Richard8655
@wideopenwest.com
|  Local station subchannels
Anyone know why WOW doesn't carry the extra subchannels that many local stations now provide in their over-the-air digital line-up? For example, over-the-air Chicago Channel 11 (WTTW) additionally has 11.1 (Prime) and 11.2 (Create), as does WYCC with 20.1, 20.2, and MHZ Worldview.
These channels to me are a lot more interesting than the crap coming over the easily received WOW HiDef channels showing wrestling, eating contests, Miami CSI, myth busters, and the like. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | bandwidth? having 60-70 analog eats up a lot of room. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Richard8655
They dont appeal to the masses. Personally I could care less about the subchannels, I'd much rather have mainstream channels that actually have decent shows on them. Not a 24x7 weather channel.  |
|
Richard8655
join:2009-07-11
Glen Ellyn, IL
3 edits | Mainstream having decent shows? Don't make me laugh. Maybe that's why Americans know nothing about the world excepts themselves, Hollywood movies, and Michael Jackson. Mainstream channels are the lowest common denominator entertainment, and don't inform. And that's 95% of what the cable companies offer.
The reason public television is there is to give people an intelligent alternative, and there's only a fraction of that out there. Subchannels would slightly expand that. And were not talking about a weather channel, as there's already a mainstream version.
Bandwidth is relative and depends on who gets it. |
|
keepgoing
join:2006-09-08
Clinton Township, MI
1 edit | reply to Richard8655
nm |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Richard8655
said by Richard8655  :Mainstream having decent shows? Don't make me laugh. Whatever. If you think the subchannels have better content you're sadly mistaken. If you love them so much, get an antenna.
Bandwidth is relative and depends on who gets it.
Or how much a company has before subchannels came to be. Most companies doesn't allocate much (any?) space for subchannels for a reason. |
|
The Joker
join:2003-08-01
00001 | reply to Richard8655
Subchannels suckekekekekekeeeee |
|
The Joker
join:2003-08-01
00001
2 edits | reply to Richard8655
said by Richard8655 :Mainstream having decent shows? Don't make me laugh. Maybe that's why Americans know nothing about the world excepts themselves, Hollywood movies, and Michael Jackson. Mainstream channels are the lowest common denominator entertainment, and don't inform. And that's 95% of what the cable companies offer. The reason public television is there is to give people an intelligent alternative, and there's only a fraction of that out there. Subchannels would slightly expand that. And were not talking about a weather channel, as there's already a mainstream version. Bandwidth is relative and depends on who gets it. I disagree CSI Miami is great show with the sunglasses of Justice dude saving lives, wrestling is awesome, and Mythbusters is an exciting learning experience.
If you want boring content then you should get a dish, they have plenty of boring college documentary information crap like Link TV or get a government approved converter box, and now please leave wow cable! |
|
WOWer
@wideopenwest.com
| reply to Joe12345678
Re: Local station subchannels
said by Joe12345678 :bandwidth? having 60-70 analog eats up a lot of room. Unless WOW is recompressing the local HD channels, it doesn't take any extra bandwidth to carry the subchannels. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| It still eats up channel mapping space. And it still needs the modulation gear. It's not a free option to just add them. It costs money, and they don't see them as being needed. Look at all the other cable companies, very few of them carry many subchannels. Maybe one or two here and there, but thats it. |
|
WOWer
@omcastbusiness.net
| said by imrf :It still eats up channel mapping space. Congrats, I have actually never heard that argument before. It's completely bogus, though. They've got 999 channel numbers available to them, even if you take out 1-99 for analog you've still got 899 numbers. Can you be a bigger apologist?
said by imrf :And it still needs the modulation gear. The modulation gear that is already in place since they're carrying the main HD channel. You do not need any separate modulation equipment for the subchannels.
said by imrf :It's not a free option to just add them. If they're carrying the main HD channel, it is completely free to add the subchannels. Yes, it takes up a whole channel number, but I've already debunked that bogus argument.
The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, they simply don't want to carry the subchannels. It's not about equipment or bandwidth or channel numbers or any BS like that. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by WOWer :
Congrats, I have actually never heard that argument before. It's completely bogus, though. They've got 999 channel numbers available to them, even if you take out 1-99 for analog you've still got 899 numbers. Can you be a bigger apologist? You're foolish if you think it's just a simple thing to do. Can you be a bigger troll?
The modulation gear that is already in place since they're carrying the main HD channel. You do not need any separate modulation equipment for the subchannels. WRONG. They have to have open inputs/outputs on the modulation gear. If they don't have any then they can't inject the channel into the network. Just because a subchannel is already there OTA, it doesn't mean it's already there on a cable network. It doesn't work that way. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
If they're carrying the main HD channel, it is completely free to add the subchannels. And you know this for a fact? I'm going to say, NO, you're flat out wrong. They have to negotiate the carriage of subchannels. Just like they can't add a local HD channel without getting a contract to carry it. Thats why some areas get Fox HD first for example and other areas don't.
Yes, it takes up a whole channel number, but I've already debunked that bogus argument. You didn't debunk anything. Thats all your opinion.
The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, they simply don't want to carry the subchannels. Thats exactly right.
It's not about equipment or bandwidth or channel numbers or any BS like that. Again, that's your assumption. You have no idea why they aren't. But equipment and licensing can and very well may be a part of it. |
|
WOWer
@wideopenwest.com
| reply to imrf
Re: Local station subchannels
said by imrf :You're foolish if you think it's just a simple thing to do. Can you be a bigger troll? First you said that the problem was taking up space in the numbering scheme, now it's that adding a new channel mapping is some kind of arduous task. I can't tell if you're simply making things up as you go along, or you really think that you know what you're talking about. Either way, adding a channel mapping is trivial.
said by imrf :WRONG. They have to have open inputs/outputs on the modulation gear. I don't even know what this means. A modulator for this task has one input (for the 8VSB ATSC signal) and one output (for the QAM signal).
said by imrf :Just because a subchannel is already there OTA, it doesn't mean it's already there on a cable network. It doesn't work that way. Let me try and break this down for you. One 8VSB ATSC channel is 19.4mbps, and one QAM channel is 38.8mbps. Notice that two 8VSB ATSC channels exactly fit into one QAM channel! The simplest way to get OTA channels on to a cable system is to just change the modulation from 8VSB to QAM, and stuff two of them into one QAM channel. The actual payload is fully compatible, so no additional decoding or encoding is necessary. The end result is that the entire OTA data stream is put on to the cable network, including subchannels.
Now, I do not subscribe to WOW TV service, so I can't say for sure if they use this method or not. It is the cheapest method, so I have a strong feeling it's what they do. However, there are cable companies that choose to do further encoding/compression in order to fit three OTA HD channels into one QAM channel. In that case, it's not so simple. But I was never talking about that situation in the first place, so it doesn't matter.
said by imrf :You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah... I'm the one actually explaining my points in a technical manner, while you simply say that I'm wrong and spout off a bunch of nonsense. Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about.
said by imrf :They have to negotiate the carriage of subchannels. Just like they can't add a local HD channel without getting a contract to carry it. Thats why some areas get Fox HD first for example and other areas don't. I thought it was clear that I was talking about bandwidth and equipment costs, but apparently it wasn't. So let me make it clear: I was talking about bandwidth and equipment costs.
When you post your inevitable rebuttal, please make it technical this time. I made very clear technical statements in this post, and I'd expect any arguments to be pointing out specific technical errors. If you can't or won't do that, I'm not even going to bother responding again. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by WOWer :
Either way, adding a channel mapping is trivial. Maybe in your eyes it is. But in reality it isn't.
I don't even know what this means. A modulator for this task has one input (for the 8VSB ATSC signal) and one output (for the QAM signal). That's because you have no idea how a cable network operates. You clearly have no idea what the equipment cable companies use and how many inputs/outputs they have. Nor do you have any idea how many WOW may have free on their equipment.
Let me try and break this down for you. One 8VSB ATSC channel is 19.4mbps, and one QAM channel is 38.8mbps. Notice that two 8VSB ATSC channels exactly fit into one QAM channel! The simplest way to get OTA channels on to a cable system is to just change the modulation from 8VSB to QAM, and stuff two of them into one QAM channel. The actual payload is fully compatible, so no additional decoding or encoding is necessary. The end result is that the entire OTA data stream is put on to the cable network, including subchannels. No need to break it down. I'm fully aware how all this works. But again, in reality, it isn't as simple as just plugging in a fiber line and saying presto.
Now, I do not subscribe to WOW TV service, so I can't say for sure if they use this method or not. It is the cheapest method, so I have a strong feeling it's what they do. However, there are cable companies that choose to do further encoding/compression in order to fit three OTA HD channels into one QAM channel. In that case, it's not so simple. But I was never talking about that situation in the first place, so it doesn't matter. Then please stop speaking in which you have no idea what's going on.
]Yeah... I'm the one actually explaining my points in a technical manner, while you simply say that I'm wrong and spout off a bunch of nonsense. Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about. You aren't saying anything technical. You're saying what you think is the case. You have no idea how a cable network operates and you have no idea how WOW's gear operates. You're just guessing. So yes, you have no idea what you're talking about. OTA and QAM network are two totally different beasts.
thought it was clear that I was talking about bandwidth and equipment costs, but apparently it wasn't. Again, you're just pulling things from your backside.
I made very clear technical statements in this post, No, you didn't.
If you can't or won't do that, I'm not even going to bother responding again. Then please, for the love of God, stop posting. |
|
WOWer
@omcastbusiness.net
| Predictable response. Once again, you said nothing except that I was wrong, without providing a single shred of technical knowledge to actually prove that I'm wrong. I have nothing else to say on this topic, so I'll just let my previous posts speak for themselves. The people reading this thread can make up their own minds on who to believe. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by WOWer :
so I'll just let my previous posts speak for themselves. What do they say? They show that you don't know how a cable network operates. You seem to think that you know the insides and outs of them, but you clearly don't. But, hey, if you think you proved yourself, fine. But not many here take anonymous posts seriously. I know I don't. |
|
The Joker
join:2003-08-01
00001 | reply to Richard8655
Settle down children! |
|
