Lack of Local Forecast for Non-Intellistar systems

[TWCC_Dan]

This is a subject that I think needs to be discussed...

The Weather Channel has went to 24/7 schedule in covering Irene since Friday...therefor they have taken out the LOT8's and replaced it with the split screen using the LDL...

Here's the only problem...that feature works on the Intellistar and serves as the LOT8's, but if you are like me and have the XL, then you are left out looking at the Satellite feed instead of the local. Therefor I have not seen any local weather since Friday.

TWC and the Star Team needs to look into bringing the LDL back to the older generation Weather Star's when programming has to be modified.

[Eric]

TWC and the Star Team needs to look into bringing the LDL back to the older generation Weather Star's when programming has to be modified.

I honestly don't think this is a priority for them.  The XL, 4000, and Jr. have been relegated to the role of legacy Stars. meaning updates won't be forthcoming, if ever again.  Notice how long the 4000 has used an outdated logo, for example, though it's been demonstrated that the logo can be updated if anyone wanted to.

The 4000 and Jr. actually can display LDLs with a colored background, but, in practice, it's never been done, except, ironically, during malfunctions.  However, the LDLs for these Stars cover the entire horizontal width of the screen, and I seriously doubt they could be easily reprogrammed to leave the left portion of the screen free for the national feed.  So, it's extraordinarily doubtful that these Stars will use their LDLs during national programming anymore.  As for the L-bar, I think it's downright impossible, given the technological limitations of the Stars.

As for the XL, I haven't seen any evidence why it couldn't be successfully reprogrammed for both the new LDLs and the L-bar.  However, this technology dates from the 1990s.  Even though there are still quite a lot out there (probably more 12 years on than there were 4000s 12 years on), it's still an old computer using proprietary software that requires time, effort, and money to reprogram.  Even though it has numbers on its side, it's probably not on TWC's priority list.  They'd certainly prefer cable companies to upgrade to the IntelliStar, because this is the only SD feed Star that TWC is working to keep current in terms of programming updates.

Honestly, considering how advanced the satellite feed has gotten the local forecasts, L-bars, and the LDL, I'm honestly a little surprised that TWC keeps supporting the legacy stars (especially the 4000 and Jr.) at all, except, perhaps, for severe weather bulletins.  The 4000 is 21 years old, the XL is 12 years old, and the Jr., while itself 17 years old, is reproducing the exact same forecast originated by the WeatherStar III a full quarter-century ago!

Just when does a computer system become so old it must be retired?  The WeatherStars I and II were put into retirement because of RF interference and garbled text issues.  The III was forcibly retired by the FCC because it would have required a lot of effort and money to update it to be able to produce warning tones at each repeat of a weather warning.  But the remaining three Stars all date back to the 1990s, and, though they no longer receive major updates, they're still being used as far as TWC's current programming will let them.

So, you have to wonder... just how high should it be on TWC's list of priorities to update systems that are pushing two decades old because a minority of cable systems still use them?  Just how much should TWC refrain from upgrading and improving its on-air image to ensure that full and total compatibility remains with the oldest of the legacy Stars?

My opinion is that the Jr. and the 4000 should be retired... long ago.  The XL should certainly be entering retirement now.  If cable companies don't want to upgrade to current equipment, at least their viewers now have a good-looking national local forecast and LDL to look at instead of, say, a looping list of 20 cities and their forecasts for the next 24 hours.

[WeatherWitness]

My opinion is that the Jr. and the 4000 should be retired... long ago.  The XL should certainly be entering retirement now.  If cable companies don't want to upgrade to current equipment, at least their viewers now have a good-looking national local forecast and LDL to look at instead of, say, a looping list of 20 cities and their forecasts for the next 24 hours.

I agree with you. I don't know how much more expensive the IS is compared to the Jr., 4000, or XL, but I also feel that these older STARS should be retired. With newer technological advancements, the use of the old STARS that do not have such capability will lead to a lack of local weather information, as in this situation.

I'm guessing upgrading STARS probably takes work, time, and is expensive as stated above, but to bring about uniformity, I think the older STARS should be retired, leaving us with the just the IS and IS2.

[Eric]

You're right.

I wonder if TWC even makes the XL (or older) available to cable companies that want them.  I hope that's not the case, and that only cable companies that still have an older Star are simply allowed to keep using them.

Maybe the only exception to the retirement rule that I can think of would be a very small cable company, such as a college dorm network or an apartment complex's private system if they choose to have a Star (such things do happen).  But, otherwise, I think commercial networks should definitely be looking to upgrade.  They're doing their customers a disservice.

[Zach]

I dont know if the Jr should be retired, but based on reading Eric's post, I will definitely agree that the 4000 should be retired.. it's hard for the STAR Team to make changes to the platform anyways (and the Junior), but the major reason I think the 4000 should be put into retirement because of it's video hardware.. eventually all 4000s will suffer through degradation (as us "fans" know it to be) if they haven't already, and it's sorta like Microsoft putting OS platforms into retirement.

As for the XL, though, I think it should stay.. unlike the 4000/Junior, the XL is not that hard to make remote changes to because of it's ethernet port (?), but it is also OS-ran, just like the IS. Though it does not display anything except an LF and ID anymore, it can at least do an LDL like the IS with having part of the LDL chopped off for the LDL ads, but without the fancy flares and animation..  And as for the squeezeback, I cannot see that being implemented, sadly..  The original sqeeuzeback seen from 2006-2009 (with the sunny background) never displayed local information on the XL, so why should the current one?

[WeatherWitness]

BTW, how is the 4000 older than the Jr? The Jr. doesn't have maps and looks more primitive than the 4000.

[Zach]

The 4000 was first manufactured in 1989 or 1990, while the Jr was first manufactured in 1993 or 1994.

[toxictwister00]

You're right.

I wonder if TWC even makes the XL (or older) available to cable companies that want them.  I hope that's not the case, and that only cable companies that still have an older Star are simply allowed to keep using them.

Maybe the only exception to the retirement rule that I can think of would be a very small cable company, such as a college dorm network or an apartment complex's private system if they choose to have a Star (such things do happen).  But, otherwise, I think commercial networks should definitely be looking to upgrade.  They're doing their customers a disservice.

Financially, I would agree they should be retired. IIRC, the IntelliStar is the cheapest STAR of them all and I think the XL is the most expensive of all of them, but the thing is most of the 4000's, Jrs, and XL's are serving small areas while the IntelliStar is intended to serve large urbanized areas. I do feel TWC should at least leave the LDL on for these older STARs on air to provide some sort of weather information in cases like Hurricane Irene and they chose not to show local forecasts, I don't see what's so difficult about showing text on screen live on air for the sake of their small audience until they reach a day that they chose not to support the older STARs anymore.

[Zach]

I have to actually disagree with you on the coverage point you made Tavores.. I think the legacies are now actaully meant to serve large areas due to the usage of airports (one airport every 30 mile radius?), as the local obs lists on legacy STARs tend to list airports and or cities that are almost 40-50 miles away from the main serving area.. whilst the IS, on the other hand, uses HiRAD, which can give conditions at any given location specifically set up by that STAR, and maybe a cable headend uses one STAR per county (which is the case here, on our Brighthousenetworks system).

[Eric]

BTW, how is the 4000 older than the Jr? The Jr. doesn't have maps and looks more primitive than the 4000.

The Jr. is a few years younger than the 4000.  However, the Jr. reproduces exactly what the WeatherStar III produced, and that Star was released in 1986.  The only broadcast difference between the III and the Jr. is the improved font (shapes and lower-case), and the technology inside is newer than the III, too.

Once the 4000 had become established, TWC stopped issuing the III to cable companies.  However, there was enough demand for a low-cost basic Star that the Jr. was developed.

[Austin M.]

I dont know if the Jr should be retired, but based on reading Eric's post, I will definitely agree that the 4000 should be retired.. it's hard for the STAR Team to make changes to the platform anyways (and the Junior), but the major reason I think the 4000 should be put into retirement because of it's video hardware.. eventually all 4000s will suffer through degradation (as us "fans" know it to be) if they haven't already, and it's sorta like Microsoft putting OS platforms into retirement.

As for the XL, though, I think it should stay.. unlike the 4000/Junior, the XL is not that hard to make remote changes to because of it's ethernet port (?), but it is also OS-ran, just like the IS. Though it does not display anything except an LF and ID anymore, it can at least do an LDL like the IS with having part of the LDL chopped off for the LDL ads, but without the fancy flares and animation..  And as for the squeezeback, I cannot see that being implemented, sadly..  The original sqeeuzeback seen from 2006-2009 (with the sunny background) never displayed local information on the XL, so why should the current one?

The XL is the SGI O2 system, in all reality. This system has even more graphical capabilities and hardware capabilities than the Intellistar has. I don't see the current icons to fit the XL, but they would work. Nearly everything, perhaps more, could work on the XL if it were given just a chance. TWC needs to get off their  and work on this thing for once. The squeezeback would work. The LDL would work. It all would work if it were given a chance.

(Nevermind, I found it)

TWC IntelliStar - Jan 14 2006 8:28 pm et

[Eric]

That video looks like it's from the Intellistar, not the XL - notice the font.

[Zach]

That video looks like it's from the Intellistar, not the XL - notice the font.

Correct. That is the IntelliStar, not the XL.

[Austin M.]

I know it is the Intellistar. I did not say it was the XL.

[Zach]

I'm confused.. you were ranting about the XL, yet you posted a video of the IS..