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

Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 249

post #7441 of 9360
Does anyone have any recent experience (either personally or someone you know) with canceling TW cable TV service? I'm wondering if they say "thanks for your business and we'll need the box back by Tuesday" or if they grovel and offer all kinds of incentives to keep you in the fold.
post #7442 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTarHeel View Post

Does anyone have any recent experience (either personally or someone you know) with canceling TW cable TV service? I'm wondering if they say "thanks for your business and we'll need the box back by Tuesday" or if they grovel and offer all kinds of incentives to keep you in the fold.

I haven't had any intention of canceling, but occasionally (IE: everytime my price plan changes) call to see what they can do. I always get into some type of promotion. They have been good with rate plans and service in my division to keep me on.

That said, I know some people who called to cancel and they didn't offer or do anything. Just an Ok and set up a disconnect date.
post #7443 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berk32 View Post

Looks like TWC NYC is going SDV on June 2.

I don't know what the setup is elsewhere - but they're moving 241 total channels to SDV - 76 HD channels

(and our system currently has unused bandwidth to spare at the moment....)

DAMN... right there on the channel change page! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be way, way more on SDV than we've heard about anywhere else... ~70% of the HD channels on SDV??

Have you seen/heard ANY justification for this? Other than the fact they actually (essentially) SAY it will screw up third party boxes ("On or about June 2, 2010 the following channels will become services that cannot be accessed on CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Products purchased at retail without additional two-way capable equipment")!
post #7444 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenJF3 View Post

I haven't had any intention of canceling, but occasionally (IE: everytime my price plan changes) call to see what they can do. I always get into some type of promotion. They have been good with rate plans and service in my division to keep me on.

That said, I know some people who called to cancel and they didn't offer or do anything. Just an Ok and set up a disconnect date.

One thing we seem to have NO data on... cancellation fees. I think it is documented (pretty well hidden, I gotta say) they CAN charge you 175 bucks before the price lock runs out. Not to mention they are very unclear when they offer you a "deal." That seems to always come with a "price-lock" which implies the cancellation fee.

A PR guy told me they never charge for them.. while he was leading me into a "deal" to keep me a happy customer.

Not to mention in my market they are heavily touting (i.e. spending tons of money on TV ads) the FiOS has upped their cancellation fee to 370 bucks!
post #7445 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverside_Guy View Post

DAMN... right there on the channel change page! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be way, way more on SDV than we've heard about anywhere else... ~70% of the HD channels on SDV??

Have you seen/heard ANY justification for this? Other than the fact they actually (essentially) SAY it will screw up third party boxes ("On or about June 2, 2010 the following channels will become services that cannot be accessed on CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Products purchased at retail without additional two-way capable equipment")!

I think we (Charlotte) are way higher than 70% SDV on our HDs. Outside of the first first handful of HDs that were initially added, they virtually all are now. Off the top of my head, I can only think of ESPN, ESPN2, HD Theater, HBO East and Showtime East that are linear QAMs (other than the broadcast channels). A couple of the HD Tier channels (MGM, Universal) may be linear as well... not sure. In any case, the vast majority are SDV, but I only know that because I have seen the "official" TW QAM lists... not because it's obvious as a subscriber (at least one who doesn't have any 3rd party CableCard devices).

The good news is that SDV can work quite well... it does here. The technology works... in locations where it hasn't it is most likely implementation issues, not inherent technology issues. If there is a concern in NYC's transition, it is that a large number of channels appear to be going "cold turkey" as opposed to introducing new channels a few at a time as we have experienced. However, the abundance of bandwidth in NYC means that they can be very conservative and assign lots of SDV pool channels, at least initially.

My first guess as to the justification for it (when NYC currently does have an excess amount of bandwidth) is that this is a step towards converting NYC to a mid-split or high-split diplexing scheme... allocating 5-108 MHz or 5-174MHz to upstream transmission as opposed to the current sub-split 5-40 MHz upstream spectrum. Coupled with DOCSIS3, that would make an enormous amount of bandwith available for two-way communications.
post #7446 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverside_Guy View Post

DAMN... right there on the channel change page! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be way, way more on SDV than we've heard about anywhere else... ~70% of the HD channels on SDV??

Have you seen/heard ANY justification for this? Other than the fact they actually (essentially) SAY it will screw up third party boxes ("On or about June 2, 2010 the following channels will become services that cannot be accessed on CableCARD-equipped Unidirectional Digital Cable Products purchased at retail without additional two-way capable equipment")!

haven't seen anything else on it....

I'm hoping it will lead to better internet service for all (and not ridiculously expensive) to compete with Fios
post #7447 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcalabria View Post

My first guess as to the justification for it (when NYC currently does have an excess amount of bandwidth) is that this is a step towards converting NYC to a mid-split or high-split diplexing scheme... allocating 5-108 MHz or 5-174MHz to upstream transmission as opposed to the current sub-split 5-40 MHz upstream spectrum. Coupled with DOCSIS3, that would make an enormous amount of bandwith available for two-way communications.

I don't know if I see them using 54-88Mhz for internet service - those are still used for analog locals CBS NBC and Fox.

NYC already has DOCSIS3 going (for a huge monthly fee) - I never figured out what channels were being used for upstream, but it turns out they could already be using most of 90-120Mhz for it... (downstream is 294-318MHz)
post #7448 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berk32 View Post

I don't know if I see them using 54-88Mhz for internet service - those are still used for analog locals CBS NBC and Fox.

NYC already has DOCSIS3 going (for a huge monthly fee) - I never figured out what channels were being used for upstream, but it turns out they could already be using most of 90-120Mhz for it... (downstream is 294-318MHz)

The diplex filters are hardwired at each and every active device in the system... and you cannot cherry pick spectrum for return. The forward and return spectrum are each contiguous with a small guard band between them. With a midsplit arrangement, the VHF low and FM channels would need to be vacated... with a highsplit the VHF Low, mid band (14-22) and VHF High (7-13) would need to be vacated. But NYC already has a relatively low number of analog channels... they could easily be relocated to the bottom of the "new" forward spectrum... and eventually could be transmitted as clear QAM only... taking but a few 6MHz channels to cover them all.
post #7449 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcalabria View Post

I think we (Charlotte) are way higher than 70% SDV on our HDs.

...

My first guess as to the justification for it (when NYC currently does have an excess amount of bandwidth) is that this is a step towards converting NYC to a mid-split or high-split diplexing scheme... allocating 5-108 MHz or 5-174MHz to upstream transmission as opposed to the current sub-split 5-40 MHz upstream spectrum. Coupled with DOCSIS3, that would make an enormous amount of bandwith available for two-way communications.

Ah, did NOT realize that!

I thought DOCSIS 3 has been here for a while (6 months??). Curious about penetration, it's VERY expensive, over 100 bucks for 50 down, but still a beat as up is I think 1 or 2. Then again, "standard" FiOS is 35/35, but there footprint is tiny with little or no movement (best guess is 10-15% in my borough).

Not to mention I'd almost put MONEY on them having at least a year of "issues" with SDV... I just simply have ZERO trust they have a clue what they are doing.
post #7450 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverside_Guy View Post

Ah, did NOT realize that!

I thought DOCSIS 3 has been here for a while (6 months??). Curious about penetration, it's VERY expensive, over 100 bucks for 50 down, but still a beat as up is I think 1 or 2. Then again, "standard" FiOS is 35/35, but there footprint is tiny with little or no movement (best guess is 10-15% in my borough).

Not to mention I'd almost put MONEY on them having at least a year of "issues" with SDV... I just simply have ZERO trust they have a clue what they are doing.

With or without DOCSIS3, the current 5-40MHz return spectrum is still a huge bottleneck with only two fixes... reallocate current downstream bandwidth to upstream use or go for smaller node sizes so there are fewer customers sharing the upstream bandwidth at each node. Technically and financially, going mid- or high-split is much easier than splitting nodes up... but in traditional analog systems there has never been forward spectrum to spare. As systems inch towards being all digital (and NYC is further along in that regard than most systems), the forward spectrum is not as dear as it once was... as evidenced by NYCs current excess forward bandwidth, even with as much or more HD as just about anywhere on the planet.

As I mentioned, with the current excess of bandwidth they could conceivably run them as SDV but with a near 1:1 pool allocation so that SDV "busy signals" are never an issue - would just be dealing with return spectrum and other "command and control" issues (BTW... if OnDemand and/or StartOver works, then the upstream signalling path necessary for SDV should also work).
post #7451 of 9360
Where have you seen info re extending upstream from current 5-42 MHz
to as high as 108 or 174 MHz???

U.S. Cable spec, ANSI_SCTE 40 2004, still stipulates 5-42 MHz, the same range
cited in Cisco's latest DOCSIS 3.0 Headend Cable Modem (8 per box):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/coll...d8073584b.html
Note that there is Japanese Tuning Plan version (5-55 MHz) and a
Euro version (5-65 MHz) with 8 MHz channel spacing. But these
are the CURRENT DOCSIS 2.0 tuning plans in those countries.

FWIW, DOCSIS 3.0 Physical spec DOES allow for operation up to 85 MHz.
But since they comply with current U.S. Cable specs, DOCSIS 3.0 Cable
Modems are still constrained to 5-42 MHz...thereby saving $$$$BILLIONS
that would be required to upgrade the ENTIRE fibre-optic & hard cable
distribution network--lots of equipment would be affected, incl local dropamps:
http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/...df?localeId=33
post #7452 of 9360
well then...

I forgot for a moment about those upstream restrictions....

Guess I was just searching for an explanation for the seemingly unused bandwidth grouped together....

As for SDV - I am hopeful that they do plan on setting aside a large # of channels of SDV - (what I have seen locally with Cablevision out on LI is bad news for SDV in general - but they have much less space to work with since they still have like 60 analog channels running) - they definitely don't need 100% - but something along the lines of 60-75% should be perfectly fine and would give them lots of room to work with for whatever they are planning. There are a whole lot of little-watched channels on the list. The problem is that it seems they are going by some usage data that goes back like a whole year (if not more) - everything that was recently added the last 6 months is included on the list (like Comedy Central HD and USA HD, but not their SD counterparts - which suggests my 'data over long period' theory - or people are watching the wrong channel too often....)


I really don't see them moving the analog channels - they just spend the last year slowly getting all of their NYC regions lined up together with the same analog lineup - if they moved CBS off channel 2 or NBC off channel 4, a lot of 'old' people would be pissed. I also don't think they have any intention of offering up better upstream service.
post #7453 of 9360
In our area SDV works seamlessly....except for those rare times, usually mid-morning when
they decide to work on upgrades and it's out for a few hours...time to watch a DVR recording.

FYI: I also ran across Motorola's DOCSIS 3.0 Upgrade White Paper:
http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/...df?localeId=33
post #7454 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

Where have you seen info re extending upstream from current 5-42 MHz
to as high as 108 or 174 MHz???

U.S. Cable spec, ANSI_SCTE 40 2004, still stipulates 5-42 MHz, the same range
cited in Cisco's latest DOCSIS 3.0 Headend Cable Modem (8 per box):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/coll...d8073584b.html
Note that there is Japanese Tuning Plan version (5-55 MHz) and a
Euro version (5-65 MHz) with 8 MHz channel spacing. But these
are the CURRENT DOCSIS 2.0 tuning plans in those countries.

FWIW, DOCSIS 3.0 Physical spec DOES allow for operation up to 85 MHz.
But since they comply with current U.S. Cable specs, DOCSIS 3.0 Cable
Modems are still constrained to 5-42 MHz...thereby saving $$$$BILLIONS
that would be required to upgrade the ENTIRE fibre-optic & hard cable
distribution network--lots of equipment would be affected, incl local dropamps:
http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/...df?localeId=33

Mid-split and high-split cable systems are as old as the hills... there is nothing remotely new there. If the DOCSIS standard supports 5-85MHz, then a mid-split (5-108MHz) return plant would fit nicely with that. There is also nothing to prevent a new split scheme from being implemented, either. 5-108 and 5-174 have only tradition behind them and the fact that diplex filters in those splits have been around forever. Existing 5-108 return amps could work just as well with 5-88 diplex filters.

The upgrade costs to convert to a different split arrangement are less than adding additional fiber and optical transmitters and receivers that would be required to further granularize the system. In particular, if an electronics upgrade is planned anyway (as in going from 750MHz to 1Ghz forward electronics), then a simultaneous conversion to an alternate diplex configuration would be essentially free.
post #7455 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berk32 View Post

Looks like TWC NYC is going SDV on June 2.

I don't know what the setup is elsewhere - but they're moving 241 total channels to SDV - 76 HD channels

(and our system currently has unused bandwidth to spare at the moment....)

Just for my knowledge. Can channel usage with SDV be tracked better than normal? Would they consider going low ratio SDV so they can get better usage numbers to see what channels to combine per channel later? I have always wondered how they track usage for deciding which channels to combine per SDV channel. /Dan
post #7456 of 9360
I just got the response below from the senior tech guy at KECY, our local Fox and ABC station in response to my complaint that ABC is no longer in HD, even though they have a channel in the HD tier (and I would swear that before adding the CW as a subchannel, they were in HD). Please tell me what you think:

Although we aren’t responsible for what Time Warner puts on their cable lineup. We here at KECY do our best to provide a good quality SD free on our off air channel. We also provide Time Warner cable with clean HD feed that they can use for their HD line up. But clearly we aren’t responsible for what and where Time Warner places on their system.
Now we do not offer a ABC HD Off Air. We do offer a very good quality SD channel. This is due to bandwidth limitations. There is no possible way to put 2 HD channels on one RF (Channel 9)channel as much as I would like to.
You are free to ask Time Warner to drop our channel, however they are bound by law to carry our signal and prevented from importing signals from outside markets.

Thank you for viewership.

Jorge Lopez
Chief Engineer
KECY TV FOX 9 ABC5 Telemundo 35 CW 6
post #7457 of 9360
SDV always a problem on TWC in NE Ohio. I don't think they ever completely "fixed" it and I imagine it will be a problem in the future as well. Of course it's dependent on how your local division is run. TWC of Northeast Ohio isn't even capable of running a Burger King, so naturally it sucks. But NYC, from what I've heard about it, sounds like a good division. And I think TWC would work extra hard to avoid being embarrassed in a market tht big.
post #7458 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance14 View Post

I just got the response below from the senior tech guy at KECY, our local Fox and ABC station in response to my complaint that ABC is no longer in HD, even though they have a channel in the HD tier (and I would swear that before adding the CW as a subchannel, they were in HD). Please tell me what you think:

Although we aren't responsible for what Time Warner puts on their cable lineup. We here at KECY do our best to provide a good quality SD free on our off air channel. We also provide Time Warner cable with clean HD feed that they can use for their HD line up. But clearly we aren't responsible for what and where Time Warner places on their system.
Now we do not offer a ABC HD Off Air. We do offer a very good quality SD channel. This is due to bandwidth limitations. There is no possible way to put 2 HD channels on one RF (Channel 9)channel as much as I would like to.
You are free to ask Time Warner to drop our channel, however they are bound by law to carry our signal and prevented from importing signals from outside markets.

Thank you for viewership.

Jorge Lopez
Chief Engineer
KECY TV FOX 9 ABC5 Telemundo 35 CW 6

So what else is on channel 9 OTA? Is one of the subchannels HD? It sounds like there is more than ABC on OTA 9. Is CW and ABC on the same OTA channel? I bet ABC wouldnt appreciate that.
post #7459 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsiraid View Post

So what else is on channel 9 OTA? Is one of the subchannels HD? It sounds like there is more than ABC on OTA 9. Is CW and ABC on the same OTA channel? I bet ABC wouldnt appreciate that.

I am not sure how it works technically, but 9.1 is Fox in HD, with a huge allocation of bandwidth, 9.2 is ABC with a fraction of that bandwidth, 9.3 is CW and there is a spanish channel on 9.4.

So, maybe I should bring this to the attention of ABC, and not just Time Warner Cable? I will say that when I contacted one of the TWC reps on Twitter, they looked into it and were pretty amazed and said they would follow up.
post #7460 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance14 View Post

I am not sure how it works technically, but 9.1 is Fox in HD, with a huge allocation of bandwidth, 9.2 is ABC with a fraction of that bandwidth, 9.3 is CW and there is a spanish channel on 9.4.

So, maybe I should bring this to the attention of ABC, and not just Time Warner Cable? I will say that when I contacted one of the TWC reps on Twitter, they looked into it and were pretty amazed and said they would follow up.

Wow.. so they have Fox and ABC and CW all on the same OTA ATSC channel...

It wouldnt hurt to drop a dime to ABC. They are getting shortchanged in this deal. However.. not sure what the licensee can do about it. sounds like they need another transmitter.
post #7461 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsiraid View Post

Wow.. so they have Fox and ABC and CW all on the same OTA ATSC channel...

It wouldnt hurt to drop a dime to ABC. They are getting shortchanged in this deal. However.. not sure what the licensee can do about it. sounds like they need another transmitter.

Thanks, I think I will write to ABC. I am currently drafting a letter back to KECY letting them know I, for one, am not happy with the situation. I am also letting them know that the TWC rep I spoke to is going to forward the issue to their west region representatives. Maybe if they start to get heat from other sources, they will rethink their current setup.
post #7462 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsiraid View Post

Wow.. so they have Fox and ABC and CW all on the same OTA ATSC channel...

It wouldnt hurt to drop a dime to ABC. They are getting shortchanged in this deal. However.. not sure what the licensee can do about it. sounds like they need another transmitter.

The engineer's signature covered all 4 channels. Also, not sure what the HD feed TWC is getting over the wires has in it. Could be an "HD" feed of SD shows from the regular SD channel. /Dan
post #7463 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by danki6x View Post

The engineer's signature covered all 4 channels. Also, not sure what the HD feed TWC is getting over the wires has in it. Could be an "HD" feed of SD shows from the regular SD channel. /Dan

Ah, that is interesting . . .

Is it normal to try to run two major networks on one channel? I suppose he is right that you can't run two HD sub-channels on one channel, but doesn't that mean that you should not carry more than one channel that really SHOULD be in HD?
post #7464 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance14 View Post

Ah, that is interesting . . .

Is it normal to try to run two major networks on one channel? I suppose he is right that you can't run two HD sub-channels on one channel, but doesn't that mean that you should not carry more than one channel that really SHOULD be in HD?

You can run two HD's in a single ATSC channel.. but it wont look too good. Our local ABC does that today with LiveWellHD.

I personally have not seen a situation where a single OTA channel is carrying multiple major networks.
post #7465 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsiraid View Post

You can run two HD's in a single ATSC channel.. but it wont look too good. Our local ABC does that today with LiveWellHD.

I personally have not seen a situation where a single OTA channel is carrying multiple major networks.

Interestinger and interestinger. Sounds like they are just trying to squeeze all of the advertising dollars they can out of their measly OTA channel, then saying that TWC is bound to use their feed (not matter how awful it looks), probably based on either some contract or a regulation requiring TWC to use local where it exists.
post #7466 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsiraid View Post

You can run two HD's in a single ATSC channel.. but it wont look too good. Our local ABC does that today with LiveWellHD.

I personally have not seen a situation where a single OTA channel is carrying multiple major networks.

Youngstown Ohio. WKBN 27.1 is CBS, 27.2 is FOX, both broadcast in 720p HDTV.
post #7467 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdawg View Post

Youngstown Ohio. WKBN 27.1 is CBS, 27.2 is FOX, both broadcast in 720p HDTV.

Are they carrying any other subchannels, or just splitting the bandwidth evenly between the two? I think the problem comes with KECY also trying to squeeze in CW and a spanish broadcast as well.
post #7468 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance14 View Post

Are they carrying any other subchannels, or just splitting the bandwidth evenly between the two? I think the problem comes with KECY also trying to squeeze in CW and a spanish broadcast as well.

It's just those two stations in HD. Before, it was CBS in 1080i and FOX in SDTV only. Since the FOX affiliate was a LP station, WYFX, they carried a simulcast of that on WKBN(they share a newscast as well). WYTV, the ABC station carries ABC in 720p HD on 33-1 as well as My Network TV on 33-2 and a weather radar channel in SDTV on 33-3.

The only thing I can think of that has a HD channel and more than two subchannels is PBS. Both PBS stations here have three subchannels and a HD feed. One is 1080i and one is 720p.
post #7469 of 9360
So, NYC with bandwidth to spare is taking close to half it's lineup to SDV... including something around 65% of it's HD lineup. I seriously doubt 35 mb/s IP is the underlying reason UNLESS out current 10m/768k becomes 25/10 or something like that, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

What (I think) they CAN do is give us much better PQ by using higher bit rate transmissions. I'm not sure how that equates to number of channel per QAM, but the consensus has always seemed to be 1 or 2 per can/should yield better quality then the more typical 3.

While I also SERIOUSLY doubt this will happen, it seems to me by doing such, they can better compete w/FiOS.. then again, it means zip to the vast majority of their customers, it's only the nuts like us who might even notice.

So the essential question of what will they do with all the additional bandwidth is the question of the day... and while that most likely only matters to those IN that market, it MAY point to what MAY be a direction corporate is looking at.
post #7470 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdawg View Post

It's just those two stations in HD. Before, it was CBS in 1080i and FOX in SDTV only. Since the FOX affiliate was a LP station, WYFX, they carried a simulcast of that on WKBN(they share a newscast as well). WYTV, the ABC station carries ABC in 720p HD on 33-1 as well as My Network TV on 33-2 and a weather radar channel in SDTV on 33-3.

The only thing I can think of that has a HD channel and more than two subchannels is PBS. Both PBS stations here have three subchannels and a HD feed. One is 1080i and one is 720p.

So, the bottom line is that KECY could probably do both Fox and ABC in 720p if they did not have the other subchannels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Time Warner Cable HDTV