Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 4

I don't have time to go look for evidence from a couple years back. But my memory from reading the papers, this site, and the evidence that TW did not carry ESPNHD for awhile was that Disney wanted extra money to carry the HD version of the channel...and TW fought it for about a year.

That's a good idea. At least we might get ESPN's side of the story.

Does anyone know Mark McGuire who writes for the Albany Times Union? He wrote a scathing article about Time Warner Cable a few months ago.

Correct - they put it on around August/Sept of '04.

Yes, it ended up going up right before Football Season '04.

\\

Disney may also be fighting to keep it out of an HD tier or tying it to moving other Disney channels off the digital tier and into "standard" cable.

This is the problem that the cable companies frequently face from the programmers. If it was just straight up money then I'm sure TWC could put ESPN2-HD, NFL-HD and any other channel in a HD sports tier or HD variety tier and charge extra to get it in order to cover the rights fee. The issue is that the programmers not only want increased fees to show the programming but they also want to dictate where and how the cable company delivers the channel. TWC probably would love to charge just the HD viewer $3 for HD whatever, but they don't want to have raise the rates $3 on every customer just to show a few thousand special viewers Hd soccer.

I can certainly see TWC not wanting to raise rates just to carry ESPN2 since rates would rise for everyone with only a small portion watching it but there has to be more to it than just this issue. I could see Disney trying to dicate package carriage deals as well as higher fees but on the other hand, why are D* and E* able to get a deal in place for ESPN2? Wouldn't Disney have the same fees/package requirments and yet they seemed to get it done and on the air? Is it that DBS is cheaper so easier to just raise rates a little to eat this cost compared to cable which is generally more expensive or are they negotiating from a stronger position with Disney than cable (I wouldn't think so).

It seems that cable across the board (Comcast also is delayed in getting ESPN2) seems to have more issues acquiring channels because of their tiered level of service where as DBS has more issues with the bandwidth to show extra channels which cable does not have.

Redmond_Horn,

You raise some interesting questions.

I can see how these questions are not covered in general purpose media, but are there trade journals out there that look into these types of questions?

So its not looking good for espn2 hd by June 9th. Why don't we trow our effort at getting TWC to similcast espn2 SD on digital cable. My espn2 is analog and shows the graininess often. Maybe a digital similcast is an acceptable option.

I used to have TW in Orange County, CA. On that system, there was a significant difference in the analog vs. digital tier of channels. The analog channels were much grainier. It was fairly obvious on those channels that were carried on both tiers.

However, I now have TW Desert Cities, and there is absolutely no difference between the pictures on the digital vs. the analog tier. They're all pretty bad.

I really wish ESPN would show the final of the Champions League on ESPN HD and not ESPN2 HD. Considering there are about 150 baseball games per year, couldn't ESPN switch these two programs?

Does any business care about customers anymore?

dennis1 ESPN2 on the digital tier (Channel 433) is the same analog broadcast as on the analog tier (Channel 33) as with all of the similcast channels.

Seems like a waste of bandwidth, simulcasting those analog channels on digital, doesn't it?

** echoes wish **

Hi guys

I thought that the quality of the picture was much better than the usual standard in ESPN2 in the broadcast of the Champions League final today. Is it possible that a simultaneous HD broadcast increases the quality of the picture that we get in the regular channel? This would be good news for the world cup. Did you have the same impression? (if you watched the game, of course. I feel sorry for you if you did not, because this was an absolutely amazing game!)

dennis1 no extra bandwidth is used the digital channel is basically just a link to the analog channel.

viamadeu content shot with HD camera will look better on analog TV, however it is still not digital quality.

Really? That's very interesting. Thanks for the info.

Seems logical that a downconversion (to 480i) from a 1080i or 720p scanned broadcast would have better fidelity than original 480i camera scanning. (As outlined here , such downconversions, even with home converters, make images appear sharper, at the same resolution, by widening the MTF [modulation transfer function] curve.) See Matt Cowan's "Black Paper," page 26 of 36. Upconverted programs on H/DTV channels, like true HD, can use up to ~19 Mbps compared to the same program on an SD digital cable channel with only ~40/8-12 Mbps. And the same program on an analog channel would have 6 MHz of bandwidth, but must undergo NTSC's heavy filtering and of course lacks digital compression, (although overly compressed digital 480i often appears similar to analog 480i here). Some details on what various networks are doing would be useful. -- John

Thanks for the technical info. I know it is a bit of a consolation prize, but it still makes me happy!

If this guy is quoting a local build out as the issue, this guy is local.

TWC will not hold up a carriage agreement with a company because one market hasn't built out.

Again, this guy Dressler is useless for information. He's as bad as Brine for misinformation.

45 days ago it was a done deal nationwide. Now its a build out issue for NY?!?!?!?

Come on!!!!!!

You guys are being jerked around.

Agreed.

Because ESPN is known to be philanthropic when it comes to negotiating rates and "serving the fans"? Seriously, it would be harder for me to believe that ESPN wasn't playing hardball with a carriage agreement. It is their easiest way to renegotiate agreements to work in their favor...

Later,
Bill

I believe it /is/ a build issue for NYC, as they do consistently claim that they are completely out of space for new channels.

As stated before, as much as New Yorkers believe that the world rotates around them, TWC will not hold up signing national carriage agreements waiting for the NYC buildout.

They will sign them and let the local systems handle them when the room is there.

Thus, this guy is speaking for NY TWC - not TWC INC and its very obvious to me he knows less than the regional people I talk with.

Considering Manhattan was ultra-late to the cable game, its a good thing too.

Ultra-late? Manhattan has had Cable TV since the mid-1960s. And from two companies!

If you want to talk about being ultra-late to cable, that distinction would belong to the outer borough of Queens in New York City. They didn't get cable until the mid 1980s, and then only because you couldn't get the franchise for Manhattan unless you agreed to wire the "hinterlands."

Now the world might not revolve around NYC (in some people's estimation) but New York City isn't nearly monolithic as those from "East of the Hudson" might think it is.

You might want to check that and read your own post....

In fact, the people from MTV were very pissed because most of Manhattan was not wired for cable and it was really only brought together in the mid 80s.

How can you have have cable in Manhattan when even you said:



How can you have cable in NYC from 2 companies since 1960 when it was the carrot used to get the "hinterlands" wired as you called it.

Again, some very small areas of Manhattan were wired....but most of Manhattan was unserved until the mid 80s.

If only everyone had the same attititude (yeah, I'm talking to you, Disney).

The showdown of the new millenium: The Wabbit versus The Mouse.

I'm just wondering which one of the critters has dug deeper into my pockets over my lifetime.