Comcast Puts the Screws To HDTV

Todd Spangler writes "Comcast, like every video distributor, compresses its digital video signals. But to fit in more HDTV channels, Comcast is squeezing some signals more than others. The cable operator claims it is using improved compression techniques, so that most subscribers won't see any drop-off in picture quality. But A/V buff Ken Fowler claims the differences between some of Comcast's more highly compressed channels and Verizon's FiOS TV are indeed noticeable. He's posted his comparative test results on AVSForum.com — and the results are not pretty."

Screws to HDTV? Not exactly

To be more precise, they're putting the screws to the consumer. Lower quality than Over The Air (OTA), all for a premium price.

No thanks. I'll stick with my Yagi antenna which pulls in 15 stations (many with subchannels) from 30 miles away. (Though I'm quite tempted to try a Gray-Hoverman Antenna as detailed here on Slashdot, just to see if it's better. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/14/2021223 [slashdot.org] )

Re:Screws to HDTV? Not exactly

What? Consumers aren't allowed to criticize a service they pay for when they notice other competing services provide better quality? What world do you live in? Nowhere did I say it was *easy*, I said it was possible, given money and desire to provide BETTER service than your competitors.

And for your information, I have provided city-wide Internet, TV and phone service before. No, not millions, but Comcast doesn't operate at that level either, if you had any clue as to how they actually operate. Most of their services operate sub-regionally, in loosely grouped clusters of service areas. They are moving in the direction of combining their service zones, which according to anyone familiar with basic economic theory would understand should decrease their cost of service, meaning more money in their coffers which should enable them to perform service upgrades mentioned by myself and others.

Re:Screws to HDTV? Not exactly

Why? because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars on mpeg2 equipment and commercial quality h264 and xvid equipment does not exist.

That's strange, I'll tell everyone using the new terrestrial broadcast system using H.264 here in Norway that it doesn't exist. Never mind that almost the whole country is live (last go live in november) and that analog broadcasts are already shut down in some areas and will be gone all over the country by end of next year. Friend of mine has cable, AFAIK it's H.264 signals too. The US has standardized on MPEG2, but the rest of the world is moving forward.

OTA much better than Comcast

I use Eye TV to record over-the-air HD, and it's quite obvious to me the quality is much higher than Comcast's HD. That said, I can't get as may OTA HD channels as I can on Comcast. And the quality of, say, Sci Fi Channel HD shows beats the standard def Sci Fi Channel.

Still, it would be nice as a consumer to know what I'm really getting. Maybe Comcast (and anyone else) should be required to label their channels as "compressed HDTV".

Not suprising at all

Anyone who has worked in the cable TV industry saw this coming a mile away. It's not like Comcast and pretty much EVERY OTHER "digital cable" providers wasn't already doing this.

Here's the thing: Coax cable networks, even hybrid fiber/coax cable networks, just don't have the bandwidth to handle very many HD channels without compressing the hell out of them. They just don't. It's not going to improve. The ONLY thing they can do is either drastically reduce the number of digital and HD channels they offer their subscribers, or bite the bullet and start massively upgrading their network. Basically, they need to run fiber to every home. Which they aren't going to do.

This is why I laugh at people who buy HDTVs and expect some kind of massive improvement. In most of the country, the infrastructure just isn't there to give people very many full-res HD channels over cable. Digital satellite has many of the same issues. There just isn't enough bandwidth.

What about OTA, you say? Yeah, OTA broadcasts only have to be *digital*, not HD.

Re:Not suprising at all

That's not the only problem, either. The people that own the shows precompress the video stream before transmitting to the broadcaster (cable, satellite, whoever) to save transmission charges. That means the broadcaster has to take what he can get, and if he wants to recompress it even further ... well. Occasionally I'll watch an old Stargate re-run, and honestly they're so heavily compressed as to be almost unwatchable. I mean, you're paying these people good money each month to watch video that's little better than YouTube after clicking on the full-screen button. We're not even talking Hi-Def here, either.

Ridiculous.

Re:Not suprising at all

The problem is, of course, that they are trying to transmit all of their hundreds of channels to your TV simultaneously, and let the decoder pick out the interesting bits. If they only sent the one that you were watching, there wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, then they'd have to discard their outmoded business model. So that won't happen. They'll just be marginalised and discarded in favour of internet distribution. It's the same thing that's happening to newspapers and bookstores - still around, but becoming less relevant every year.

Cue their attempts to get laws passed to ban the new competition...

Re:Not suprising at all

Actually, the cable co's are trying to get away from sending ALL the available channels at once, using switched digital video [wikipedia.org]. However, the consumer electronics industry is railing against this change because (for the short-term) it will break compatibility with the current end-user decoding, CableCARD. Until TV manufacturers and the FCC get on board with OCAP [wikipedia.org], and start putting return-capable modules into their TV's, it's tough titties for all of us.

Re:Not suprising at all

People might not have noticed up until now though.

The compression essentially scales dynamically with popularity.

So, you might have the home and garden channel, but if it isn't getting viewers it's getting it's compression slammed. SCI-Fi, in my old area, was awful on Saturday evening. I fiddled with my mythbox forever wondering why it was just so horrible and then caught it live one evening.

That said, once motorola releases an H264 based unit and not an mpeg2 receiver... there will be plenty of bandwidth. Well, assuming the rush to fill their service with tier 3 HD channels doesn't ruin it. This is all contingent on fast, affordable h264 decoding chips and I really haven't seen a good deal yet.

My big beef with FiOS is just wondering when the bait and switch will happen. I hear great things about it now, but I'm just wondering when they will turn to the cheap. Any FiOS guys want to tell us the diabolical plans in store? (I'll take made up ones too)

Re:Not suprising at all

Why not ? Because Sweden is not in North America.

I honestly don't know much about Sweden (despite a few visits), but I think it is safe to assume your telecommunications providers are nowhere near as enormous, corrupt and heavy-handed as American ones. There is no competition at all in North America, everyone just gouges like mad, and when an independent tries to push out better services and/or lower prices, they get sued into oblivion or often times bought out and destroyed.

If there were some form of harsh punishment for such blatant abuse of the capitalist system, maybe things would be better for everyone here, but the people drafting the rules are on the receiving end of significant lobbying from the telecoms, so it won't happen anytime soon.

Re:Not suprising at all

MOD PARENT UP!

This stupid dickering over population density and whatall manages to totally miss the point. In the U.S. there IS NO FREE MARKET for telco. Not even close. In which case, inertia is the biggest culprit, which explains why a very significant minority of the populous STILL can't get anything better (bandwidth/latency-wise) than freakin' dialup. The 'last-mile' problem exists for the same reason. When there is one telephone company and one cable company in town (in some cases they are one and the same), there is absolutely NO reason why that company would roll out last-mile fiber. The CEOs of those companies would be flogged by the shareholders for even suggesting what would be perceived as an unnecessary and costly venture. It is a chicken-and-egg scenario for a lot of companies. For the majority of internet users, anything beyond bare-bones 1024/256 DSL is really not necessary. People would likely find a use for it if it existed, but don't demand the upgrade in infrastructure because it is a white elephant ATM.

For example, I live 18 miles from the nearest town, and get 1024/256 DSL by pure accident because I live on a well-traveled highway. Us lucky folks get to watch streaming video without hiccups. Our modem-bound neighbors a mile to the north have no such luxury. :-/

Re:Not suprising at all

I wouldn't say that's true... Your coasts are densely populated, so you have the ability to give a huge portion of the population fiber, ethernet etc... Do even 10% of New York apartments have fiber-connection? Why not one might ask? My belief is that US companies do not invest in new technology in the same manner that some other countries do. The US (instead of competing) is using protectionism to keep industries competitive. Corn-syrup vs Sugar is an example... Heavy tariffs. Iron, Car-industry and Lumber are some of the industries that aren't doing so well (last time I checked) either... And FYI, more than 50% of Sweden is not densely populated at all. Mostly pine forest... However, every time something is replaced, say new power lines, new sewage lines etc, fiber are also installed. The municipally, powercompany etc then rents them out. The extra cost is nearly null... Basically every small village now has fiber running to it's town's phone exchange, which in turn gives you the ability to at *least* have 8Mbpbs if not 24 Mbps ADSL2+... In Stockholm, when a apartment building is changing water pipes or putting in new electric wirings they also add ethernet in the house... The extra cost is small... You then call ISPs and say, "Hey, we are 50 apartments and we just need you to pull in a fiber to get us to sign upp...". Which is exactly what we did in our complex. I pay $41 for my 100/100 connection... You then have the ability to choose the ISP you want and change if they screw around... It works great!

Re:Not suprising at all

Do even 10% of New York apartments have fiber-connection? Why not one might ask?

Speaking as someone who has lived in NYC for the past nine years and lived in five different apartments so far: You would not believe how poorly patched together New York City is unless you are reading this from a former soviet-block country. From the subway to apartment repairs to the roads to phone and cable infrastructure, NYC is a collection of barely good enough, cheapest, fastest repairs and hacks. NYC hasn't been able to even put in a new subway line since 1919 [wikipedia.org] and you think we should be able to roll out fiber to any but the most expensive apartments? In Stockholm you may be able to convince landlords to actually do things like put in new pipes or electric wiring and to add fiber while they are at it. Here in Manhattan, my water comes out of the faucet rust brown and I only have electrical outlets on two walls of my apartment. Landlords do the least amount they can legally get away with, as there is always someone who will step in a rent the apartment as is. (The vacancy rate here is below 1%) I would expect fiber to be run to most of the surrounding commuter towns well before it becomes common in households actually in the city. Seriously the infrastructure here is FUBAR

Is *this* HD? DO NOT WANT!

FTA:

In response to competitive pressures from DirecTV and Verizon FiOS, Comcast recently decided to sacrifice some quality to improve quantity.

Isn't this just great? In response to competition, comcast gives you a crappier product. This also illustrates that Comcast oversubscribes its bandwidth to the point where they have to not deliver the service you expected, just as for their internet services.

But what I find the most frightening is looking at the pictures in the article I quoted, and then realising that "These images were rescaled to half-resolution". Imagine how coarse they must look at twice the size if a downscaling doesn't produce anything more smooth than that.

I'm starting to rediscover my love for that ~15 year old 14" CRT thing I have in my room.

FIOS testimonial

Lots of people saying, "if only FIOS was in my area".

As a former Comcast customer, what can I tell you but keep checking.

When FIOS reached my block, I called Verizon the next day. The install went smoothly and all the contacts I've had with Verizon have been great.

I'm done with those thieves at Comcast.

Internet is unbelievable, I shelled out extra money for higher speed. Downloading a distro used to be an overnight undertaking. Now it's more like 20 minutes.

I got a bunch of new phone features I don't need and the TV signal quality is great.

Best part is I'm paying a little less than I used to pay Comcast for TV and internet but
I'm getting TV, Internet, phone and long distance with the price locked in for 2 years.

I'm still waiting for my free 19inch LCD TV from Verizon, but to make up for the delay they sent me a $20 gift certificate.

Please fix the headline

Please fix the headline by dropping "Puts the" and "To" from the sentence.

Thank you.

FIOS TV Has one HUGE Limitation IMO

I have FIOS for Internet but I've kept Comcrap for my TV for one simple reason: Verizon requires you to use their crappy Actiontec router if you want to use FIOS TV.

Re:FIOS TV Has one HUGE Limitation IMO

Yes/no. Before the actiontec router (customers who got in early) use Motorola NIMs and dlink routers and they get full functionality. If you can get a hold of the NIM, you don't need the actiontec router.

Re:FIOS TV Has one HUGE Limitation IMO

Incorrect. You can still roll your own router with the Actiontec. All you need to do is disable DHCP on the Actiontec and release the WAN's IP.

There's lots of great FIOS/FIOS TV help over at BroadbandReports: http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/vzfiber [broadbandreports.com]

Re:FIOS TV Has one HUGE Limitation IMO

Use a fast Ethernet switch (100 megabit) between the ONT (optical network terminator) and the Actiontec router.

Plug your TV cable into the Actiontec but use the router of your choice for your Internet access connected to the ONT via the Ethernet switch. Verizon will issue IP addresses to both boxes. I am not guessing about this, this is how I have been running since I added 802.11N support and didn't want to stack routers. You will still only be accessing the Internet via one MAC address, but your program guide, PPV and on demand will come through the other. You should see the packets fly between the ONT and the Actiontec when you fire up an on-demand HD program.

Do not connect both the Actiontec and your other router to the private side of your LAN unless you want to see what dueling DHCP servers do to your connectivity.

Re:Who has what?

We have Comcast, but not their HD service (although it's available - I just don't own an HDTV). Thanks to a recently enacted state law, AT&T will be coming in with U-Verse as its main competitor. So what does Comcast do?

Play 30 second commercials with dancing 7-foot tall VRAD cabinets. I guess they're supposed to be huge and in everyone's front yard. Obviously.

Why bother to have better services when you can just slander your competition?

Re:Who has what?

YOU get the dancing 7-foot cabinets?

Lucky!

We just get the turtles in the lawn, turtle dinner parties, turtle this, turtle that.
Oh, and the fake new reports, and the guy squirting silver stuff on his shoes to run faster and jump higher.

But it all amounts to "slander your competition" except perhaps the vats of silver stuff.

Re:comcast

Your bill.

Re:Perhaps we don't really need HDTV?

Except people do notice.

Do they? Not if someone had to compare screen caps to prove it.

in the compressed images, you can see the artifacts.

Artifacts in screen captures don't necessarily mean noticeable artifacts in moving video. Screen captures in NTSC look like crap, far far worse than you "really" see when watching TV, thanks to the persistence of vision.

This point, by the way, was also in TFA.

Re:what does this mean for 1080?

There's a bunch of things that end up degrading the usefulness of 1080 unfortunately:

• half the stations broadcast in 720p instead
• it can be hard to tell the difference between a 720p station and a 1080i station except when the source material has been done really well
• the distance from your couch to your TV can limit the resolution you can see (for instance, I had *one* dead pixel on my 1080p TV, and I decided to not return it because even when I knew exactly where to look, and had a white motionless feed, I still couldn't see it from the couch)

If you're ever thinking of hooking your computer up to it though, then 1080i/p can be great.