done over 2 months ago?

This is no different that posters absolutely believing that the Voom channels on Dish would be back to 1920x1080i in days after their launch on 5/1/2005 and was only done that way as they quickly moved from Rainbow 1 to Dish as the distribution.

The fact is you are being played just as Gary Murrel was with Dish. He even admits it now.

As they said on the X-Files, "I want to believe", but in the words of Jerry MaGuire, "Show Me The Money!"

Mega corporation owns 17 channels (or however many channels Disney owns). If another mega corporation want to get a certain channel, all of the other channels come into the negotiation. A la carte, please!

Well, I'm paying for HD. If a World Cup game is not available to me on ESPN2HD, I'll watch on an SD station other than ESPN2. That's my little boycott.

A very sad thread.