FCC to allow encryption of basic cable

[waynedunham]

Originally Posted by darcilicious

That's what I thought at first and then I read this spec:

"Up to 80 hours of digital audio/video recording capacity (NTSC); works with cable, digital cable, satellite."

But now I'm back to thinking that "digital cable" means with CableCARD and not clear QAM...

Note the "NTSC" in that quote. That is the standard for ANALOG broadcast.

I know that all locations may not be the same, but here in the Hartford CT Metro area Comcast killed the Analog channels a few months back. I have several TV's, and a bunch of Silicon Dust HD-HomeRun's that can still receive the HD QAM locals just fine.
As a matter of fact, if you go to Comcast's STB and try to tune the old Standard Def channels it just shows you an option to view the HD version. Now I have HD enabled and HD boxes so if you have the old Analog boxes (my guess is that is the $1.99 boxes they are trying to rent you) then the SD channels probably still work through Comcast's STB.

BTW, my HDHR's and TV's CAN still get the SD clear QAM locals that Comcast's STB cannot.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by reggie14

In typical deployments, I think cable TV systems only support around 130 analog channels. So, devoting 50-60 channels to analog TV is a lot. You can replace a single analog channel with ~10 SD channels or 2-3 HD channels.

Beyond that, I think there are some regulatory issues. If I remember correctly, cable companies either have to provide the entire basic tier in analog, or they have to switch entirely to digital. As you noted, the basic tier includes a lot stuff people almost never watch. So, if you wanted them to carry the basic tier plus a handful of often-watched networks from the expanded basic tier (e.g., TNT, USA, AMC, CNN etc.), you'd still be talking about quite a few channels.

should have been more clear - eliminated the dead-weight channels from analog - specialty, religious, etc. leave the big broadcast channels and govt info channels for emergency broadcasts. That would bring it down to maybe 20 analog.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by drewg

But I wonder what percentage of those are tuned to the analog or SD digital versions? Not for any good reason, but just because that's the channel number they are used to? Pretty much every time I walk into my inlaws house, I see crappy 4:3 SD on their HDTV because they always just tune to the same number that they've used for the last 25 years..

Drew

my mother-in-law has three Cox DVR's in her house, all HDTV - whenever I go over, they are always watching the SD version of the channel, NOT the HD one. Old habits die hard - she and her husband still can't think to turn from channel 2, to channel 1002 - oh yeah, all her TV's are HUGE HDTV wall mounted kit.
Amazing

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

50-60 channels is half the CATV spectrum! That's a lot of the spectrum to be used by maybe 15% of their customer base (i do not know anyone personally who uses analog television in any form). I'm not sure on your comment regarding SDV affecting quality. It doesn't. SDV is a way to limit the channel map in a given neighborhood to just the channels that neighborhood is currently trying to tune. The channel bandwidth is the same on SDV as non SDV. If anything, the reason you are seeing poor quality from digital SD channels, it's because they are choosing to overly compress those, to get most of those 50-60 analog channels you want into 5-6 digital channels, putting the spectrum use of the least valuable customers (of which you are a part) more in line with the profit potential.

you meant digital "HD" channels, correct? My SD channels, when viewed on a CRT, look great. I can see and agree with all your points regarding bandwidth. Tell me, how many cable companies could increase the pipe via fibre, etc, to enable more HD transmission bandwidth? The fact that my cable company is ramming everything down a pipe that was built in the 1970's is reason to have me concerned as to what their (COX) long-range plan is

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by waynedunham

Now I have HD enabled and HD boxes so if you have the old Analog boxes (my guess is that is the $1.99 boxes they are trying to rent you) then the SD channels probably still work through Comcast's STB.

Actually, the $1.99 boxes from Comcast (called DTA's = Digital Transport Adapter or Digital Tuning Adapter), are new devices (not re-purposed old equipment). They are a very small and have no display or buttons. They have RF (coax) in and RF (coax) out only. They have an external IR receiver and work with a remote. They cannot tune analog - they can only tune digital channels and they are generally limited to the basic or expanded basic tier (no HD channels, no premiums, no on-demand, and no PPV - also no digital program guide).

They tune 1 channel at a time (decode it if it is scrambled), and spit it out on either channel 3 or channel 4 (like an old VCR). They also add an overlay that shows up on the TV screen with the channel number and channel name (since there is no display on the box). Since the box is very small, they also give you double-sided tape so you can stick it to the back of your TV and run the wire for the external IR receiver around to the front.

They are a nice simple solution for an extra TV in a guest bedroom or maybe the kitchen (especially if you just have an old analog TV), but they suck for a regularly-used TV, since they are limited to coax output and don't support HD.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

you meant digital "HD" channels, correct? My SD channels, when viewed on a CRT, look great. I can see and agree with all your points regarding bandwidth. Tell me, how many cable companies could increase the pipe via fibre, etc, to enable more HD transmission bandwidth? The fact that my cable company is ramming everything down a pipe that was built in the 1970's is reason to have me concerned as to what their (COX) long-range plan is

Fiber doesn't increase bandwidth if it is still limited by CATV standards. The only way they could exceed the standard CATV 125 CH spectrum is to just that, exceed the standard. It's not something they CAN'T do, being that they are private networks, but it's not something any of the current hardware supports. That said, it is exactly SDV that is doing what you are wanting - expanding bandwidth by utilizing fiber. Then main trunk ring of a cable system runs with a high speed fiber backbone that carries all channels available in the system. Then each neighborhood has a node that will pick and choose only the channels requested by that neighborhood, and broadcast them over the '1970's pipe'. It's the best solution to upgrade their system, and works perfectly fine with their provided hardware. The only problem is using 3rd party hardware - so don't do that...

They likely will be able to increase bandwidth on high value channels once an entire system supports SDV, but the problem is, until then, they have to limit it to bandwidths that will fit on their lowest capable subsystem off the same headend. Of course, they will more likely use that extra bandwidth for higher value content, like PPV, and internet.

[tvmaster2]

one thing I noticed when Cox went SDV, was that a weird, almost ghostly outline appeared around figures/objects that move or change position quickly.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...ital-video.htm

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

one thing I noticed when Cox went SDV, was that a weird, almost ghostly outline appeared around figures/objects that move or change position quickly.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...ital-video.htm

That type of effect would have absolutely nothing to do with SDV itself. The digital stream containing the video is untouched by the SDV switches. This if anything would have to have something to do at the encoding, or decoding step - unrelated to SDV, though maybe introduced in the same transition.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

That type of effect would have absolutely nothing to do with SDV itself. The digital stream containing the video is untouched by the SDV switches. This if anything would have to have something to do at the encoding, or decoding step - unrelated to SDV, though maybe introduced in the same transition.

I can only report what I see. and yes, I imagined it was a compression, encoding/decoding issue.