dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2122

Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI

Doc Casualty

Member

When will cable and dbs providers end simulcasting SD channels?

I posted this question on another site and thought I would ask here too.

As Charter is about to go all digital in my area, I was looking at the new channel lineup and was thinking about what a waste of bandwidth simulcasting all of these channels in both SD and HD represents from my perspective. I was a fairly early HD adopter but realize there are plenty of people who still have 4:3 CRTVs only that are going strong. I still have one in my bedroom and have had an HD STB or DVR feeding it for years utilizing the analog output and don't mind at all watching 16:9 content on it, though I know many people can't stand any black bars on their screen. At this point barring any regulatory mandate for SD by non-broadcast providers of which I'm unaware, I can only imagine that catering to those who prefer the full-screen for the 4:3 TVs is about the only reason to maintain this simulcasting. Of course if a particular network only has an SD feed then it only makes sense to maintain that in the lineup.

Anyway, most if not all of the remaining CRTs will eventually fail, so it seems inevitable that SD channels will have outlived their usefulness. Do any of the non-broadcast providers have plans for ending their simulcast SD channels at some point?
ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

ke4pym

Premium Member

said by Doc Casualty:

Anyway, most if not all of the remaining CRTs will eventually fail, so it seems inevitable that SD channels will have outlived their usefulness.

Probably not anytime soon. Though I have no proof of that, I do have a perfectly fine Zenith TV that was made in 1986. In the scheme of things, SD channels don't take up that much bandwidth. And even broadcasters are doing it (have you dialed up a sub channel lately?).

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

said by ke4pym:

Probably not anytime soon. Though I have no proof of that, I do have a perfectly fine Zenith TV that was made in 1986. In the scheme of things, SD channels don't take up that much bandwidth. And even broadcasters are doing it (have you dialed up a sub channel lately?).

Yeah, as far as Comcast cable TV is concerned, subscribers have been complaining that Comcast has not been adding many channels to their lineup lately, and the few that they have were the SD version: »[Content] So does Comcast ever add channels?

In that thread, it is my theory that Comcast is saving spectrum space to add more HSI carriers and for transition to DOCSIS 3.1. Comcast is also looking to deploy Converged Cable Access Platform (CCAP) to support more video-over-IP services with their new X1/X2 platform: »www.lightreading.com/wha ··· d/700273

Also in that thread, SeattleMatt See Profile said he thinks that that "Comcast is going to announce that via the X1/X2 platform - all new HD will be delivered via IP. They'll then slowly migrate more channels over to IP as needed to reclaim more QAM's for HSI. ... Yes, this would "screw" existing customers with older boxes - but will be an incentive for them to upgrade to the new platform"

I think that Comcast will eventually end up providing only SD channels to these older, non-X1/X2 HD boxes, where they can now pack 10 to 12 SD channels into one 256QAM digital video carrier. At that time, anyone who wants to continue receiving HD channels will have to get them via IP, either with an X1/X2 box or via an "Xfinity on Campus"-like app (»www.multichannel.com/dis ··· e/147674) on their "Smart" HDTVs or PCs/game consoles/tablets/smartphones.

So, as far as I can figure, Comcast won't be removing their SD channels anytime soon either.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

Hayward0 to Doc Casualty

Premium Member

to Doc Casualty
For satellite a much more confining thing (much more limited overall spectrum bandwidth) and probably happen there first. Both Sat already doing free HD for life new sign up. Also removes the cost of two lines of receivers, which can output SD, and makes the HD with new upgrade instant. Unfortunate the still have the bug up there asses about allowing that to existing customers, or would have already happened maybe.

Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI

2 edits

Doc Casualty to ke4pym

Member

to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:

Probably not anytime soon.

I don't doubt you are correct but my hunch is that it will only be a matter of a few/several years, like by the end of the decade. I guess ultimately as long as the providers see it being a moneymaker, they will continue doing it.
said by telcodad:

I do have a perfectly fine Zenith TV that was made in 1986.

I'm sure we could find a functional Muntz from the 1950s somewhere and most of us have 2nd, 3rd or Xth TVs that will continue to see less and less use with time and will probably function for quite awhile because of that. It's clear that the number of HDTVs continues to grow and no more CRT 4:3s are being made. Here's the stats from one year ago re: HDTV penetration and I'm sure it has grown since then. »broadcastengineering.com ··· hdtv-set
In addition, many older folks eschew change while most younger ones embrace it and they're the ones in the driver's seat.
said by telcodad:

SD channels don't take up that much bandwidth

Relatively that is true. I've read one analog channel's bandwidth = ten SD channels or two HD channels, so a ratio of 5 SD to 1 HD channel. When my all digital transition with Charter takes place in a few weeks, I'll have 180 HD channels out of 400+ total channels, so there apparently is quite of SD space there and again, it's all of the redundant ones that had me scratching my head.

Telcodad's post is very interesting and adds another dimension that I think suggests the cablecos will be interested in using that spectrum for other things in time, providing even more reason to end SD channels at some point. The other thing that got me thinking about this is now (or soon) that all of the cable networks will be locked behind encryption, they will be in a much stronger position to dictate the direction this heads. People have been howling about losing their clear QAM will now be transitioned with a DTA, free for some over the next 2-5 years, then for a fee and it will be a simple step to just have only STB options that do whatever is needed with the strictly HD channels, including analog feeds for those CRTs, and eradicate the DTAs. Honestly, I think they'll be doing a lot of people a favor by giving them nothing but HD channels for their HDTVs, especially since there is no longer an HD tier charge and so many people have never apparently unlocked that potential of their 16:9 sets. But then again, I could be wrong.

ETA:
quote:
And even broadcasters are doing it (have you dialed up a sub channel lately?).
I honestly see that as quite a different animal. This was actually one of the selling points of digital TV to the broadcast industry because let's face it, prior to this they had no way of expanding their channel lineup. Now that more people have come to appreciate OTA HDTV there is actually a competing interest on their airwaves between quality and quantity that apparently plays out differently in different areas from what I've read. An no I personally haven't dialed up any of these sub-channels as I'm in a mostly deep-fringe to ultra-deep fringe area and OTA is not a realistic option for me.
Doc Casualty

Doc Casualty to Hayward0

Member

to Hayward0
said by Hayward0:

For satellite . . . probably happen there first

I think you are correct and I'm actually kind of surprised it already hasn't, though I guess economically it must be making sense to their bean counters to keep SD alive.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

4 edits

Hayward0

Premium Member

I think its mostly the cost of replacing all those existing SD receivers.

But they they could start by not offering SD receivers anymore to new subs and just HD SD compat receivers. Yes they cost somewhat more to make... but not all that much.

Personally I have had a HD capable TV for 8 years but never went for it because of the upgrade cost and added monthly HD fee. Plus much less HD content then (maybe 20%) now since broadcast finally forced HD just a few years ago near everything is, but for channels that specialize in old SD content, or low demand.

Well had aim alignment issue after a roofing job, maybe LNB die on old dish and thing in salt environment corroded tech just replaced the whole thing, with a new 3 horn HD LNB (maybe they don't do the old dual SD anymore?) Again why the cost of duplication... for not a lot of cost and instant upgradeable.

Found a refurbished 722 HD receiver online for half DISH's upgrade cost, plus already had dish installed finally went for it.
(also before installed power CO transformer blew and surge fried a bunch of stuff in my house including the old SD receiver so got the 772 just days before, close enough to date of incident not really noticed and was paid for by them as replacement so in the end no cost)

Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI

Doc Casualty

Member

said by Hayward0:

think its mostly the cost of replacing all those existing SD receivers.

It's been years since I had DirecTV and back then you bought your own equipment. Heck, I even did my own install. I even upgraded to my own HD receiver before I went back to cable, once Charter finally offered HD in my area. I do recall that D* transitioned from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 at one point, rendering the old receivers obsolete, which I believe happened with DishTV too. Was that before or after people were buying their own equipment from the satcos? In other words, who paid for the new receivers at that point? Don't most new subscribers get their equipment as part of signing up for a two year contract with the satcos now? So I guess at this point the burden would be on the company but as equipment needs replacement, it could be figured in the rollout.

Dish actually charges more for HD tier still? Interesting. I could never understand that and was glad when Charter dropped that charge.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

4 edits

Hayward0

Premium Member

No the MPG2-4 transition was pretty much when that all changed unless you chose to buy equipment, which had been reasonable and suddenly overnight doubled..

And you if owned were grandfather but only for a few years before the replacement equipment became considered leased with a tease bone of sorry but here is a free month of Whatever pemium, like that makes up for BS.
ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

ke4pym to Doc Casualty

Premium Member

to Doc Casualty
said by Doc Casualty:

This was actually one of the selling points of digital TV to the broadcast industry because let's face it, prior to this they had no way of expanding their channel lineup.

Actually, no it wasn't. Very early on, stations were mandated to use their 6MHz channel for 1 channel and nothing else. The FCC /really/ wanted them to use it for HD content only. Eventually the stations and by extension, the NAB got the FCC to see it their way. Most stations will use 2/3'rds of their 6MHz license for HD and then use the rest for sub channels. Some stations, you may find, do not do sub channels because of the educational content requirements set by the FCC.

Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI

Doc Casualty

Member

said by ke4pym:

Actually, no it wasn't.

I appreciate your viewpoint but think this is much more complicated than either of us stated here. I'm guessing you understand, perhaps better than me what a story of political gamesmanship this was and as has been said before was never about giving the public "pretty pictures". "Selling points" was a poor choice of words on my part as the broadcasters initially were only trying not to lose spectrum to land mobile, pitched the HDTV idea which Congress and FCC bought but then did not have agreement amongst themselves, many who saw HDTV as expensive and unnecessary. As the concept of DTV evolved, it was only the promise of expanded revenue pathways through multicasting that brought the majority of broadcasters on board with moving forward as they were perfectly happy making money without substantial additional investment. That is the selling point of which I spoke. IMHO the consumers really did end up being the winners here with the development of HDTV, far beyond its OTA use, and it's unfortunate (from what I understand) in those markets where multichannels degrade the pretty pictures but such is the cost of doing business.

Nevertheless, I still believe the discussion of broadcast subchannels has limited bearing on simulcasting SD and HD channels on subscription cable and satellite systems.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

1 edit

Hayward0 to ke4pym

Premium Member

to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:

Some stations, you may find, do not do sub channels because of the educational content requirements set by the FCC.

Actually there is one station in Miami that does no HD and 6 SD 3 Entertainment and 3 Shopping

Most cable has dropped analog SD or soon will, and any SD duplication is digital. Comcast did here a year or so ago.

Doc Casualty
join:2005-02-06
Harbor Springs, MI

Doc Casualty

Member

said by Hayward0:

any SD duplication is digital.

That gets back to my original point and question. I decided to do a little reading and get up to speed where cable/sat were headed and agree with one of the previous posters that cable/sat RF transmission may be a bit of moot point as time goes on. I think the providers will likely be merging into some kind of RF/IPTV offering which may eventually be all IPTV, so I'm beginning to think my question will end up being answered by a new paradigm shift.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

Hayward0

Premium Member

At least as implemented today IPTV is far too inefficient... OK for minor on demand... but not for general live viewing demands, oddly enough many still do which certainly makes advertisers happy there are some left. Then again many on demand live are ad unskippable too.

Personally but rarely since 1978 I was a very minor viewer VCR owner have pretty much never watched an ad since but for the ones visually stimulating enough to go back and look at.

Something Madison Ave still hasn't quite latched onto... yu want to stop BS scanning make them eye catching.