 bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA |
Ghee WhizMaybe I can watch a TV show on Comcast without it getting pixelated (if that's a real word) or freezing due to all the people watching On Demand. | |
|
 |  CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF. Premium Member join:2004-11-12 |
Re: Ghee Whizsaid by bigjimc:Maybe I can watch a TV show on Comcast without it getting pixelated (if that's a real word) or freezing due to all the people watching On Demand. um.. On Demand streams have nothing to do with your current digital cahnnels pixelating. | |
|
 |  |  bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA |
Re: Ghee WhizWell then. I should complain. What is the issue? | |
|
 |  |  |  89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-6 1:04 pm
Re: Ghee WhizHe's right. That's caused by the horses-ass engineering applied by Comcast in the first place. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  bigjimc join:2003-04-21 Middleboro, MA |
Re: Ghee WhizComcast? or was it ATT BI? or was it MediaOne? or was Continental Cablevision?
Maybe it was Jimmy Hoffa? I heard he was buried in the head works. | |
|
 |  | |
to bigjimc
Pixellation has to do with the CPU in your cable box being undermatched to the data processing requirements. | |
|
 |  |  Vchat20Landing is the REAL challenge Premium Member join:2003-09-16 Columbus, OH |
Vchat20
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 5:38 pm
Re: Ghee WhizActually, thats is wrong too. Pixellation in a cable system is usually caused by, 99.99% of the time, bad incoming signal from the cable line. When everything begins to pixellate, flip over to the diag channel on your box and look at the signals first. | |
|
 |  |  CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF. Premium Member join:2004-11-12 |
to DufiefData
said by DufiefData:Pixellation has to do with the CPU in your cable box being undermatched to the data processing requirements. Well then every single person is pixelating because they all have the same CPU.  Its signal related. | |
|
 |  | |
mr anon to bigjimc
Anon
2006-Nov-7 11:02 am
to bigjimc
My secondary complaint would be pixilation, freezing, loss of sound and movment ON MY ANALOG CABLE >. *wants to yell colorful adjative*
I know how its possible and blah blah, but I don't like it I don't like it one bit! Its exactly the reason we got rid of Digital cable (besides the price)
The first complaint is that I can see the compression and I thought it would finally bring a near 100% clean signal and look like broadcast with a great antenna, but it doesn't looks worse than ananlog cable in the good area. | |
|
 dcurrey Premium Member join:2004-06-29 Mason, OH |
dcurrey
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 9:57 am
Go digitalCouldn't they just convert to all digital cable and drop the analog completely. This would force everyone to get cable boxes for all the TVs in the home bringing in more income. | |
|
 |  gar187erI DID this for a living join:2006-06-24 Seattle, WA |
Re: Go digitalyea but it woudl be against the code to do so, so many people dont want everything, and some people also just wanted limited service.... | |
|
 |  |  dcurrey Premium Member join:2004-06-29 Mason, OH 1 edit |
dcurrey
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 10:02 am
Re: Go digitalTrue. But I am positive they could still get the exact same channels as they did but they would be digital instead. Only thing is they now need a cable box to get them. | |
|
 |  |  |  | |
Re: Go digitalsaid by dcurrey:I am sure they are. But I am positive they could still get the exact same channels as they did but they would be digital instead. Only thing is they now need a cable box to get them. And that would require paying rental on a digital box. It also causes problems when watching one show and taping another. Unless you pay for a TIVO device from the cable provider. And if you have multiple TV's then you have multiple boxes. I am not about to give those slobs over at the cable company more money. When my cable bill begins exceeding my electric bill there is something seriously wrong with the cable system. Forcing many to pay for technology that they don't want, don't need, and certainly cannot afford just so the few can enjoy their desires is simply not reasonable. If the few want their full share of digital then let them pay the cost. Don't force me to get a digital box and pay for a digital box so you can enjoy your PFV movies. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  ronpinImagine Reality join:2002-12-06 Nirvana 1 edit |
ronpin
Member
2006-Nov-6 10:57 am
"Headend up their tail-end"...if they buy these chips instead of just giving away STB's to basic tier subs. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | |
to raythompsontn
Re: Go digitalDon't force me to get a digital box and pay for a digital box so you can enjoy your PFV movies. It's going to happen sooner or later. Fortunately, the smaller set tops are very affordable. Your bill may go up $1. And you likely wouldn't have to pay for any extra channels that you don't currently receive or want. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | |
Re: Go digitalHopefully it is much later. I am not sure where you are to get a set top box for $1. I am unable to determine exactly what Charter's prices are from their web site, but as I recall the last ad they mailed the digital level was about $5 more plus about $5 per receiver. It doesn't take very many TVs and recorders to drive the price up unacceptably at that rate. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | |
MadMANN3
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 1:47 pm
Re: Go digitalsaid by raybrett:Hopefully it is much later. I am not sure where you are to get a set top box for $1. I am unable to determine exactly what Charter's prices are from their web site, but as I recall the last ad they mailed the digital level was about $5 more plus about $5 per receiver. It doesn't take very many TVs and recorders to drive the price up unacceptably at that rate. I don't know about Charter. I know that other providers, Comcast in particular in digital simulcast areas, offer an all-digital set top box about the size of a cable modem. They offer an enhanced cable package in a lot of areas with said set top for $1 more than a standard analog cable package and it matches or exceeds the channel lineup with VOD included. Granted, prices will vary in different areas, but you get the idea. When it comes time to get rid of analog altogether, I would wager that the price of cable be simplified to include the set top instead of breaking it down into price of programming and rental fees. Multiple rooms may differ, but keep in mind, the new converters are smaller and cheaper. The existing converters have digital and analog tuners and cost much more than the newer all digital boxes. People are naturally afraid of change, but I think this kind of change won't be as painful as people think. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
to raythompsontn
said by raythompsontn:Forcing many to pay for technology that they don't want, don't need, and certainly cannot afford just so the few can enjoy their desires is simply not reasonable. As far as the 1996 Telecomm Act is concerned, you're not forced to buy anything. Almost everyone has choices besides their cable provider. You have a choice of two satellite providers, both of which tend to be cheaper than cable. And/or you can put up an OTA antenna and receive free, over-the-air channels. The Telecomm Act directed the FCC to adopt the OTARD Rule, which means that, in most cases, your local gov't, your homeowners' association, or your landlord can't prevent you from putting up that OTA antenna or satellite dish. Now if you say that you can only get a few channels over the air, well, "cable channels" are private, subscription-based services; i.e., they're luxuries that you have no inherent "right" to receive. You have no right to get a Mercedes, either; you gotta pay. | |
|
 |  |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
to dcurrey
said by dcurrey:True. But I am positive they could still get the exact same channels as they did but they would be digital instead. Only thing is they now need a cable box to get them. Oooooooh just imagine all the extra cash from FORCING people to have a cable box. CHURN BABY CHURN! | |
|
 |  |  FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to gar187er
said by gar187er:yea but it would be against the code to do so, so many people don't want everything, and some people also just wanted limited service.... What code is that? The dropping of analog will happen over time in all cable systems. And I think many cable companies will use the "Over the Air" mandate to switch to digital to accomplish dropping analog. There is no rule or law forcing cable to drop analog when OTA does, but most people don't know that and the confusion about it will allow them to sneak a dropping of analog in to the same time frame. | |
|
 |  |  |  | |
Re: Go digitalMost Franchise agreements state that you have to keep a certain amount of cable usable without a set top box. Also for those services that done need a box, giving them one complicates a few things.
1.) Credit checks will need to be ran on all services to get them without a prepay. This could potentially turn away customers who want in on the basic cable setups so that they can skip the $150-$300 prepayment cost for setting up digital tiers of service.
2.) It would require an even larger supply of set top boxes. Even though they are getting cheaper and cheaper as time goes on, the small DCT700 is still an expensive unit. I personally see tons of those boxes go up for sale at a flea market because some smuck thinks they own once they stopped paying their cable bill so you're looking at a definite rate increase not because of the broadcasters increasing charges, but to cover your neighbor hawking our equipment.
3.) We'd have to include a set top box with the cost and then increase the higher tiers to offset the cost of the lower tier. So thus another cost increase to supplement the lower levels of service that didn't need a box before.
Overall, I think it'd be better from a cable standpoint to basically 'end of life' any TV that isn't ready for digital level cable services by either a built in digital tuner or a cable card. But then people would complain about that one too. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 10:50 am
Re: Go digitalsaid by MrChupacabra:Most Franchise agreements state that you have to keep a certain amount of cable usable without a set top box. Also for those services that done need a box, giving them one complicates a few things. Most cable franchise agreements run about 10 yrs. When these are expiring(avg over next 5 yrs), I'd bet a lot of money that the cable companies will no longer agree to keep analog channels as part of the renewal. Also, if a national franchise law is passed, it could contain a provision wiping out all local agreements at time of passing. Cable companies will kill off analog channels as soon as legally possible. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-6 1:11 pm
Re: Go digitalsaid by FFH5:When these are expiring(avg over next 5 yrs), I'd bet a lot of money that the cable companies will no longer agree to keep analog channels as part of the renewal. Maybe not, but eliminating all analog is customer-hostile and will disrupt many people's television watching style. Not that the cable industry has ever been customer-centric, but this would cause an incredible churn rate among those who have more than a couple of television devices in use. Nobody is going to install a cable box on every TV or video recording device, and unless the cable companies can come up with equivalent technology (as is proposed by Broadlogic) they are opening the door for non-trivial customer loss. Given the choice between renting a half dozen cable boxes at $5+ a month each and still not being able to record what you want or going to (for example) FiOS with their analog equivalent service which do you think a person would choose? As for me, when Comcast eliminates analog is when I eliminate Comcast. At that point there is no point to keeping them around. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  Vchat20Landing is the REAL challenge Premium Member join:2003-09-16 Columbus, OH |
Vchat20
Premium Member
2006-Nov-6 5:52 pm
Re: Go digitalAnd what? Go to DirecTV which STILL requires a box for every tv? Those boxes sometimes becoming even more expensive than cableco offerings. Or FiOS /IF/ its available and even then, its running a VERY similar system to whats noted here in the article (i dont know if verizon does a digital>analog conversion at the ONT or they just send the baseband video right down the fiber line.)
Nevertheless, a complete conversion to full digital /IS/ coming whether you like it or not. It is a natural progression for the service. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Rammer Premium Member join:2001-03-06 |
to FFH5
the only problem with that is the amount of cable system that are analog only systems as comcast here is analog only as they say it is too costly too upgrade the entire system at this time | |
|
 |  |  |  |  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
to MrChupacabra
said by MrChupacabra:1.) Credit checks will need to be ran on all services to get them without a prepay. This could potentially turn away customers who want in on the basic cable setups so that they can skip the $150-$300 prepayment cost for setting up digital tiers of service. FYI, in my area, Comcast doesn't do any credit checks and doesn't require any prepay/deposit; they'll give you any level of service you want, no questions asked, PROVIDED you do not have a previous outstanding balance with them. As long as you are square with the house, the house is yours. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | |
Re: Go digital
Seems like you are also forgetting the minor fact of the converter boxes for digital being available. I haven't seen anything that says that the current FCC mandate for a standard channel scheme on cable can, or will be changed, which, I would think, puts a bit of a kink in the cable.
| |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?
...or another doubling of broadband [Internet] capacity (which today operates out of a single 6 MHz channel slot).
So Comcast can easily double or triple (or more) their internet speeds simply by killing a few analog channels? IMHO, I doubt it, or they would have done it already. | |
|
 |  | |
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?Speed increase by cannibalizing analog channels vs thousands of calls to the call centers complaining why such and such channel was moved to digital.
One is easy and cheap to do. The other is costly and kills call center service levels and could be used by a competitor to get customers from Comcast. | |
|
 |  |  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?Used by a competitor to get customers from Comcast? In my (and almost all) area, if Comcast is your cable provider, they are the ONLY cable provider in the area. That means the only competition is DirecTV and Dish Network. Both sat providers REQUIRE a set-top box just like digital cable. So how could Comcast lose customers?
I think killing just one analog channel to double their bandwidth would be great competition to things like FIOS. They would gain many more customers than they would lose.
IMHO, this is 2006; welcome to the digital era. If you want analog, go buy yourself a VCR and let the rest of us progress. You couldn't buy a cylinder record by 1956, and you shouldn't be able to get analog TV in 2006. Fifty-some-odd years is simply too long for any technology. | |
|
 |  |  |  89707828 (banned) join:2006-10-24 Chicago, IL |
89707828 (banned)
Member
2006-Nov-6 1:50 pm
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?said by PolarBear03:Fifty-some-odd years is simply too long for any technology. We'll be shutting off your gas, electricity and water & sewer tomorrow then, since you have no use for 50+ year old technology. And sorry about your car. We'll be taking that too. As will we your computers. Do you have any idea how absurd that comment was? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?I think you misunderstood it. I understand my comment may have been taken a bit to generally and literally, but what I mean was not that a 50 year old technology should be discontinued, but should be upgraded and improved.
I'm not talking about shutting off TV completely, just advancing it to a new technology.
First, I don't see gas & water as technology (but I guess in a way, everything is a technology). On the other hand, I am sure methods used to deliver both have improved greatly over the last 50 years.
Second, I am certainly not a lineman, but I am sure that the way electricity is transmitted and delivered to your home is much different (and better and more efficient) than it was 50 years ago. If it weren't, I think the grid would have been so overloaded this country would have burnt to the ground decades ago (we use a lot more electricity than we used to!).
I know FOR SURE that my 2002 Explorer has MUCH newer and better technology than ANY car produced in 1952 (fuel injection, 5-speed auto, full-time 4wd for example).
Finally, fifty years ago, a computer that would've done what my current computer does today probably would have required about as much room as the city of Seattle. But new technologies came out, and now I can fit my computer in to a backpack.
None of these technologies are the same as they were 50 years ago (I could write for days about if they were), so thus, my comment is correct: Fifty years is too long for any technology.
Technology evolves. Television is no exception. It simply can't stay the same forever. Hell, in just 3 years, I witnessed Comcast go from 1.5m/256k in my area to 8m/768k. That is more than double the speed every year. The same advances need to be made with TV. | |
|
 |  |
 |  CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF. Premium Member join:2004-11-12 |
to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:
...or another doubling of broadband [Internet] capacity (which today operates out of a single 6 MHz channel slot).
So Comcast can easily double or triple (or more) their internet speeds simply by killing a few analog channels? IMHO, I doubt it, or they would have done it already. They ARE doing it. See any premiums on your analog? See various other channels dropping off here and there? Its "coaxing" people to digital and freeing up bandwidth. You cant kill of 70-80 channels overnight without creating a shit storm. | |
|
 |  |  | |
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?
There never have been any premiums on analog without being scrambled in one manner or another. There still are systems with the old system where you could use a notch filter to clear up premiums. The newer systems just dont put new channels in the analog teir, they just shift them around.
| |
|
 |  |  |  CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF. Premium Member join:2004-11-12 |
Re: Double Speed vs. One Analog Channel?said by Fatal Vector:There never have been any premiums on analog without being scrambled in one manner or another. Scrambeld or not, its there taking up space. Thanks for playing. | |
|
 ARRIS SB8200
|
Great Potential for this technology.I thought of something like this last year when Fios Rolled out. I figured, since Verizon can have a box on the side of the house that is capable of generating analog NTSC and digital QAM's from fiber, why can't cable make a box that does the same, but it derives from a different media type (coax vs. fiber).
Sure the boxes cost a lot, but it will transmit 80 NTSC analog channels through a whole household, rather than having an STB for every TV, which will also add up. Not only that, but the cable company only really has to install these for people that still want analog channels. Let us people with digital and DVR's alone. Sure we might have more than one TV set, but why not lease to own cheap all digital STB's like the Motorola DCT-700 for the secondary sets? Perhaps allow us to purchase them at major electronics stores and call in to activate them much like we currently can do with Cable modems. I think more people will go digital if they don't have to pay a ridiculous additional outlet fee. In our area it's $8.90 for each additional STB. They are not going to get a digital STB on every TV at that price. Perhaps if I payed $8.90 a month only until the converter is paid off (lease to own), then more people would go all digital.
SDV doesn't work with Cable Card 1.0, so maybe this is a better solution? This would free up tons of bandwidth for HD, HD on Demand, bonded HSI Data channels, etc... You could have that analog output for any TV without an STB, and then your straight un-modified pass through output to all your digital boxes. Who knows, they could put a MOCA gateway in it as well and pave way for multi-room DVR.
I think this has the potential to really take off. | |
|
 |  •••• |
 | |
A little price comparison I came up with....I'll give you an example for a cable provider....
Where I live there are give or take 180,000 basic cable subscribers....
The cable company would have to visit each one, and install a box to do this all within a time line that would make it all a feasible project.....
Imagine buying 180,000 home converters at we'll say $200.00 a piece
$36,000,000 for the devices.....
Then the cost for the call centers to call and arrange appointments with all 180,000 cutomers to install the device at their home....
$1,000,000
Then they would have to do 180,000 truck rolls...
$8,000,000
So right now we are at
$45,000,000
Plus redesign of the system adding power supplies etc to power the devices on the side of the home....
And this would have to be done within a quick time frame to make it worthy.. (lots of OT or Contractors)
And this is for a medium sized cable system.... Imagine a major Metro area like Chicago, LA, Phoenix which have 400,000-600,000+ subs.....
And bandwidth would still be eaten up inside the home on the home coax and boxes would still be needed for HD and Digital... | |
|
 |  •••••••••••• |
 | |
Build TVs with Qam tunersThey should just build on new TVs with Qam tuners and open up the basic 80 channels Qam channels on the network. People can still just "plug in the cable" and cable company frees up a ton of bandwidth without imposing on the customer a STB. | |
|
 |  •••••• |
 Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
|
Wrong ComparisonThe upgrade may be a tough sell to cable providers; the Journal notes each gateway could cost as much as two set-top cable boxes. Wrong comparison. Its immaterial what the set top box costs if converting to 100% digital is not an option. The correct comparison is to what it costs to upgrade the physical plant to support smaller subnodes. It may or may not be cheaper to push the analog conversion out to the edge of the network. | |
|
 |
 |
 |
|