Cox Cable Digital Transition

[Taddeusz]

Because Cox Cable is a privately owned company (i.e. not publicly traded) they aren't required to publish information regarding future products, etc.

I noticed this week when I was setting up a second HDHR that, at least in Oklahoma City, Cox Cable is beginning to use the lower channels for digital content. A new channel that they brought out a couple weeks ago is now being broadcast on channel 15 in the clear along with a second encrypted sub-channel.

It makes me curious what their full plan is going ahead to transition to all digital. I'm sure that their long term goal is probably to change to switched digital. It's kind of exciting while at the same time worrisome that my SageTV won't be able to directly take advantage of that content as is the case now requiring the use of an HDPVR.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Because Cox Cable is a privately owned company (i.e. not publicly traded) they aren't required to publish information regarding future products, etc.

I noticed this week when I was setting up a second HDHR that, at least in Oklahoma City, Cox Cable is beginning to use the lower channels for digital content. A new channel that they brought out a couple weeks ago is now being broadcast on channel 15 in the clear along with a second encrypted sub-channel.

It makes me curious what their full plan is going ahead to transition to all digital. I'm sure that their long term goal is probably to change to switched digital. It's kind of exciting while at the same time worrisome that my SageTV won't be able to directly take advantage of that content as is the case now requiring the use of an HDPVR.

I noticed that too...

[Ken C]

Cox Cable in the Phoenix area has said they will eliminate all analog channels in February, 2012. Nothing on what, if any, any digital channels will be unencrypted. I would assume something like the local broadcast channels will be in the clear, SD only. Everything else, encrypted.

When that happens, I'll look at cable and sat and try an determine the best fit for my needs. Having to deal with multiple stb's and hdpvr's ... not looking forward to the upcoming complications !

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Ken C

Cox Cable in the Phoenix area has said they will eliminate all analog channels in February, 2012. Nothing on what, if any, any digital channels will be unencrypted. I would assume something like the local broadcast channels will be in the clear, SD only. Everything else, encrypted.

When that happens, I'll look at cable and sat and try an determine the best fit for my needs. Having to deal with multiple stb's and hdpvr's ... not looking forward to the upcoming complications !

I haven't heard anything about Cox service in Oklahoma City. I can imagine that when they transition to a full digital system that things will probably remain as they are now. I can receive all local HD and SD channels, WGN in HD and SD, all the shopping channels, and most Cox related channels in clear QAM. Everything else, including the digital versions of basic cable are all encrypted and at least marked copy once.

I've done a basic scan of all the channels through the FireWire port on my STB and discovered that most of the channels available in clear QAM are marked copy freely. Although some channels available in clear QAM are actually marked at least copy once and can't be recorded through FireWire. Kind of stupid.

We'll see what happens. The downside of all this is that being able to freely record content from your provider of choice is not a common need. While I would hope the market would move in that direction I have my doubts that it will. If nothing else it will unfortunately become more closed.

The only thing that I can hope will happen is that channels normally available on basic cable will be provided in the clear since not everyone wants to have a cable box. But I can see a future that will require a cable box no matter your level of service. Comcast seems to be transitioning to that type of environment.

[Ken C]

Of course, another option are the various video streaming sites, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. It's getting to the point where cable / sat might not be needed. Although, I still like the idea of storing the video locally, mainly for comskip capability.

[Taddeusz]

While I agree that streaming is certainly the future of television that reality is a long way off. The quality of real-time streamed programs is far inferior to that of broadcast TV, Cable TV, or even satellite TV. Not to mention the vast number of people who still only have dial-up internet or a broadband connection fast enough to actually watch good quality HD video. Even Netflix HD streaming is poor quality and is limited to stereo audio.

I don't consider any of those sources even worthy enough to replace even my HDPVR recordings let alone recordings from QAM sources.

[Ken C]

Currently, the only streaming I do is Netflix via the Xbox 360 and the quality is not bad.

Also, if I need to buy four HDPVR's and rent six stb's, four associated with the HDPVR's and one each for two digital TV's (we do watch some 'live' TV), it's expensive, both initial cost and monthly fees. Might have to accept lower quality video.

It is a bit ironic that the time may come I can't afford Cox cable TV but rely on the Cox supplied internet access for our TV viewing. Guess I need to pay attention to those download caps !!

But, again, giving up comskip ... not something to look forward to.

[Taddeusz]

Compared with other sources Netflix isn't horrible quality but it's not as good as it could be. Particularly with audio. Not having surround sound really sucks. And the video is nowhere near broadcast quality. No way you're going to be able to stream anything close to 20Mb on most internet connections.

Then there is the issue of data caps. Kind of makes you wonder if one of the reasons for the data caps is to attempt to keep streaming services from cannibalizing standard cable tv service.

My family is staying with cable until streaming quality is on par with it. I just feel I should sacrifice quality for what I already have.

[Ken C]

Most cable / internet providers have caps, most dsl / telephone providers don't. At least in two areas of the country I'm familiar with. So, yea, it might be a ploy by the cable companies. On the cable TV side, how many mega / gigabits of download do you receive every second ? Say, 100-150 simultaneous channels of digital TV ... a whole bunch ! Of course it's only download, no upload, but still ...

What does surprise me is you don't hear much complaining about download caps, or the cable companies are not enforcing them.

[Taddeusz]

I never realized it, probably because I don't download that much, but Cox does have a monthly cap. It varies depending on your service tier. Their standard cap is 200GB per month combined up/down. That's actually quite a lot but I suspect that if higher quality streaming became the norm that would quickly be reached.

As far as DSL goes I'll stay as far away from it as I can. I can't stand the service. In my experience it is far more problematic and speeds are nowhere near those of cable internet. I suppose it works when it works but those two-wire phone cables can only do so much. I'm actually surprised that U-verse works as well as it does considering it is a more advanced form of DSL.

[Bikeman]

FYI, noticed last week that Cox reduced their prices for Internet service. Don't know when, but we were "grandfathered in" @ $10 more per month than current pricing! Such a great deal.

Jeff

[Ken C]

Originally Posted by Bikeman

FYI, noticed last week that Cox reduced their prices for Internet service. Don't know when, but we were "grandfathered in" @ $10 more per month than current pricing! Such a great deal.

Jeff

Just great ! All I know is we have the 'bundled' package, TV, phone, internet, and the price just seems to creep up. It was $99 initially, now its $120. Guess we're making too many phone calls !