Comcast: All digital in 20% of markets by year's end

[hemicuda]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The solution is called the HD-PVR.

but.... at $200ea to replace my current analog lineup would be $800 plus STB fees. and I only have 4 tuners + HDHR. I haven't maxed out things yet, but it could happen now that my server is more HD friendly. Comcast hasn't re-encrypted the digital mirrors of the "2-78" analogs yet. If they stay up for a month I'm going to start looking for an HD QAM pci-e that doesn't have a mapping limit.

dang this hobby is expensive.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

but.... at $200ea to replace my current analog lineup would be $800 plus STB fees. and I only have 4 tuners + HDHR. I haven't maxed out things yet, but it could happen now that my server is more HD friendly. Crapcast hasn't re-encrypted the digital mirrors of the "2-78" analogs yet. If they stay up for a month I'm going to start looking for an HD QAM pci-e that doesn't have a mapping limit.

dang this hobby is expensive.

Yea, if Cox starts offering their basic lineup in clear QAM it would be nice. According to my understanding of the HDHR driver limit it's purely a limitation of Microsoft's BDA driver spec. I believe Silicon Dust has said that any program that properly supports direct QAM tuning can use more than 68 channels without remapping. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought SageTV supported direct QAM tuning? Or maybe just not on the HDHR?

[Sparhawk6]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

but.... at $200ea to replace my current analog lineup would be $800 plus STB fees. and I only have 4 tuners + HDHR. I haven't maxed out things yet, but it could happen now that my server is more HD friendly. Crapcast hasn't re-encrypted the digital mirrors of the "2-78" analogs yet. If they stay up for a month I'm going to start looking for an HD QAM pci-e that doesn't have a mapping limit.

dang this hobby is expensive.

Exactly. My point is that our CURRENT setups will suddenly go dark one day when Comcast makes the decision. And you better believe that other cable companies will follow. The solution is to fork out a ton more money.

Typically, with computers, you pay to upgrade when 1) the thing just broke or 2) you are looking for something better than what you currently have. I cannot recall the last time I had to upgrade because what I currently do is suddenly shutoff by a 3rd party with no economical solution. I do not consider $500 to replace my two analog tuners with HD-PVRs an "economical" solution. A $50 solution would be economical, but not $500.

Sigh. I guess I knew this could happen when I decided to get myself into a niche hobby of building and maintaining a PVR box.

The funny thing is that the HD-PVRs have a real chance of being useless themselves if Comcast (and others) decides to shut off the component out on the boxes, once modern HDTVs are ubiquitous - or they start selling boxes with no component out. So the discussion of the HD-PVR being obsolete is already taking place, and it hasn't even been out more then a couple of months!

Ugh, I hate "natural" monopolies...

[thomaszoo]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

but.... at $200ea to replace my current analog lineup would be $800 plus STB fees. and I only have 4 tuners + HDHR. I haven't maxed out things yet, but it could happen now that my server is more HD friendly. Crapcast hasn't re-encrypted the digital mirrors of the "2-78" analogs yet. If they stay up for a month I'm going to start looking for an HD QAM pci-e that doesn't have a mapping limit.

dang this hobby is expensive.

I look at it a little differently. I want to phase out analog from my system. Whether I stick with Comcast or switch to satellite I will need multiple STBs unless Comcast broadcasts my favorite channels (Discovery, SciFi, National Geographic, Science and others) in clear QAM which I find unlikely since they 5c'd many of the firewire recordings I wanted to make. I have one HD PVR working quite well and will probably add a second. With Dish I can get their HD package for $30/mo vs. $70+/mo for Comcast. I get my locals OTA and they account for most of my recordings. So the way I see it, Comcast is screwing themselves out of customers like me. I recently called to complain about the cost and some HD channels that I don't get. What they gave me for 6 months will appease me only until I have time to get a dish installed. I used to have faith in Comcast. Time to sell that stock!

Wayne

[Taddeusz]

Yea, because of the demand from content providers to have protections put on their content the future of our kind of TV usage is kind of unknown. Depending on how things go SageTV may eventually have to bend to those demands. But for the time being we have a disappearing catalog of analog channels which limits access to cable by either clear QAM or by use of an STB through S-vid for SD or component for HD & SD (or a hacked together Firewire output which may or may not work).

I suppose it all depends on how much you really like TV as to how far you'll go and how much you'll spend on it. I have lots of money invested it in. For now what I have won't dry up. I'm using my HDHR to record OTA HD and a PVR150/STB combination to record SD cable programming. For the time being I'm happy and have no immediate need to be concerned.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by thomaszoo

I look at it a little differently. I want to phase out analog from my system.

I couldn't agree more. When I can afford the $250 I'm going to buy an HD-PVR and trade out my current SD cable box for an HD unit. Heck, I may just go ahead and change out the STB. Then I'd at least be able to view the HD channels even though they'd be scaled down to SD.

[Sparhawk6]

Well, I'm also willing to invest more money, but there's always the "wife" factor...lol.

[BobPhoenix]

I'm putting my Cable DVR STB to good use now. If I have a recording conflict with just one HD-PVR I record it on the Cable box on the second tuner. Then when I have a window I setup a timed recording and play back the cable STB recording. Then I just rename the file (after looking up the airing ID in the web server) correctly and "touch" the file date/time stamp. Short time later Sage finds the video and makes it a standard recording. So far it has worked quite well with only one HD-PVR.

[thomaszoo]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I couldn't agree more. When I can afford the $250 I'm going to buy an HD-PVR and trade out my current SD cable box for an HD unit. Heck, I may just go ahead and change out the STB. Then I'd at least be able to view the HD channels even though they'd be scaled down to SD.

If I swtch from cable to satellite I will save enough to buy 2 HD PVRs every year! That really helps the WAF.

Wayne

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by thomaszoo

If I swtch from cable to satellite I will save enough to buy 2 HD PVRs every year! That really helps the WAF.

Wayne

I was actually looking at my cable bill yesterday and I have been paying $145/mo and I'm a single guy living in an apartment. That's digital cable TV with two boxes ($5.25/mo each) plus HBO comes out to $89/mo, "regular" cable internet at $30/mo, and phone service at $25/mo plus all the taxes and crap. A little nuts for a single guy.

I dropped the HBO which I don't watch that often any more and scaled back the phone service. I think it's a package deal so if I drop the phone service I think the discount I get also drops or something retarded like that. I really don't need the phone service. The only reason I went with it originally is because they were offering HBO for free at the time. Obviously that expired some time ago.

I can't really get satellite service. I'm in an apartment building on the wrong side. No sticking the dishes on the roof or anything like that. One of my neighbors tried a pole but couldn't get a signal. Now there's a pole in the grass with two coax cables hanging off it.

So for now I'm tied to cable for non-local programming. It would be nice to have a cheaper bill but I at least got it down to about $118/mo. About $100/mo would be nicer though.

[mikesm]

here's more info that supports my claim comcast is moving expanded basic into the clear...

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-06/...g-all-digital/

Great news - I am going to have to add another QAM tuner!

[carlgar]

Originally Posted by mikesm

here's more info that supports my claim comcast is moving expanded basic into the clear...

I think you are just lucky so far if you are getting expended basic in clear QAM. I believe limited basic is all that will be in clear QAM. At one point I was able to see A & E in clear QAM but no longer. I am seeing analog stations being replaced with encrypted QAM. I saw hallmark move a few months ago. This week I saw oxygen move from analog to encrypted QAM. I only pay for limited basic so I have been lucky getting the expanded basic analog.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mikesm

here's more info that supports my claim comcast is moving expanded basic into the clear...

Don't get too excited- your source's source says nothing about unencrypted QAM. Chicago didn't move to unencrypted QAM, so I have a hard time seeing Comcast move to unencrypted QAM nationally. And if Comcast is really buying 6 million of these devices, they can get whoever is building them to include cryptography.

However, it seems like Comcast could, in theory, do this and just rely on the filters they already have out there. They could devote the cable bandwidth that used to be analog basic cable to Internet, and only put clear QAM channels where expanded basic channels used to be. There's probably a lot more basic cable channels than even DOCSIS 3.0 modems can use for Internet access, but I suppose they could fill the rest of them up with encrypted premium or on-demand channels. Of course, knowing next to nothing about how cable networks actually work, I'm eminently qualified to make wild guesses about what is and is not practical.

Still, I can see why cable companies might like the idea of every TV being connected to a cable box. STB's let users do things that give cable companies very high profit margins- mainly pay-per-view. Your source says these devices wouldn't support that, but I find that a little hard to believe.

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Don't get too excited- your source's source says nothing about unencrypted QAM. Chicago didn't move to unencrypted QAM, so I have a hard time seeing Comcast move to unencrypted QAM nationally. And if Comcast is really buying 6 million of these devices, they can get whoever is building them to include cryptography.

However, it seems like Comcast could, in theory, do this and just rely on the filters they already have out there. They could devote the cable bandwidth that used to be analog basic cable to Internet, and only put clear QAM channels where expanded basic channels used to be. There's probably a lot more basic cable channels than even DOCSIS 3.0 modems can use for Internet access, but I suppose they could fill the rest of them up with encrypted premium or on-demand channels. Of course, knowing next to nothing about how cable networks actually work, I'm eminently qualified to make wild guesses about what is and is not practical.

Still, I can see why cable companies might like the idea of every TV being connected to a cable box. STB's let users do things that give cable companies very high profit margins- mainly pay-per-view. Your source says these devices wouldn't support that, but I find that a little hard to believe.

They don't want to pay for a box that has all those capabilities. This is a really stripped down box they get for cheap - about the same cost as a DOCSIS modem. They have to shell these out with little to no recurring revenue if they are going to go all digital. They get no PPV revenue from analog only subs today, so no change there.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mikesm

They don't want to pay for a box that has all those capabilities. This is a really stripped down box they get for cheap - about the same cost as a DOCSIS modem. They have to shell these out with little to no recurring revenue if they are going to go all digital.

Comcast gives you STB's now without even asking you. The standard-definition box I got when I moved to the DC area is about the size of MVP, and looks like it was dirt cheap. I supports on-demand programming. I doubt moving up to an HD-capable box is really going to increase the cost enough for Comcast to care.

And I'm sure Comcast is going to be charging for these. Right now I'm paying $3/month for my box, and I bet that's what they end up charging for these HD-capable boxes. Guessing wildly, I bet at $3/month they easily pay for the device and support costs after 2 years.

Also, I can't imagine adding crypto functionality would increase the cost by any significant degree. Hardware crypto modules are dirt cheap, and Comcast is buying enough of these things that the costs involved with developing and manufacturing a new board is insignificant. On-demand functionality is probably a bit more expensive to implement, but again, I doubt it's by any significant amount.

If Comcast does decide to use clear QAM, it's not going to be because they want to make the STB's cheaper. It's going to be because they want to argue that they're better than satellite because you don't need a box (or cable card) for every TV.

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Comcast gives you STB's now without even asking you. The standard-definition box I got when I moved to the DC area is about the size of MVP, and looks like it was dirt cheap. I supports on-demand programming. I doubt moving up to an HD-capable box is really going to increase the cost enough for Comcast to care.

And I'm sure Comcast is going to be charging for these. Right now I'm paying $3/month for my box, and I bet that's what they end up charging for these HD-capable boxes. Guessing wildly, I bet at $3/month they easily pay for the device and support costs after 2 years.

Also, I can't imagine adding crypto functionality would increase the cost by any significant degree. Hardware crypto modules are dirt cheap, and Comcast is buying enough of these things that the costs involved with developing and manufacturing a new board is insignificant. On-demand functionality is probably a bit more expensive to implement, but again, I doubt it's by any significant amount.

If Comcast does decide to use clear QAM, it's not going to be because they want to make the STB's cheaper. It's going to be because they want to argue that they're better than satellite because you don't need a box (or cable card) for every TV.

Reggie, you really don't understand this issue. The cheapo box you got in DC was almost certainly a DCT700, which is an embedded CA box. Comcast cannot buy those anymore by FCC rule. They must use cablecard equipped boxes. Cablecard (and the associated crypto logic) is actually pretty cheap, but the stuff that cablelabs requires in terms of protecting content on open buses, hackability, etc... adds a LOT of cost to a box. That is a big problem, and Comcast sued the FCC to try and avoid that problem by continuing to use DCT700's. They lost.

To get a $30-$40 box, they can't do that with cablecard - it has to be embedded, and they can't use that anymore because of FCC rulings. So that's why they have to shut off crypto on any channel that that box is supposed to be able to tune to.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by mikesm

Reggie, you really don't understand this issue. The cheapo box you got in DC was almost certainly a DCT700, which is an embedded CA box. Comcast cannot buy those anymore by FCC rule. They must use cablecard equipped boxes.

You're right- I don't know much about this. You seem to be referring to the FCC's separable security mandate. I wasn't aware of that mandate.

And yes, I have a DCT-700 STB.

That is a big problem, and Comcast sued the FCC to try and avoid that problem by continuing to use DCT700's. They lost.

Well, it sounds like there's a lot more to that story. The FCC seems to have carved out an exception for “low-cost, limited capability" set-top boxes. Comcast argued that the DCT-700 should count as a limited capability box and sought a waiver. The waiver was denied, as the only limitation of the device was that it doesn't do HD (it does on-demand and has an on-screen EPG). Comcast also never said it was going to use the DCT-700 to move to fully digital networks, so the FCC didn't see why it was important to have a cheap digital STB. So, Comcast took it to an Appeals court, which ruled in favor of the FCC.

The FCC invited Comcast to ammend its waiver request, but Comcast took them to court instead. It sounds like Comcast could come back with a waiver request for what would be a limited functionality device that would help them move to fully digital networks. Such a request would be much more likely to go through, given the FCC granted a similar waiver to a smaller cable operator, BendBroadband, that was moving to a digital network. But, such a device wouldn't be able to include on-demand/PPV functionality. I would think Comcast would lose interest in STB's if they can't provide PPV functionality.

Still, I think any move to unencrypted QAM would be a major deviation from what cable companies have been trying to do. I'm not ready to believe Comcast is moving in that direction from a rumor that they are looking to buy a bunch of low-cost STB's.

[Sparhawk6]

I also believe that Comcast is NOT going to move in the direction of more clear QAM channels. We are forgetting that the real future here is switched digital video. They will likely leave broadcast HD channels in the clear, but will put most everything else on some sort of switched video system.

I mean, I am all for 300 HD channels, but it is quit a sacrifice to almost completely ditch my entire setup. First, away from analog and second, towards switched video.

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk6

I also believe that Comcast is NOT going to move in the direction of more clear QAM channels. We are forgetting that the real future here is switched digital video. They will likely leave broadcast HD channels in the clear, but will put most everything else on some sort of switched video system.

I mean, I am all for 300 HD channels, but it is quit a sacrifice to almost completely ditch my entire setup. First, away from analog and second, towards switched video.

You can not believe me, but i assure you, I am correct. :-) You'll see soon enough. I think hemicuda reported all of his expanded basic SD channels were already in the clear, and that was a change from the way it was when he first did his QAM scan. You may think that's an error, but I am telling you it's the future.

As for SDV, if they complete the all digital conversion, my bet is they will avoid SDV deployments in most of their markets, or at least defer them for awhile. In any case, my R5000-HD modded box works fine with SDV, and Sage works with it beautifully.

The thing that I am bugged about is the quality degradation that goes on. Hopefully, DirecTV will hammer these guys on quality until they are forced to revert.

[hemicuda]

it'll be my luck that someone will get around the 68channel HDHR limit about the time my 1800 gets here. hope the wife doesn't gripe too much, but it was $30 off at pcalchemy. figured at that price i'd at least have another QAM tuner for whatever is left open and I can decommission the USB2.