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

Time Warner Cable HDTV - Page 4

post #91 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by LL3HD View Post

Is this really true? Or, are these insinuations based solely on e mails spun from a biased source? If there is corroborating verification, please post it.

I would think that if a network is trying to charge extra for the HD feedthis would be big news.

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.
post #92 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_bernstein View Post

Maybe someone on this board who cares should contact the newsroom at the Daily News or NY Post to tip them off to the story? Seems like exactly the type of thing they'd love to cover (especially The Post, being owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns Fox, which has their own history of contentious negotiations with TWC -- recall when they had to sue TWC to get them to carry Fox News?).
Scott

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.
post #93 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1216 View Post

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.

Correct - they put it on around August/Sept of '04.
post #94 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1216 View Post

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.

Yes, it ended up going up right before Football Season '04.
post #95 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1216 View Post

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.

\\

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.
post #96 of 9360
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.
post #97 of 9360
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?
post #98 of 9360
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.
post #99 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan2112 View Post

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.
post #100 of 9360
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?
post #101 of 9360
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.
post #102 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpwicz View Post

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?
post #103 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by ready71 View Post

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?

** echoes wish **
post #104 of 9360
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!)
post #105 of 9360
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.
post #106 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpwicz View Post

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

Really? That's very interesting. Thanks for the info.
post #107 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by viamadeu View Post

Is it possible that a simultaneous HD broadcast increases the quality of the picture that we get in the regular channel?

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
post #108 of 9360
Thanks for the technical info. I know it is a bit of a consolation prize, but it still makes me happy!
post #109 of 9360
Thread Starter 
My Email:
Can you tell me when TW will have HD versions of Cinemax, The Movie Channel & Starz?
I know Cablevision carries all of the premiums in HD for their customers. I myself have been waiting patiently for well over a year and have been wasting money in the hopes that I would get these channels.The only premiums that I watch is HBO & Showtime and that's only because they have an HD version for me. I looks like I will be canceling my subscripstions to some premium channels that I can't bare to watch in SD.

Dressler's Response:
"it would appear that with current plant upgrade plans, these HD services will be made available sometime in "07."


OMG. I'm cancelling all my premiums except hbo & Showtime until january 07'. If they have any competence at all it better be up and running by then.
post #110 of 9360
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.
post #111 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #112 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by badboyspack View Post

Why would ESPN try to screw the people when they already have ESPN in HD.

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
post #113 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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

I believe it /is/ a build issue for NYC, as they do consistently claim that they are completely out of space for new channels.
post #114 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_bernstein View Post

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.
post #115 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #116 of 9360
Thread Starter 
post #117 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

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:


Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

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."

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.
post #118 of 9360
Thread Starter 
My Email:
Hello Mr.Southwick, I was told by a executive at Time Warner Cable that STARZ-HD could possibly finally be added to it's lineup later this year.

There are many Starz subscribers that own HD sets and have been patiently waiting for this channel for years now and are on the brink of canceling.

I recently canceled my Starz subscription because I can't bring myself to watch the standard definition version of Starz anymore on my HD set.

So, will TWC be getting STARZ-HD before the end of the year?

Unfortunately I can't get Dish network as I heard they will be adding STARZ-HD.


Mr.Southwick:
This is entirely the decision of Time Warner. We are happy to make Starz HD available to them free of charge. They just have to decide to take it and make room for it on their cable system.
--
--
--
hear that folks, all we need is a slot for this channel, that's all!!! what's TW's excuse now. Some markets have the space for it some don't, just add it.
post #119 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyHDTV View Post


We are happy to make Starz HD available to them free of charge. They just have to decide to take it and make room for it on their cable system.

If only everyone had the same attititude (yeah, I'm talking to you, Disney).
post #120 of 9360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Carr View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Time Warner Cable HDTV