ITGuy72
Permanently Disco
Premium
join:2001-11-01
New York | Good news
Bring on more HD channels. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by ITGuy72  :Bring on more HD channels. Along with their SD Counterparts. Unless you have a HD STB/DVR having CV provide NetworkX-HD is of no use to you unless they also carry NetworkX-SD. For example, if they were to offer BBC-America (which is one of the most requested non-carried channels) only as BBC-AmericaHD they are not really offering it without also carrying BBC-America-SD. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by RARPSL :said by ITGuy72 :Bring on more HD channels. Along with their SD Counterparts. Unless you have a HD STB/DVR having CV provide NetworkX-HD is of no use to you unless they also carry NetworkX-SD. For example, if they were to offer BBC-America (which is one of the most requested non-carried channels) only as BBC-AmericaHD they are not really offering it without also carrying BBC-America-SD. They should simply offer the HD version to ALL subs. Save on the bandwidth, and simplify the channel listings.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to ITGuy72
If they're not forcing people to migrate, they can't kill off the analog to make room for more HD channels. All this does is force new buyers to buy more expensive digital tiers. Stop selling to new customers and discontinuing analog channels for everyone are two different things. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :said by RARPSL :said by ITGuy72 :Bring on more HD channels. Along with their SD Counterparts. Unless you have a HD STB/DVR having CV provide NetworkX-HD is of no use to you unless they also carry NetworkX-SD. For example, if they were to offer BBC-America (which is one of the most requested non-carried channels) only as BBC-AmericaHD they are not really offering it without also carrying BBC-America-SD. They should simply offer the HD version to ALL subs. Save on the bandwidth, and simplify the channel listings. They do now BUT you need a HD STB/DVR to view them. I suppose that they can push an update to the SD STBs/DVRs so they can view the 7xx channels in SD (as would occur if you have a HD box connected to a SD TV). I have a SD DVR and while I could swap it for a HD DVR to get access to the HDs, I'd need to clean out my old recordings that I have not yet viewed as well as recreate my recording schedule. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by RARPSL :They do now BUT you need a HD STB/DVR to view them. I suppose that they can push an update to the SD STBs/DVRs so they can view the 7xx channels in SD (as would occur if you have a HD box connected to a SD TV). I have a SD DVR and while I could swap it for a HD DVR to get access to the HDs, I'd need to clean out my old recordings that I have not yet viewed as well as recreate my recording schedule. I guess I never understood why Cable companies spend so much money dividing the services and increasing their costs substantially. If they were smart, they'd use exclusively use HD-capable receivers and DVRs, and when an HD version of a channel comes out, simply replace the SD version instead of taking up more bandwidth and adding a second channel to the lineup. People with SD tv's can still use HD receivers and watch HD-content downrezzed, so it's not a compatibility issue. And cable companies would only need to have 2 or 3 devices to support instead of 5 or 6 (usually 1 receiver and 2 DVRs for HD and SD a piece).
It seems like it costs so much to do it the way they're doing (even if it is all-digital now).
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by tiger72 :I guess I never understood why Cable companies spend so much money dividing the services and increasing their costs substantially. If they were smart, they'd use exclusively use HD-capable receivers and DVRs, and when an HD version of a channel comes out, simply replace the SD version instead of taking up more bandwidth and adding a second channel to the lineup. People with SD tv's can still use HD receivers and watch HD-content downrezzed, so it's not a compatibility issue. There is a problem with not carrying both the SD and HD feeds in some cases. There are some channels that have a separate line-up for their HD and SD feeds (not just a HD version of what is on the SD feed). There is also the case where at times the SD and HD feeds have different shows. This occurred recently when the HD and SD feed on a sports channel had different games and there were complaints due to the Cable System (I think it was CV) automatically showed the HD feed even if you tuned to the SD channel. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by RARPSL :said by tiger72 :I guess I never understood why Cable companies spend so much money dividing the services and increasing their costs substantially. If they were smart, they'd use exclusively use HD-capable receivers and DVRs, and when an HD version of a channel comes out, simply replace the SD version instead of taking up more bandwidth and adding a second channel to the lineup. People with SD tv's can still use HD receivers and watch HD-content downrezzed, so it's not a compatibility issue. There is a problem with not carrying both the SD and HD feeds in some cases. There are some channels that have a separate line-up for their HD and SD feeds (not just a HD version of what is on the SD feed). There is also the case where at times the SD and HD feeds have different shows. This occurred recently when the HD and SD feed on a sports channel had different games and there were complaints due to the Cable System (I think it was CV) automatically showed the HD feed even if you tuned to the SD channel. In the rare cases that the HD feed doesn't show what's on the SD feed, channels like Discovery HD (ie HDTheater) would obviously stay as separate channels. But that is very much an exception to the rule that TNT, FX, Fox, NBC, ABC, FNS, CNN, etc.. are all simply simulcasting their stations in 4:3 protected HD.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
·Comcast
| Discovery HD is not HD Theater. Discovery HD is an HD simulcast of Discovery Channel, whereas HD Theater is its own thing.
What pisses me off is that Comcast can't tell the difference. We have HD Theater, TLC HD, and Science Channel HD, but no Discovery HD. Which means no HD MythBusters. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by bsoft :Discovery HD is not HD Theater. Discovery HD is an HD simulcast of Discovery Channel, whereas HD Theater is its own thing. What pisses me off is that Comcast can't tell the difference. We have HD Theater, TLC HD, and Science Channel HD, but no Discovery HD. Which means no HD MythBusters. I meant the "old" DiscoveryHD before it was rebranded as HDTheater. My bad.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
