  wruckman Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | About time! It saves on bandwidth but you'll have to have a little more beefy hardware to decode the format. Especially if it is HD or above HD quality.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|
 | | | Re: About time! Yes it's about time they made this move. More options for customers is a good thing. Hope everyone adapts something comparable.
Cablevision is offering over 30HD channels for free to its subscribers,WoW. Wish they were here in my area. Sucks when your politicians are owned by the local companies here. | |
|
| |  ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:17 | Re: About time! Ever notice that the people who play World of Warcraft spell wow as "WoW", even when not used as an acronym?
Like "WoW, that was totally amazing."
Sorry, it makes me lol. | |
|
| | bobny1
join:2004-09-10
Bronx, NY
1 edit | Some Cablevision HD channels are good to ok. But the rest are crappy ones. Like who wants to watch black and white HD, old Japanese samurai movies from the 1960s, etc. Besides, most of the "free" channels are free over the air broadcast channels...Pure propaganda! | |
|
 dmeyer
join:2002-08-14
Austin, TX | SDV vs MPEG4? Brighthouse cable here in Indianapolis just added 5 HD channels to their 10-channel HD lineup, bringing their total to about 15. Supposedly they are using SDV (switched digital video) for these new channels according to some of the folks over on AVSforum. If the existing STB's can do SDV then what need is there for MPEG4? I just wish they'd get rid of some of the analog home shopping/weather radar channels and free up some precious space for more HD stations. | |
|
| zed260Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1 | Re: SDV vs MPEG4? mpeg4 and sdv can both help add more channels they complement each other | |
|
| | droobiePremium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME | Re: SDV vs MPEG4? As well as guarantee that everyone will need a STB that they can charge a fat rental fee on.  | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit |  What happens to all those new TV's with QAM tuners w MPEG2
I wonder how many sets do MPEG4 as well as MPEG2? | |
|
| | | Re: What happens to all those new TV's with QAM tuners w MPEG2 Odds are they'll leave the unencytped channels alone since the FCC would love another reason to start enacting stupid 70% rules. For all ten people using cablecard TVs though they're probably SOL if SDV doesn't make them useless first. So much for cable ready TVs. | |
|
| |  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: What happens to all those new TV's with QAM tuners w MPEG2 there are a lot of people that use CableCARDs....it is just the cable cos that try to make you think there aren't.
For many people with second TVs, CaleCARD is the best option. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Don't forget all of the existing STBs that cablecos will have to replace in the migration. And during the migration, the necessity to double (triple) up transmission streams since they'll need to continue their analog, MPEG2, and then add MPEG4 streams. I don't see this move happening any time soon. I'd lay my money on removing analog transmissions to free up huge amounts of bandwidth before I'd bet on an MPEG4 transition. | |
|
| wruckman Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | You will have to replace them with updated hardware or get a nice firmware update to support it. Only time will tell.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by ThrowDemsOut:I guess the cable companies will just scramble everything making the QAM tuners worthless and make users have to use cablecards with sets so equipped. Cox does this already in areas it charges the HD box premium to ensure they get that box fee!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: What happens to all those new TV's with QAM tuners w MPEG2 They do it in places where they don't charge the box fee, also. Like Tulsa, where only the Big 4 and PBS are in the clear. | |
|
approval from:
russotto 
| It's because Cable has more options The simple answer is cable has more options than the satellite services. They have the new technologies like expanded bandwidth from DOCSIS 3.0 and switched video. If they introduce a switched video service where they only send the channels down the node that are actually being watched then they have plenty of bandwidth and can continue to use their existing set-top boxes. That saves them some money while providing the customer more bandwidth, or more channels, or just a better quality (less compressed) picture.
With the satellite services they can only add on new satellites (very expensive) or find a way to get more channels in the same bandwidth like MPEG-4. It makes sense for them to move to MPEG-4 quickly since it provides them with some immediate benefits. I suspect the cable companies will do the move eventually but with their expanded options they don't need to do it yet. | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Self serving statement Yes Motorola is hoping that every single cable set top box will be replaced by 2010 but that won't happen. How about something consumers really need like an agreement on download-able security controlled by an independent third party (not CableLabs) between U.S. cable companies and television manufacturers. | |
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | MPEG 4... so 1080p? According to readings about initial HDTV broadcast service, the reason that no broadcaster started supplying a 1080p video feed is because the required bandwidth would be too much to legally pass over the cables according to FCC ruling at the time. And for years, those in the know have been saying 1080p is perfectly possible even with bog-standard component video cables (YPbPr/YCbCr).
So now that they are moving to MPEG-4 encoding, does that mean that we can start to expect to see broadcast feeds coming in at 1080p? Or are they still hanging on to 1080i/720p?
Seems like it would be a killer app for 1080p TV manufacturers if the broadcasters can start pumping out 1080p content ASAP.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
droobiePremium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME | Uhm, Dish Network? Not only has DirecTV started doing MPEG4, but Dish Network started doing it years before DirecTV did. Isn't it funny how that doesn't make it into the article though? | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Uhm, Dish Network? said by droobie:Not only has DirecTV started doing MPEG4, but Dish Network started doing it years before DirecTV did. Isn't it funny how that doesn't make it into the article though? is DTV still HD-LITE in mpeg4 areas?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | droobiePremium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME | Re: Uhm, Dish Network? I think HD-LITE is slowly starting to go away.
DTV is mostly not HD-Lite now, but some programmers (TNT, A&E, TBS, etc.) are doing something worse known as Stretch-o-Vision, where they stretch 4:3 shows to 16:9. Let's just say Costanza on Seinfeld has a REALLY HUGE HEAD then. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Uhm, Dish Network? said by droobie:I think HD-LITE is slowly starting to go away. DTV is mostly not HD-Lite now, but some programmers (TNT, A&E, TBS, etc.) are doing something worse known as Stretch-o-Vision, where they stretch 4:3 shows to 16:9. Let's just say Costanza on Seinfeld has a REALLY HUGE HEAD then. They only stretch the edge of the picture.. the leave the center alone. Still, it's VERY annoying to watch. | |
|
| Brigrat
join:2003-09-01
Lovington, NM
1 edit | Nobody cares about Dish...except a few fanboys...
DirecTV has the sports packages that make HD worth the extra cash...everyone has the network HD crap that Dish offers... | |
|
| | droobiePremium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME | Re: Uhm, Dish Network? Not everyone cares to pay 250$ for NFL Sunday Ticket (350 if you want it in HD). As it goes I get Patriots games over an OTA antenna for free.
I was already a DirecTV customer. It's nice to see they finally got channels I've had on Dish for years. | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Uhm, Dish Network? said by droobie:Not everyone cares to pay 250$ for NFL Sunday Ticket (350 if you want it in HD). As it goes I get Patriots games over an OTA antenna for free. Just a small correction, Sunday Ticket was $280 this year. I'm sure next year it will be $300. | |
|
|
|
