TWC Today Forums
Present - The Weather Channel 2000 => TWC and your Cable Company => Topic started by: wxntrafficfan on December 15, 2009, 06:38:03 PM
-
Well, around 4:30 this morning, Comcast here in Lansing officially switched channels 25-64 (which includes TWC, at 36) over to the digital format. We are having to add an extra cable converter to our monthly bill so that I can record TWC with my tuner, but for now, I took the box from my mom's room (don't tell her :bleh: ). Has TWC gone digital for anyone else?
Also, does anyone notice any difference between these two recordings?
EDIT: Files to come. Apparently my internet connection does not want to allow me to attach them here.
-
It happened some time ago to most of the Comcast headends in Pittsburgh, with the exception of the former Adelphia headends. Luckily I don't have to worry about that, because we have Verizon.
-
It happened some time ago to most of the Comcast headends in Pittsburgh, with the exception of the former Adelphia headends. Luckily I don't have to worry about that, because we have Verizon.
Oh, so you don't have to worry about multiple cable boxes for everything (tuners and TVs)? I'm starting to think this is only a Comcast thing, as I haven't heard anyone with other providers mention anything. I'm wondering because I want to go into Charter territory more often, and I don't know if a Comcast box would work.
-
it really sucks that you would have to upgrade to digital cable to get TWC now, thank god i got Dish Network, at least all channels are "Digital" and not seeing a lot of channel shuffling
-
Well, with Verizon, every TV requires at least a converter, but those are $3.99/mo, so we just use a regular STB for all our TVs ($5.99/mo) so they all have the guides, On Demand, widgets, etc.
-
TWC, along with most of the other channels above 25, went digital in Bensalem in October, but ironically Weatherscan is still on analog (likely for testing purposes).
-
TWC is going digital in Fall river during the March Timeframe and Hopefully Weatherscan does the same.
-
TWC, along with most of the other channels above 25, went digital in Bensalem in October, but ironically Weatherscan is still on analog (likely for testing purposes).
Probably don't want to waste the bandwidth.
-
Time Warner Cable has (willy nilly) made TruTV (47), ABC Family (61), and CMT (63) exclusive to digital customers. :thumbdown: Style (50) & Oxygen (73) has gone digital as well. Not like I watch those 2 channels, but I was hoping to watch "World's Dumbest" on TruTV.
-
TWC has been digital here for the South Jersey area since Sept of 08
-
TWC, along with most of the other channels above 25, went digital in Bensalem in October, but ironically Weatherscan is still on analog (likely for testing purposes).
Probably don't want to waste the bandwidth.
what bandwidth you can fit 2-3 HD channels in space of 1 analog.
-
TWC, along with most of the other channels above 25, went digital in Bensalem in October, but ironically Weatherscan is still on analog (likely for testing purposes).
Probably don't want to waste the bandwidth.
what bandwidth you can fit 2-3 HD channels in space of 1 analog.
You mean to say you can fit 2-3 digital channels, HD or not. The more HD channels you shove into that 1 analog, the crappier the HD quality is.
-
I will never once begin to understand the technicalities behind the "digital migration", bandwidth, and the likes of concepts like that. All I really need to know is how I am going to get recordings of TWC elsewhere. I still have no idea how Charter is going about this (through this point, I have not had any issues with Charter whatsoever), and I CAN NOT go through the same hassle I did in South Haven- I got lucky- but I can't be lucky like that every time.
-
Honestly, this whole digital migration is pointless. I don't care about this "bandwidth" crap. Analog cable is cheaper, much easier to set up, and less cluttered.
-
Honestly, this whole digital migration is pointless. I don't care about this "bandwidth" crap. Analog cable is cheaper, much easier to set up, and less cluttered.
It's not very pointless seeing that a lot of people these days want more HD channels, and faster internet. Getting rid of all of these Analog hogs is a very, very great idea. I've been waiting for it to happen for a while when the started the digital simulcast of channels in '05.
Also, yeah, they did the "switchover" of Analog channels to Digital last year. After that we got DOCSIS 3.0 and like 30-40 more HD channels. But, TWC is still in Analog here because it is in the Limited Basic package and those channels will still be in Analog for a bit longer. This is good for me though because then I still can use QAM to record!
-
That's a good point... except few people have HDTV's or the ability to have HD service. I know I don't. For one thing, you have to pay extra money each month (usually around $10). But even if you subscribe to the service, you have to have special HD equipment along with an HDTV. And decent HDTVs are most often above $1500 or $2000, not a chunk of change most people are easily able to dole out or obtain. Even after most channels going digital here in Lansing (not for another year or so in the E.L.), my internet is slower than ever.
-
IMO, Comcast is just looking for excuses to make more money, even though they are already a multi-billionaire monopoly as it is.
If there was a way to deliver digital signals through cable lines instead of using cable boxes, I'd be a lot more happy.
-
Honestly, this whole digital migration is pointless. I don't care about this "bandwidth" crap. Analog cable is cheaper, much easier to set up, and less cluttered.
Here is the problem. Analog channels are poorer quality, more prone to interference. Cable is facing a tough battle with satellite tv services that can offer nearly an unlimited amount of HD channels because all they have to do is add a few more satellites to increase their bandwidth capacity. FIOS is pure fiber to your home and runs on newer systems etc and can also carry huge amounts of HD channels. Cable companies are relying on technology and cables that are old and were not intended to carry the amount of data required. Newer upgrades in their systems are (for now) allowing cable companies to stay in the race with adding HD channels. At some point every cable company is going to have to go 100% digital. To stay competitive they must keep adding HD channels so the easiest solution is kill the analog channels and postpone their inevitable point at which they run out of bandwidth. Think of bandwidth like water flowing through a pipe. There is a maximum amount of water that can flow through that pipe.
Over the air broadcasts can sustain multiple digital channels. This doesn't mean you can fit 3HD channels on one channel. This means you can have 3SD channels OR 1 HD channel. Plus this only applies to over the air broadcasts. NOT cable.
Aaron your claim that nobody uses HD is far from the truth. All new TVs today are HDTVs and most are quite less costly than before. You can pick up a 22in TV for nearly 200 bucks. People buying these TVs (and there are a lot of them) want to get the best picture and who can blame them! I would much rather pay 10 more bucks a month to watch HD than analog.
-
Comcast is actually offering free HD upgrades here now, so as soon as I get some HDTVs I might subscribe. Plus they recently added HD simulcasts for almost every channel I watch (including TWC).
-
I know we are talking about Comcast here, but I would like to mention that Bright House is actually one of the few cable providers I know of that still offer most of the popular cable networks on analog. Here in the Tampa Bay Market for them, the only channels on digital only are local ones offered by Bright House exclusively. :yes:
-
When I was in Albany, NY with Time Warner Cable, upgrading to HD was free if you had any of their digital cable packages. Getting a HDTV is becoming less expensive everyday as I found several 32" Samsung HDTVs for under $500 online. Sooner or later, all cable companies will have to make everything digital just to keep up with competition.
-
If there was a way to deliver digital signals through cable lines instead of using cable boxes, I'd be a lot more happy.
There is: ClearQAM.
-
Aaron your claim that nobody uses HD is far from the truth. All new TVs today are HDTVs and most are quite less costly than before. You can pick up a 22in TV for nearly 200 bucks. People buying these TVs (and there are a lot of them) want to get the best picture and who can blame them! I would much rather pay 10 more bucks a month to watch HD than analog.
Martin, I think you mistunderstood my point. Everyone has different income levels. Between my mom's house and my dad's house, our cable bills are well over $300... even after talking it down. Believe it or not, even $10 a month is not something either of them can do (or are willing to for that matter). Some people can easily afford it, and good for them. And yes, I am well aware that costs are going down with time, as technology that was once thought out of reach becomes barely within our sight and this technology becomes more readily available. The cheapest HDTV's I have been able to find are $500... and they were at Staples for Black Friday. Believe you me, if I or my parents had that kind of money, I would be searching for every last legacy STAR north of the 45th parallel.
I did not say that no one uses it. I was simply saying that it is not as readily available as it should be yet.
-
The cheapest HDTV's I have been able to find are $500... and they were at Staples for Black Friday.
You're not looking hard enough. (http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=televisions&search_constraint=3944&tc=0&ic=48_0&ref=+125875.126081+125875.331180+1000036.4292594462&tab_value=1389_All)
I'm more than happy with my HD box + uber fast Internet + Digital Starter, and full price would be around 110 (currently promotion is $69.99 + $7.99). ~$150/mo tells me they need to slow the internet down and kill some channels.
It would not surprise me if in the near future (3-5 years), there is zero charge for HD content, and providers will only be distributing HD boxes anyway.
-
No wonder I supposedly wasn't looking hard enough, that's Walmart. Wouldn't set foot in that economic death trap even if you paid me to.
-
If there was a way to deliver digital signals through cable lines instead of using cable boxes, I'd be a lot more happy.
There is: ClearQAM.
ClearQAM is an awesome thing in the digital world but it unfortunately its only useful for limited basic channels because of the content providers not liking a pure digital form of their station being available. (even though it's only SD)
-
Aaron your claim that nobody uses HD is far from the truth. All new TVs today are HDTVs and most are quite less costly than before. You can pick up a 22in TV for nearly 200 bucks. People buying these TVs (and there are a lot of them) want to get the best picture and who can blame them! I would much rather pay 10 more bucks a month to watch HD than analog.
Martin, I think you mistunderstood my point. Everyone has different income levels. Between my mom's house and my dad's house, our cable bills are well over $300... even after talking it down. Believe it or not, even $10 a month is not something either of them can do (or are willing to for that matter). Some people can easily afford it, and good for them. And yes, I am well aware that costs are going down with time, as technology that was once thought out of reach becomes barely within our sight and this technology becomes more readily available. The cheapest HDTV's I have been able to find are $500... and they were at Staples for Black Friday. Believe you me, if I or my parents had that kind of money, I would be searching for every last legacy STAR north of the 45th parallel.
I did not say that no one uses it. I was simply saying that it is not as readily available as it should be yet.
Gotcha! ;)
Wait combined the cable bill is $300? Seems a bit high. What services does that include?
-
Aaron your claim that nobody uses HD is far from the truth. All new TVs today are HDTVs and most are quite less costly than before. You can pick up a 22in TV for nearly 200 bucks. People buying these TVs (and there are a lot of them) want to get the best picture and who can blame them! I would much rather pay 10 more bucks a month to watch HD than analog.
Martin, I think you mistunderstood my point. Everyone has different income levels. Between my mom's house and my dad's house, our cable bills are well over $300... even after talking it down. Believe it or not, even $10 a month is not something either of them can do (or are willing to for that matter). Some people can easily afford it, and good for them. And yes, I am well aware that costs are going down with time, as technology that was once thought out of reach becomes barely within our sight and this technology becomes more readily available. The cheapest HDTV's I have been able to find are $500... and they were at Staples for Black Friday. Believe you me, if I or my parents had that kind of money, I would be searching for every last legacy STAR north of the 45th parallel.
I did not say that no one uses it. I was simply saying that it is not as readily available as it should be yet.
Gotcha! ;)
Wait combined the cable bill is $300? Seems a bit high. What services does that include?
Both homes have internet, cable TV, and phone service from Comcast. My dad apparently has the same package we do now (Enhanced Basic- channels 3-65), but somehow convinced Comcast to keep channel 99 on his lineup (that's CBC, Canada's version of NBC, that he insists on having). I don't know for sure the exact costs, but I do know that it is too high to add on HD service and equipment, much less higher internet speeds that I could really use.