| Fewer HD channels "[D]espite offering substantially fewer channels (34 to 107)"
I always love the quantity over quality aspect over this topic. Getting 107 HD channels sure sounds better than getting 34, but if the bulk of them are crap (granted, good looking crap), what's the point? |
|
|
|
| But you get neither quality NOR quantity with Comcast. With them cramming 3 HD channels per QAM channel, half of those 34 stations can barely be called HD to begin with since they dissolve in a mosaic of macroblocks the instant any fast motion is on the screen.
Comcast is scared to compete, plain and simple. They would much rather spend their money on giant tv screens for their Philly office than dump it back into the last mile infrastructure which is in dire need of an overhaul over much of the country. |
|
 darciliciousCyber LibrarianPremium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to probboy
One person's "crap" is another person's preferred programming  By offering a wide-range of programming it seems to me that FiOS can meet the needs of a wider range audience.
And let's face it, all cable/satellite providers are playing the numbers game -- Comcast included ("let's see if we can confuse the consumer and talk about 'HD choices' instead of the number of HD channels").
Anyhow, given the choice between more HD channels (60+ in the Extreme HD package), better quality HD channels, abd higher Internet speed (20/20, no caps) versus less HD channels (34 max in my market), less bandwidth per HD channel (e.g. worse picture quality) crap Internet speeds (our neighborhood node sucked the last six months I was on it), and raising prices while removing channels, it was a no-brainer in my case. |
|
| reply to probboy
said by probboy:"[D]espite offering substantially fewer channels (34 to 107)" I always love the quantity over quality aspect over this topic. Getting 107 HD channels sure sounds better than getting 34, but if the bulk of them are crap (granted, good looking crap), what's the point? How are the HD channels any more crappy than the SD channels? If your argument is that all those extra channels are showing only SD, you would be wrong. Sure there is a lot of upconverted SD on those channels, but more HD by now than people give them credit for. Last Sunday night, I went channel surfing through the ~90 HD channels I get on Verizon Fios (I don't subscribe to Cinemax but Cinemax is all HD on all their channels anyway). I should have keep a specific count, but at least 80%, maybe 90%, of them were showing true HD programming at that 8 PM hour. I was pleasantly surprised at the HD progress with so many movies in HD, including on the non-premium channels.
Amazing that people try to defend Comcast because who could possibly want more HD channels or that a second landline TV service in Philadelphia would somehow lead to poorer service. Other cities have 2 competing cable companies and they somehow seem to manage to do ok. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to probboy
said by probboy:"[D]espite offering substantially fewer channels (34 to 107)" I always love the quantity over quality aspect over this topic. Getting 107 HD channels sure sounds better than getting 34, but if the bulk of them are crap (granted, good looking crap), what's the point? Who's to decide what constitutes 'crap'? I have an idea - how about the cable companies give us as many channels as they can in HD, and let US decide which are worth watching and which aren't. With all due respect, this is an insipid argument against expanding HD offerings. Because SOME people don't care for channel X it's not worth having? I don't understand the logic. I understand why Comcast is throwing it around (their ridiculous claim against Verizon because Verizon carries 20 channels that aren't tracked by Nielson). |
|
