 dmeyer
join:2002-08-14
Austin, TX | analog analog analog analog analog analog while scaling back its analog channel count from 74 to 68
This doesn't make sense. They don't need a 1ghz plant to provide 100+ HD channels and 200+ SD channels. The money would be better spent providing cheap set top digital converters for customers and cutting back the analog channel count to, say, 16 or so. Besides, the government is providing two $40 coupons per household to upgrade to digital converters, right?
They should upgrade CPE first, plant second. Sure, by 2010 a 1ghz plant would be nice, but first get rid of all that wasted spectrum from analog channels and go digital.
I want an all-digital cable company. |
|
 Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:2 | Perfect world would say absolutely that would be best..
However customer service prevents this!
This is one leg up cable co's have over sat providers. No boxes needed for additional TV"S |
|
| reply to dmeyer
said by dmeyer:[spoiler] This doesn't make sense. They don't need a 1ghz plant to provide 100+ HD channels and 200+ SD channels. The money would be better spent providing cheap set top digital converters for customers and cutting back the analog channel count to, say, 16 or so. Besides, the government is providing two $40 coupons per household to upgrade to digital converters, right? They are also using the bandwidth for phone and faster internet. The digital converter coupons that will be avalable are for over the OTA viewers who don't want cable. They wll not work with cable. |
|
 The BeerI Love It When A Plan Comes TogetherPremium
join:2001-07-24
Atlantic, IA
1 edit | reply to dmeyer
Cox don't provide digital converters, and definitely not cheap.
See in your example they could not get away with the "Digital Gateway Fee" they hide the HD tiers in.
And once they do that, well all the local affiliates of CBS, ABC and NBC will come knocking for some cash.
In Omaha we had CBS pulled from HD for some time because the affiliate said Cox was charging for the HD signal and they wanted a part of it. Cox says they don't charge anything to the customer for HD so they don't make anything.
Now it's ABC in the fight with them over the same thing. |
|
| That's old news |
|
|
|
 odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| reply to dmeyer
it's called simulcast many companies already offer an "all-digital" version of their channel lineup. My company for example has 80 channels of analog and those same 80 analog channels are also sent via digital in 8 QAM's. An analog TV tunes the native EIA channel, and the digital boxes tune the QAM's. So a TV watching channel 2 is tuning channel 2 @54MHz, the digital box is tuning channel 85 pid 1 etc.
The coupons are not for QAM converters, they are for ATSC tuners and they won't work with cable.
Analog is also a so called "killer" app for many cable ops as you don't need a box and can continue to use the same TV you've had for years. |
|
| reply to dmeyer
Re: analog analog analog analog analog analog said by dmeyer: while scaling back its analog channel count from 74 to 68 This doesn't make sense. They don't need a 1ghz plant to provide 100+ HD channels and 200+ SD channels. I agree with your statement, however I think they should have went from a 5-42Mhz upstream to a 5 - 72Mhz at minimum, that would give them a total 9 or 10 USABLE channels for upstream QAMS. IMO that would put them in a very good position for competing with data rates for at least 10yrs.. |
|
odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by MOTO6809:said by dmeyer: while scaling back its analog channel count from 74 to 68 This doesn't make sense. They don't need a 1ghz plant to provide 100+ HD channels and 200+ SD channels. I agree with your statement, however I think they should have went from a 5-42Mhz upstream to a 5 - 72Mhz at minimum, that would give them a total 9 or 10 USABLE channels for upstream QAMS. IMO that would put them in a very good position for competing with data rates for at least 10yrs.. Even better a with a higher 105MHz split return. |
|
1 edit | Well they are banking on reducing node sizes to 250 homes passed taking care of narrowcast services like upstream data.
Then analog customers don't have to ask "Hey why does our lineup start at ch 7 instead of 2?" |
|
odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| That only helps if the VOD service group is isolated to that single node of 250 subs. Likely the VOD service group is larger and they simply burn more channels for VOD. It's a matter of what is cheaper....More eQAM's or larger service groups. Also with SDV becoming a more viable option bandwidth can be "found" there. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to The Beer
said by The Beer:See in your example they could not get away with the "Digital Gateway Fee" they hide the HD tiers in. We're pretty much paying what satellite subs are paying for HD.
Gateway fee: $5.00
Box premium: $8.00
------------------
total: $13.00 (what sat subs pay: $9.95)
this has always been a pet peeve of mine, call the HD "free" then stuff the fees elsewhere. this is a dirty way of ripping off the networks which we'll end up paying for via rate hike.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| That's only true in some markets.
I pay the same for an HD box as a regular box ($5.25, plus $5 if it's a DVR) and have no charge beyond the standard charge for digital cable for the HD channels.
When they add some HD channels later this month they are going to start segmenting the HD channels into various "packs" (sports, variety, etc.) as they do on the SD digital tier and you'll only get the locals plus the channels associated with whatever digital "packs" you pay for.
For me, HD is treated in exactly the same way as any other channel on the system.
I gather that it's that way for most everyone except the folks out in Phoenix who they are abusing. (quite possibly at the behest of the franchise authority) |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to dmeyer
said by dmeyer: while scaling back its analog channel count from 74 to 68 This doesn't make sense. (...) I want an all-digital cable company. I heavily delved into Comcasts's SSS (shareholder slide show) with an attitude similar to yours in mind, insisting upon better codecs for all channels and to get rid of the analog waste. Anyway, when I was done, considering all of the situations Comcast has to consider (Analog carriage, people who have analog carriage at home, all the sets that have analog carriage, that the cable co is responsible for digital conversion (not the fed gov't -- those coupons aren't for cable co conversions), and a whole bunch of other bandwidth limitations that they're bunched up against), I finally realized getting rid of analog is a careful square dance. However, during the slide show, I realized one key thing relevent to this discussion: their 750MHz seems like a low bandwidth. I said to myself "hmm ... can't they upgrade that? I wonder how much. It would sure expidite and improve this upgrade process." Apparently, Cox did more than wonder. |
|
