mrbigk
join:2004-01-22
Natick, MA | reply to moulder3
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. |
|
 rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | 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 |
|
 tigrzeyeRoyal Security Svcs.Premium
join:2007-07-18
LehighValley
1 edit | 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? |
|
| 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.... |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 $$$ for box rentals. I think you guys should be honest about it, at least! I pay $100 a month for TV, and am less than thrilled I'll need to rent additional boxes, despite having QAM tuners in my tvs. |
|
rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:10 | said by moulder3: quote:
rcnman: By going all digital it allows us to deploy a large amount of HD channels. This wouldn't be possible if we maintained a large analog lineup.
Well, that's only half true... RCN could go all digital and NOT encrypt the channels, if you wanted. It's not that you're going all-digital that is the issue with most people on this board. We understand it's necessary to do that to add HD. But it's a bait-and-switch when you say you have to take away UNENCRYPTED analog and replace it with ENCRYPTED digital!! There's no reason not to keep digital channels in the clear, except that you want $$$ 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 |
|
tigrzeyeRoyal Security Svcs.Premium
join:2007-07-18
LehighValley | We receive non-broadcast digital tier channels now that are not encrypted. Are these new, just penned contracts you speak of?? |
|
|
|
| reply to rcnman
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! |
|
