Are You Being Cheated by Digital Cable? 291
Lauren Weinstein writes "Even though your cable company may claim that a channel is in a digital tier that you're paying for, they may be sending it to you in analog form, with associated negative effects. Surprise! Are You Being Cheated by Digital Cable? 'You're paying for digital, you should get digital. Outside of the lower video and audio quality that can be present on many analog feeds, third-party devices (like cableCARD TiVos) which could otherwise record a digital signal directly, will be forced to re-digitize an analog signal, with inevitable quality loss in the process. But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received?'"
Re:Very interesting ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Got cable, but slowly transitioning... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I'd rather pay a la carte for shows we like than deal with the cable mess. A la carte would mean better handling of their massive bandwidth, and a better distribution of proceeds for shows. No need for Nielsen when advertisers will know exactly who is buying what.
I think we'd honestly pay $5 for a 30 minute show -- what does it cost in our time preference to sit down for 30 minutes? I'd pay less with ads. If we liked the show,we'd pay for an annual subscription -- giving shows the chance to continue even without massive ad-funding (see: Firefly).
With our 8-12Mbps Comcast Internet (not oversold in our neighborhood, yet), we download moves quickly enough to make it worth the wait. If we like the movie, we'll buy it, but I have no problem reimbursing even without a physical medium to save it.
I can't figure the TV distro system out, really. Sure, the powers-that-be are paying millions (or more) to keep the monopoly they have, but as the next generation ages, I'm sure the old system will hit the toilet, to be replaced by what? Hopefully more a la carte.
Incessant whining! Argh! (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, if we're talking about a signal that originates as digital, then converting it to analog will produce degredation. While a lot of stations might be broadcast this way, not all are. Your History Channel probably is. Your local news probably isn't.
If you are getting a crappy picture on the analog stations on your cable that originated as analog, you need to phone up your cable company and complain about the installation of your cable feed as it's not done correctly. There's plenty that are like this, so you're not in the minority. They'll either fix it, or you can live in the all digital world of satellite TV (Because it looks so much better in digital, right? VC-II+ customers are obviously insane!)
If you're getting a crappy picture on analog stations originating as DIGITAL, however, you should still call. It is unlikely the output from the CableCo's DAC is going to be bad enough to be perceptible by you or your TiVo!
Your excuse that your equipment sucks for the ADC on your part is really not the CableCo's problem; although their having sold you a (possibly) better quality signal for what they advertised as a shitty over compressed signal is technically false advertising (that would be the actual problem). However, when I get a Lexus for the price of a Corolla, I just keep my mouth shut. Feel free to do otherwise.
quality (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I'd prefer analog (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, this is why I haven't bought into HDTV yet -- if I spend a couple grand on a TV and extra per month for HD channels only to see compression artifacts in high resolution, something's getting sent through the front window.
Minimum Bitrate Guarantee (Score:1, Interesting)
One might argue it's to squeeze more channels in the same space but I think the secondary premise is to make HD look better than it really is by giving people a lousy stream to compare against.
I really think there ought to be a declared minimum average bitrate for every audio/video format. (I also think 4:2:2 color should be the minimum. And many more things.) And there needs to be minimum guarantees for error correction.
DVD, IMHO, is still a pretty crappy format. You can fit maybe an hour per layer at the peak bitrate, and even then a professional MPEG2 encoder can barf on noisy video. Fitting a 6 hour VHS tape on a DVD just looks like blocky VHS.
By contrast, if you follow ATSC, you get over 19 mbit/sec, or only about double the peak DVD bitrate.
2x the bitrate either for 6x the resolution (1080i is a blocky mess) or up to 6 480i channels at 19/6 mbit/sec. And I'm sorry, but if I'm complaining about DVD's PEAK bitrates, no way 3 mbit/sec MPEG2 will cut it.
In this day and age of MPEG4 and especially the H.264 extensions of course it becomes a _little_ less painful to watch but you still have unique MPEG4 artefacts. (Namely, a certain blurry and pasty quality that H.264 exacerbates if you use the in-loop deblocking filter. Flesh tones never look quite right even on Blu-ray bitrates.)
So here I am complaining about the most modern codecs at 40 mbit/sec, and yet Comcast can deliver whatever crap bitrates they want. I want a minimum guaranteed quality so I know what I'm paying for.
The Catch 22 of being a cable MSO (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: As mentioned before, I do work for a cable company.
Americans can get their traditional TV through a number of different providers, but it boils down to just a few methods of delivery: direct from the broadcasters over the air, from a satellite, via fiber owned by a telephone company, or via a hybrid fiber/coax network owned by a cable company. Of these options, cable providers are caught in the crossfire of regulatory demands and consumers who don't know enough about the technology itself to know what they really want. You never hear these complaints about satellite/FTTH (FiOS), only because the nature of their medium requires all digital transmission. But is 100% digital always "better" for the consumer? The answer is clearly no, not always.
As I'll explain later, much of the FCC's time is spent regulating the coax providers to help the "smaller players". Really, now...AT&T and Verizon are small players? When will the FCC step in to help the smaller players in the landline voice business, such as Vonage and VOIP? (Hint: they won't.)
Cable has been the incumbent for so long that they have become the Microsoft of TV. If there is any complaining to be done, lets complain about the cable company. But as I said, most consumers don't know what they are complaining about. Let's look at the ramifications if every cable company switched to 100% digital tomorrow...which seems to be to be what people want. Let's do a step by step breakdown:
The infrastructure in most cable systems does not need a rebuild for digital, just a little headend work and some maintenence in the field to fix issues that will visibly affect digital but not analog (CPD, microreflections, etc...). So, BAM! Cable is all digital. What happens the next day?
Firstly, ALL TV's without a digital tuner go dark. Great-aunt Maryrose and Gramma Clara turn on their perfectly good 1988 Zenith, and get static. They now have to go buy new TV's to use cable service, because consumers demanded digital transmission. In fact, this WILL happen when the OTA conversion happens in 2009, but OTA viewers may get subsidized boxes. (It will be interesting to see the FCC enforce the separable security statute with that one.) Cable companies get to eat the cost. In fact, this week the FCC guaranteed that cable companies eat the cost for an additional 3 years. They mandated that all cable providers (coax based only) provide a viewable analog OR digital signal to all subscribers until 2012. Linkage (pdf warning) [fcc.gov] It would be easier to comply by sticking with analog signals for the mandate, but customers (and the FCC) are demanding digital broadcast.
"But wait," you say, "they can get a digital cable box and keep the older TV!" Well, sure, but then we get to hear about how the cable company is bleeding it's customers dry by charging for equipment. I call horseshit on this one. Cable companies charge an average $7.50 monthly lease fee for the box that costs them $300 upfront, plus maintenance and repair. In "only" 40 months of maintenance free operation of that box, the cable company breaks even. Yeah...that's certainly not what I would call milking the customer.
"Why can't they use a third-party box, like a TiVO?" you might ask. They certainly can but to access encrypted channels, the box will need CableCards, the abomination of technology that they are. I work in the billing department and since they are authorized through our billing software, I support and troubleshoot CableCARDs on a daily basis. They have potential, and would work SO much better if manufacturers would standardize on a set of firmware...but I'm diverging from the point. Besides, the bigger question is "WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE MAKE A 3RD PARTY BOX?!" Personally, I think there is not currently a market for cable boxes. How much money did TiVO lose last quarter [google.com]? Ah...only $17 million.
Re:old news (Score:4, Interesting)
Both cable and satellite providers effectively called their viewers "idiots" with these spots, yet they continued to run them. I found their race to be the lowest common denominator personally offensive. (Almost like a political campaign.)
Re:The Catch 22 of being a cable MSO (Score:4, Interesting)
Cable companies charge an average $7.50 monthly lease fee for the box that costs them $300 upfront
Maybe I'm crazy, but after several decades and millions upon millions of cable boxes having been manufactured and distributed, they want us to believe that those things cost more than 40 bucks up front? That's hard to swallow. I work in an industry that requires the assembly of customized electronics equipment and while the prototypes might cost $10,000 or more, the mass produced units are ALWAYS less than a hundred bucks. I have a feeling the cable companies are doing just fine for themselves on that equipment lease fee.
One of the many reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
Both analog and digital? (Score:2, Interesting)
Example:
Channel 27 = TNT analog (confirmed using analog-only TV tuner card)
Channel 401 = TNT digital (has visible artifacts when the signal is weak)
Channel 1827 = TNTHD
All three channels have the same programming at the same time.
Re:The Catch 22 of being a cable MSO (Score:3, Interesting)
My numbers are certainly NOT wrong, and in fact were slightly low. Our dual-tuner DVRs [wikipedia.org] cost just over $500 per unit, direct from MOTO. The DCT2524 is $300. http://broadband.motorola.com/business/digitalvideo/product_dct2500_settop.asp [motorola.com] We would have liked to move to the DCH-700 which is a slick little digital only box, but they do not comply with the FCC separable security
Surely, you know these are more than mere "zapper boxes" or frequency remodulators. At the minimum, dual QAM/analog tuners, diplex filters, return generator, FCC-mandated CableCard slot and corresponding software, and in the case of a DVR, a 160GB hard drive. Already we've blown past your $50 mark, just in required components. If you would like verification on pricing, call Motorola for a price quote. We buy in units of 1,000. I cannot provide the partner 800 number on a public forum, but I have verified that a little Googling will find it for you.
I also doubt ATSC digital is anymore complex than QAM/QPSK, especially since digital cable tuners have to determine on-the-fly whether the input is QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, or 256QAM. I think it's likely a draw, and we'll consider it a moot point.
Now, if you need an analog converter for a really old ghetto TV, (which is more along the lines of the example you've given) we've got so many of those in the local systems we don't even charge for them.
Re:Incessant whining! Argh! (Score:3, Interesting)
HD is Better - Digital just gets you more channels (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:HD is Better - Digital just gets you more chann (Score:3, Interesting)
If the transmitted program was recorded digitally, ie. recently, it does look better, and is mpeg2 standard (DVD) with bit rates up to 15 Mbs (thats the highest I've seen so far).
If the transmitted program was recorded to tape and then converted to digital for transmission, then of course it doesn't look any better. Try recording a cassette tape to cd and see if you get "digital" quality. The problem is that most programming schedules consist of ancient repeats and so are not digital in origin.
Here* [headru.sh] is a screenshot of the tech details for a random DVB-t program I just looked at (BBC1). Notice the picture size, bitrate and encoding. They are all substantially better quality than analogue tv provides.
*The reason the background is black is due to the video using overlay.
However, the artifacts are the worst drawback of digital tv. With analogue transmission, you may get ghosting or lines on the picture, but you get a picture. If there is interference with digital transmission, you very frequently get no picture at all, or it's so blocky and halting that it's unwatchable. Mobile receivers will be up in arms when the analogue gets switched off, as they will not be able to get a picture in places they currently enjoy, albeit a crappy one. I know, I live in and drive a truck weekdays. I have resorted to satellite to ensure I get a signal.
Re:I think I'd prefer analog (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in my Continuous Signals and Systems class, my professor said that a digital channel has less bandwidth than an analog channel. Granted, you can do lossless compression and save space (FLAC usually gets me 60% of the original size) but seeing the horrid digital quality...I think I can guess what the situation is.
1080p doesn't matter if the quality isn't there to back up the resolution. You'd think that they would have an exceptional video source to show off the TVs at stores but, then again, 99.999% of people wouldn't know an MPEG artifact from a LEGO block.
Re:Very interesting ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Around here anyone buying a HD set finds that SD digital cable ends up looking horrid. we actually set up their cable box to use composite to the Set and switch to that from the component to make the SD channels look fuzzier so they are tolerable on a 37 or larger HD set.
Honestly, everyone touting digital is better is nuts. Digital can be better, most of the time it is not because the company delivering it is trying to cram in more crap stations that make them money like another 7 Home shopping channels and another 3 infomercial only channels.
Re:Composite video has a maximum bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)
Standard-definition production is generally done using digital SMPTE 274M (SDI) devices, which have 720 active pixels of luminance and 360 active pixels of color difference per line. This is why digital SD (which is generally 640 pixels per line) should actually have slightly better resolution than analog NTSC, but you have to ignore the MPEG artifacts in the digital