how-to block ads
|
nycityny
Premium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY
 ·PHONE POWER
·VoicePulse
 ·RCN CABLE
·ViaTalk
| Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? 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
2 edits | Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? 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 | Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? I Hope they realize Clear Qam was there competitive advantage in Boston. | |
| | moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| 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
| Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? 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
| Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? 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
Control4 Certified Installer
join:2007-07-18
LHV, PA
1 edit | Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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 $$$ for box rentals. I think you guys should be honest about it, at least! I pay $100 a month for TV, and am less than thrilled I'll need to rent additional boxes, despite having QAM tuners in my tvs. | |
| | | | | |
rcnman
Jason Nealis
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
| Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? said by moulder3 : quote:
rcnman: By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup.
Well, that's only half true... RCN could go all digital and NOT encrypt the channels, if you wanted. It's not that you're going all-digital that is the issue with most people on this board. We understand it's necessary to do that to add HD. But it's a bait-and-switch when you say you have to take away UNENCRYPTED analog and replace it with ENCRYPTED digital!! There's no reason not to keep digital channels in the clear, except that you want $$$ 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. Most deals with our providers (non-broadcast) have in the contract the channel must be encrypted. This is true for most if not all cable companies.
--
Jason Nealis,
Sr. Director, Video Product and Network Operations | |
| | | | | | |
tigrzeye
Control4 Certified Installer
join:2007-07-18
LHV, PA | Re: [CATV] Clear QAM channels slowly disappearing in Boston? We receive non-broadcast digital tier channels now that are not encrypted. Are these new, just penned contracts you speak of?? | |
| | | | | | | moulder3
join:2007-05-21
Boston, MA
| Wow, I didn't know most non-broadcast channels required encryption...I apologize for the rant then, rcnman!
This just leads me to thinking we need a-la-carte channels even QUICKER! I know some people disagree, but I think most advertiser-supported channels would quickly reduce their carriage fees, once they felt the massive loss of customers (which is how cable companies determine ad revenue), not viewership.
I think it's pretty crazy that (in our current setup) we all have to pay for channels like USA network that air tons of ads AND edit every movie they show. To me, I'd drop just about every basic channel except the ESPNs (which, I know, is expensive) and simply buy premium channels!
...I know everyone is different, though. That's the whole point of a la carte! | |
| | | |
|
