s4v8
join:2005-04-28 | [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston?
Noticed that the following channels are no longer available through clear QAM:
Food
TBS
ESPN2
Discovery HD
Animal Planet
A&E
CNN HD
LMN HD
TLC HD
Is this a sign of upcoming changes in the Boston area? |
|
clock
join:2007-05-02
Roslindale, MA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·RCN CABLE
| Yea, RCN is encrypting all QAM channels except for locals in preparation for the all digital transition. This thread has a little more info towards the end. »[CATV] HD on Demand....when ? The lineup will look like this when its done. »www.rcn.com/pdf/chicago_lineups_···1-14.pdf |
|
rcbrcb
Premium
join:2007-02-21
Chicago, IL
 ·T-Mobile VoIP
·RCN CABLE
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to s4v8
s4v8...
Yep this is the exact same thing that happened in Chicago B4 RCN started the "Analog Crush". Encrytpting the ALL HD QAM Channels is the 1st step in the switch to Full Digital. You will no longer have access to the ANY HD QAM channels. After the Switch; the SD version of the LOCALS ONLY (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc) will still be avaliable via QAM but thats it. We tried here in Chicago to get then to reverse this decision, but we have been met with deaf ears! |
|
billymac
join:2008-05-16
01802 | reply to s4v8
The removed WLVIDT & WSBKDT too. The only thing left on HD clear QAM is the 4 major's and PBS.
This is crap. I guess I'm calling Comcast on Monday |
|
kshakir
join:2006-05-01
Somerville, MA
| reply to rcbrcb
When I saw I lost my clear-QAM HD this morning, I hoped it meant Somerville had caught up to Boston, but sadly no. I guess I'll keep waiting for July.
One thing I also don't understand- What does QAM encryption have to do with removing analog channels, or reducing bandwidth (without extra compression)? If anyone can explain it, thanks in advance! |
|
moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| said by kshakir  :When I saw I lost my clear-QAM HD this morning, I hoped it meant Somerville had caught up to Boston, but sadly no. I guess I'll keep waiting for July. Boston is in the same boat as you. Only Newton (and surrounding areas) have HD channels 184-200. |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
edit:
May 17th, @11:28AM
| reply to kshakir
said by kshakir :One thing I also don't understand- What does QAM encryption have to do with removing analog channels, or reducing bandwidth (without extra compression)? If anyone can explain it, thanks in advance! It has absolutely nothing to do with removing analog or reducing bandwith. RCN decided that instead of offering Clear Qam channels to its subscribers as a competitive advantage, they were going to encrypt everything and offer more channels. Especially in the Boston Area where we have 3 providers. Its kind of short sighted in my opinion. If RCN feels they can afford to risk alienating any customers, so be it. |
|
nycityny
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY
·VoicePulse
·ViaTalk
| said by mrbigk :said by kshakir :One thing I also don't understand- What does QAM encryption have to do with removing analog channels, or reducing bandwidth (without extra compression)? If anyone can explain it, thanks in advance! It has absolutely nothing to do with removing analog or reducing bandwith. RCN decided that instead of offering Clear Qam channels to its subscribers as a competitive advantage, they were going to encrypt everything and offer more channels. Especially in the Boston Area where we have 3 providers. Its kind of short sighted in my opinion. If RCN feels they can afford to risk alienating any customers, so be it. Isn't it ostensibly for security reasons that they are encrypting everything? They don't want folks to "steal" the signal from them anymore.
I personally think it is a bogus argument. One reason I went with RCN 11 years ago is that a cable box was not required for non-premium channels, vs such a requirement with Time Warner. Now the positions seem to be switching with RCN encrypting everything. |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
edit:
May 17th, @11:45AM
| I find that having the ability on one of the other tvs in the house that having the "basic hd channels(not just locals as it has been for years)" via clear qam is fine. Hell, the cable companies going RCN's route offer no competitive advantage vs. satelite if all tv's require a box. This means that RCN, Comcast, Verizon, Direct TV and Dish Network will all require boxes. Price is a very important factor for RCN now. |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA | I Hope they realize Clear Qam was there competitive advantage in Boston. |
|
billymac
join:2008-05-16
01802 | reply to s4v8
So they removed the clearQAM HD and they have no HD cable boxes available in Boston. I was told to call back next week. Nice move. I guess I'm just SOL for the Celtics game. |
|
moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| reply to mrbigk
said by mrbigk :I find that having the ability on one of the other tvs in the house that having the "basic hd channels(not just locals as it has been for years)" via clear qam is fine. Hell, the cable companies going RCN's route offer no competitive advantage vs. satelite if all tv's require a box. This means that RCN, Comcast, Verizon, Direct TV and Dish Network will all require boxes. Price is a very important factor for RCN now. I'd go one step further and suggest this tips the advantage to Dish and DirecTV, since their boxes have RF modulators. You can set up the boxes at your coax entrance point to the house, and have the second tuner work anywhere in the house, via a UHF remote.
This is why (in my opinion) RCN needs to step it up with their STBs. Their Motorola boxes STILL can't use passive HD (you have to choose between 720p or 1080i) and you can't use the second tuner for either PIP or as an output for a second tv. |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
| said by moulder3 :I'd go one step further and suggest this tips the advantage to Dish and DirecTV, since their boxes have RF modulators. You can set up the boxes at your coax entrance point to the house, and have the second tuner work anywhere in the house, via a UHF remote. This is why (in my opinion) RCN needs to step it up with their STBs. Their Motorola boxes STILL can't use passive HD (you have to choose between 720p or 1080i) and you can't use the second tuner for either PIP or as an output for a second tv. Yeah, I have a hard time giving RCN or any cable company an advantage if the one of the main advantages cable has had is not requireing a box on every tv. If that goes, then yes, the scale would seem to favor the satelite companies. VOD is not reason alone to go with RCN. |
|
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA | reply to billymac
Check again...  |
|
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| reply to mrbigk
said by mrbigk :said by moulder3 :I'd go one step further and suggest this tips the advantage to Dish and DirecTV, since their boxes have RF modulators. You can set up the boxes at your coax entrance point to the house, and have the second tuner work anywhere in the house, via a UHF remote. This is why (in my opinion) RCN needs to step it up with their STBs. Their Motorola boxes STILL can't use passive HD (you have to choose between 720p or 1080i) and you can't use the second tuner for either PIP or as an output for a second tv. Yeah, I have a hard time giving RCN or any cable company an advantage if the one of the main advantages cable has had is not requireing a box on every tv. If that goes, then yes, the scale would seem to favor the satelite companies. VOD is not reason alone to go with RCN. By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup.
--
Jason Nealis,
Sr. Director, Video Product and Network Operations |
|
tigrzeye
join:2007-07-18
Northampton, PA
edit:
May 18th, @10:36AM
| I prefer better quality of picture so I SUPPORT the digital upgrade and more HD channels in an uncompressed format. I tried DirecTv for approximately 3 hours, saw the poor quality of picture and canceled immediately so as not to incur a penalty charge.
I DO NOT support RCN's position on going all digital with encryption and requiring separate STB's for each TV. But I think we are beating a dead horse.. RCN has made their decision and they don't care if we like it or not. The box rental fees and extra cost programming tiers mean revenue. If others are like myself, I don't have another choice in cable companies.
A rumor .. you only get the free digital STB and special rates for 2nd and 3rd boxes if you have NO STB's currently. If you already have a DVR, HD box, etc. then you don't qualify for the free and reduced rate STB's. It appears the free STB is being offered as an appeasement for basic cable subscribers that would lose their tv programming completely. I read this elsewhere, could RCN confirm or deny this here on the forum? |
|
billymac
join:2008-05-16
01802
| reply to rcnman
said by rcnman :By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup. Which is unrelated to encryption.... |
|
billymac
join:2008-05-16
01802
| reply to rcnman
said by rcnman :By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup. Any announcements on the added HD channels that we will get after the conversion? The list posted earlier for the current Chicago lineup doesn't have any more HD than currently available in Boston (except the MDU people) |
|
mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA
| reply to rcnman
said by rcnman :By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup. I am not saying you shouldn't go digital, but clear qam should be treated like a "cable ready" tv. I have 3 soon to be 4 HDTV's. Been replacing the older tvs as they falter. You want to switch to digital fine. But encrypting everything is an excuse for offering more content. Encrypting channels that may be in a higher tier is fine as well. But the basic package should get the digital equivalent of what we get now. The only reason I can see to do it is to increase box rentals/ possible VOD. |
|
moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| reply to rcnman
quote:
rcnman: By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup.
Well, that's only half true... RCN could go all digital and NOT encrypt the channels, if you wanted. It's not that you're going all-digital that is the issue with most people on this board. We understand it's necessary to do that to add HD. But it's a bait-and-switch when you say you have to take away UNENCRYPTED analog and replace it with ENCRYPTED digital!! There's no reason not to keep digital channels in the clear, except that you want $$$ for box rentals. I think you guys should be honest about it, at least! I pay $100 a month for TV, and am less than thrilled I'll need to rent additional boxes, despite having QAM tuners in my tvs. |
|
