digital cable = the new svcd format?

[usually_quiet]

These are the links where I read the information originally.

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq30

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq25

It says nothing about free boxes and nothing about cable companies having to meet some kind of hardship requirement before switching all customers to digital service with a cable box that converts at least the local broadcast stations to analog, in the case of those with analog televisions.

My local Fox station's digital SD and HD sub-channels are, at this point, encrypted and only available with an appropriate package and cable box or cable card. Apparently it has been this way since they began operating. The other local digital broadcast stations are unencrypted.

[edDV]

These are the links where I read the information originally.

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq30

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq25

It says nothing about free boxes and nothing about cable companies having to meet some kind of hardship requirement before switching all customers to digital service with a cable box that converts at least the local broadcast stations to analog, in the case of those with analog televisions.

That site is focused on the over the air transition 17 Feb,2009. Cable users are not affected until at least 2012 at the first order. There are 2nd order issues with cable that some will notice and cable has to deal with the additional mandates coming from the FCC. These issues relate to bandwidth priority for must carry HD QAM to hardship cases in small or low resource communities. Some of these cable companies will just shut down under the weight of these transition investment mandates.

The basic stated goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC implementation is to prevent cable from profiting from the transition. The second wave of mandates like HD at full bandwidth for "must carry" locals border on penalty to cable in favor of special interests. Sat has no such requirement.

My only interest is as a "captive" cable subscriber. I don't want QVC, 700 Club or Beijing Nightly News to have priority for HD bandwidth over popular HD channels. I have no issue with the SD version of these channels.

[usually_quiet]

That site is focused on the over the air transition 17 Feb,2009. Cable users are not affected until at least 2012 at the first order. There are 2nd order issues with cable that some will notice and cable has to deal with the additional mandates coming from the FCC. These issues relate to bandwidth priority for must carry HD QAM to hardship cases in small or low resource communities. Some of these cable companies will just shut down under the weight of these transition investment mandates.

The basic stated goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC implementation is to prevent cable from profiting from the transition. The second wave of mandates like HD at full bandwidth for "must carry" locals border on penalty to cable in favor of special interests. Sat has no such requirement.

My only interest is as a "captive" cable subscriber. I don't want QVC, 700 Club or Beijing Nightly News to have priority for HD bandwidth over popular HD channels. I have no issue with the SD version of these channels.

A considerable portion of that site is devoted to answering questions about how cable subscribers will be affected by the switch. The cable companies may not be allowed to gouge under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but it is repeatedly stated in these FAQ answers that the FCC is not going to interfere with any business decisions the cable companies make in switching most or all of their service to digital, beyond the requirement to make local broadcast stations available in analog, either with or without a box, through 2012.

Lucky me! Right now my local Fox station is the one showing the 700 Club in HD

[jagabo]

In the end, the only real FCC requirement is that the cable companies continue to provide local OTA stations. They will raise rates no matter what. Thank god, the FCC can now go back to protecting us from fleeting explitives and pixelated asses.

[usually_quiet]

In the end, the only real FCC requirement is that the cable companies continue to provide local OTA stations. They will raise rates no matter what. Thank god, the FCC can now go back to protecting us from fleeting explitives.

Agreed, as well as cut down on the number of analog channels offered. I have already experienced a fair amount of that.

I actually have no problem with the current level of censorship. I don't care for foul language, and have some sympathy for parents who are trying to instill enough good manners in their children that they won't use it habitually. It's harder to do that if they constantly hear it on TV and on the radio.

[edDV]

That site is focused on the over the air transition 17 Feb,2009. Cable users are not affected until at least 2012 at the first order. There are 2nd order issues with cable that some will notice and cable has to deal with the additional mandates coming from the FCC. These issues relate to bandwidth priority for must carry HD QAM to hardship cases in small or low resource communities. Some of these cable companies will just shut down under the weight of these transition investment mandates.

The basic stated goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC implementation is to prevent cable from profiting from the transition. The second wave of mandates like HD at full bandwidth for "must carry" locals border on penalty to cable in favor of special interests. Sat has no such requirement.

My only interest is as a "captive" cable subscriber. I don't want QVC, 700 Club or Beijing Nightly News to have priority for HD bandwidth over popular HD channels. I have no issue with the SD version of these channels.

A considerable portion of that site is devoted to answering questions about how cable subscribers will be affected by the switch. The cable companies may not be allowed to gouge under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but it is repeatedly stated in these FAQ answers that the FCC is not going to interfere with any business decisions the cable companies make in switching most or all of their service to digital, beyond the requirement to make local broadcast stations available in analog, either with or without a box, through 2012.

Lucky me! Right now my local Fox station is the one showing the 700 Club in HD

The influence of the FCC over cable extends to carriage of local over the air stations. Individual stations choose "Must Carry" or "Retransmission Consent" agreements. PBS went further with a national agreement with the cable industry to carry all subchannels in clear QAM. Beyond that the allocation of bandwidth to analog, SD digital, HD digital, PPV, VOD and other services is a business decision for the local cable company.

Currently about half the bandwidth of a typical cable system goes to analog (~65 channels). That is likely to drop to about 30 analog channels by 2012 freeing bandwidth for up to 100 new HD channels (assuming 3 per 256QAM channel) or 65 with higher quality. As the number of analog channels drop, more cutomers will need a cable box to get the same programming in digital versions.

[mazinz]

Just letting you know that my problem has been solved. EdDv in one of the previous post sent a link to the avsforum about the particular Samsung HD cable box I had. Sure enough the post was about how the reception was absolute garbage on it and how the quality was so much better with the cable box (Scientific) that TW previously used.

One poster also told that he had the TW dvr box (scientific) in one room and the samsung in the other and that it was like watching night and day.

Just came back from TW and gave in the samsung box for the Scientific dvr box. First channel I hit was IFC (worst with artifacting). Completely night and day. The quality is so much better on this box that it is amazing. Do not get me wrong, if you do look close you can see some very minor artifact but really the average Joe would unlikely see it. It almost looks as if a block softening filter of some kind is being used, very smooth and barely noticeable.

In conclusion if you have problems with picture quality and have the Samsung HD 3050 cable box, chances are that it is the box causing your issue and not the cable--

[lordsmurf]

I'm sorry, I must have missed this discussion elsewhere. Still, you know me from past times with my Line Noise problems of the old ERA days, back in 2001 and 2002, where I began a campagne of complaints and things to get rid of it, but that never happend. -vhelp 4756

Good call. I don't know if I hate herringbone noise worse, or macroblocks.
Different static patterns also sucked. Those have been replaced by popping audio and green blocks, due to dipping signals levels.

[mazinz]

I may have spoken a lttle too soon, was watching dogs of war on ifc and it looked like piss. STILL better than the samsung box (at least something in the right direction), but still bad. The blocking was truly a combo of the previous box and the cable and not just one or the other.

As mentioned the Scientific dvr box regardless does yeild a much better picture than the Samsung was able to accomplish