Time Warner Advances Simulcasting [Archive]

gb4fan92

07-09-2005, 06:48 AM

from multichannel news Source

Time Warner Cable said Thursday that its system in Raleigh, N.C., is the first to digitally simulcast its analog-channel lineup throughout its full service area.

The MSO added that it expects to complete its digital-simulcast rollout in one-half of its 31 divisions by year-end.

The digital-simulcast networks are delivered to the same channel number as the analog networks but converted into a digital format, improving their image, sound and recordability, Time Warner said.

“Our simulcast project provides consumers with the best of both worlds -- 100% digital, which means crystal-clear picture and sound, as well as continued delivery of our analog service to those customers who prefer not to use a cable set-top box,” Time Warner Raleigh division president Tom Adams said in a prepared statement.

The MSO’s senior vice president of strategy and development, Kevin Leddy, added, “We have begun to aggressively deliver the digital simulcast of our analog channels, negating any perceived advantage of satellite-delivered video service.”
__________________

I wonder if we are the lucky ones to get it by years end?
(thinks about previous TWC announcements and when we actually got it)
Dah guess not! :bang:

gparris

07-09-2005, 01:45 PM

So satellite services will not be able to badger cable with all-digital delivery-only as their advantage over cable, very good, TWC!

Austin, TX for TWC has had most of their analogue channels duplicated into digital for some time, a nice feature.

I am imagining the Sci-Fi Channel and USA in digital delivery....cool! :cool:

As for waiting for the digital delivery, it depends on what sequence we are in for it. I remember Green Bay getting the DVR box before us and then there were other items, I believe, we got first, too.

As cablecard sets become more the norm, the analogue will be phased out, IMO.

Now, if only TWC could free up an analogue channel and delivery an HD Channel addition or two, soon-now that would be really great! :)

Bent_MG

07-09-2005, 02:17 PM

Charter cable has been doing this in my area (Delavan/Elkhorn) for a month or 2 now. Quality is very good; the only channels that aren't digital are the local access channels and the TV Guide channel. Also it helps when the CSR's remember to actually send the signals to the boxes to make them pick up the digital signals instead of analog after we needed to have a box replaced! :mad:

Joseph S

07-09-2005, 02:49 PM

Comcast has been doing this as well for years. The only news is Time Warner has finally joined the majority, but only in one market. The quality of the analogs gets worse every day here. It's completely unwatchable on my screen.

gb4fan92

07-09-2005, 03:57 PM

Hopefully this will come sooner than later. A few years ago TWC stated the reason they couldn't switch to all digital was cuz so many subs watched cable without a cable box and weren't willing to get a cable box. This sounds like a "win win" situation for everyone. Really a breakthrough technology for cable!

kevbeck122

07-09-2005, 05:47 PM

Analogs look nearly the same as digitals on my TV.. maybe a little fuzz here and there but they're ok. Maybe it's just because I have a small TV. It would still be nice though to have the same audio level on all channels. Analogs seem about 50% quieter than digitals.

Joseph S

07-09-2005, 06:36 PM

maybe a little fuzz here and there but they're ok. Maybe it's just because I have a small TV.
I've got fuzz, worse now than 6 mo ago. Plus, anything above 55ish especially National Geographic /Oxygen range are physically distorted with some sort of ground loop style effect that doesn't move like a ground loop does.

kevbeck122

07-09-2005, 06:47 PM

Yeah some of those channels up there look bad sometimes. We just had new cable put in outside (because we wanted it buried vs. in the air) about a month ago with an added ground outside... that helped a little, but it was pretty good before even with the 15+ year old cable outside. The tech who came here a while ago said that we have some of the highest signals out here.

Scott

07-10-2005, 08:56 PM

I dumped TWC in 1998 after I got a big screen rear projection TV.

I had to work on my wife to get this thing, then it got delivered and we sat down to watch it.....and the picture was awful....just awful.....which brought glances from my wife.....then she said..."Why the heck did we just spend $3k on this big screen when the picture looks like crap....give me back our regular tube set"

So disgusted I put a Packers Super Bowl tape into the VCR and hit play....the picture was beautiful.....stunning to watch Favre in his 53" glory.....

I figured out quickly the problem wasn't the set but TWC....the tech I called explained to me that "Well, Germantown was only really built out to service 2,000 homes, but now we service 3,000, and so we really don't have a big enough pipe to deliver a good signal"

So I went to Direct TV and haven't looked back......even with the hardware purchase hassle, I've been pretty happy......we just need more HD channels and a cheap HD Tivo, which hopefully will come shortly.

picopir8

07-11-2005, 01:07 AM

I dont think you can compare cable from 1998 with cable today. I ended up switching to D* as well back in 1997. At that point in time, D* offered a better price, better picture, more channels, and an on screen guide. However, after a number of price increases, several fried boxes, and their unwillingness to provide an HD box at a decent price (<250), I got fed up and decided to give TWC a try. After all, with no commitment, I had nothing to loose. I could not believe what I was missing! More channels (over 300 vs 215 at D*), more HD offerings, better quality digital channels (not as compressed as D* thus less pixelation), on demand content, etc. Luckily I live in an area that has great analog reception, though I can understand the complaints of people with poor analog reception. Cable may not be for everyone, but those who have not tried it recently should give it a try. After TWC starts simulcasting, once Tivo releases their cable card HD box, D* will likely be in trouble. The only real advantage they will have is sunday ticket. Hopefully they will then begin to add HD channels before that time. I want to see both be successful to drive inovation and keep prices low.

foxeng

07-11-2005, 05:58 AM

After TWC starts simulcasting, once Tivo releases their cable card HD box, D* will likely be in trouble.

Not according to what a friend of mine in Raleigh who has TWC says about it. The local digital analogs are more compressed than D*. He watches off of his analog jack in his TV to bypass the digital analog because the PQ of the digital analog is so bad.

RLJSlick

07-11-2005, 01:32 PM

Man thats awesome to hear about! I can't wait, but I still would like to see some more HD channels, but this will go a long way to my happyness! :D

Mark Strube

07-11-2005, 02:49 PM

Not according to what a friend of mine in Raleigh who has TWC says about it. The local digital analogs are more compressed than D*. He watches off of his analog jack in his TV to bypass the digital analog because the PQ of the digital analog is so bad.

Digital analogs? You mean channels 1-99 that used to be analog, right? Well, if channels 4-6 are any indication (the only local digital simulcast channels so far) these channels will look great.

kevbeck122

07-11-2005, 03:29 PM

better quality digital channels (not as compressed as D* thus less pixelation)

I don't know.. I always thought D* had a better (SD) picture. Maybe times have changed.. I haven't seen content lately from them. I know the local stations they carry didn't seem like the best quality (I've only seen Wausau/Rhinelander stations), but the others seemed better than TWC.

Mark Strube

07-11-2005, 03:49 PM

I think it really depends on the station you're watching. I know here on TWC Noggin looks like crap, huge amount of compression... but on my friend's DirecTV it looks great. (Yeah yeah, I got addicted to Degrassi... so sue me. Daria is my official reason for watching the station. ;) )

foxeng

07-12-2005, 06:17 AM

Digital analogs? You mean channels 1-99 that used to be analog, right? Well, if channels 4-6 are any indication (the only local digital simulcast channels so far) these channels will look great.

In Raleigh they have taken the local analog channels (2-13) and put up a second, version where they take the analog and convert it to digital and then compress the digital signal. If you have a digital cable box, you get the digital versions of 2-13. If you do not have a digital box, you get the analog version of 2-13. My friend tells me that the digital versions of 2-13 are very compressed and if he has to watch something on 2-13, he uses the analog input to his TV and not the digital cable box because of the compress TWC Raleigh is using on the digital 2-13. I haven't seen it so I am relying on my friends say.

Mark Strube

07-12-2005, 03:31 PM

The reason 4-6 are the only digital simulcast channels so far is because those were the only locals they've been able to get the digital feed from so far. (Or something of that sort... it was mentioned in this forum awhile back.) Going by that, I don't think they'll be converting analog to digital in the first place. That sounds pointless, actually... lower quality and they're still not freeing up the analog bandwidth.

Joseph S

07-12-2005, 05:40 PM

See that's what Comcast did in some regions. They pulled analog and made special deals for the folks grandfathered in to the ancient plans.

RLJSlick

07-14-2005, 05:48 PM

Thats too funny! Daria show rules!

I think it really depends on the station you're watching. I know here on TWC Noggin looks like crap, huge amount of compression... but on my friend's DirecTV it looks great. (Yeah yeah, I got addicted to Degrassi... so sue me. Daria is my official reason for watching the station. ;) )

Mark Strube

07-15-2005, 06:14 PM

Thanks for that intelligent, thoughtful post!! :bang:

GBK

07-15-2005, 07:51 PM

Thanks for that intelligent, thoughtful post!! :bang:

anytime. :wave:

If you had the experience with those idiots as I did you'd feel the same way.

gb4fan92

07-15-2005, 07:57 PM

Thanks for that intelligent, thoughtful post!! :bang:

I couldn't agree more.

RLJSlick

07-23-2005, 08:34 AM

No Problem! :bang:

Thanks for that intelligent, thoughtful post!! :bang:

Mark Strube

07-23-2005, 11:55 AM

No Problem! :bang:

No no... I was replying to GBK... I guess he was so embarrassed by his pointless post he erased it.

GBK

07-24-2005, 08:35 AM

gparris

07-24-2005, 10:42 AM

this forum is really for some positive feedback I felt that it was needlessly causing a pointless agrument I wasn't interested in pursuing. I still don't like TW. I think this simulcasting of digital anolog is absolutely pointless. digitizing crapy analog signal doensn't make it better. But I don't expect anything usefull out of that company.

I was at a friends house in last night, got what I thought was a decent signal on their Directv box for their 65" Mits, adjusted for convergence, did a setup with the AVIA disc, etc. and still wonder why folks with satellite think the digitally compressed Directv signals are any better than the the analogue TWC.

If this is Directv "digital", it looks worse than I remember it from 2003 when I moved to apartment and went to cable with the same 65" Mits I had then.
Then during the storm, we had breakup, signal fade, pixelation and so on for about a hour-never experienced that with TWC.

So I am very glad cable is expanding its digital delivery to quiet the comments from satellite, but unlike others in the forum, I also want it to remain competitive and if this helps raise the bar for both types of HDTV/digital delivery, so be it. ;)

Mark Strube

07-24-2005, 11:23 AM

GBK - the idea isn't to digitize analog. It's to keep everything digital, all the way thru, like most of the existing digital channels. When they first make the switch some of them may be digitized analog if they're unable to get a digital feed from a given channel, but the eventual goal is that everything is digital. mhz40 might be able to comment on the digital feed situation?

GBK

07-24-2005, 01:36 PM

I based my analog converted to digtal based on the below post...

In Raleigh they have taken the local analog channels (2-13) and put up a second, version where they take the analog and convert it to digital and then compress the digital signal. If you have a digital cable box, you get the digital versions of 2-13. If you do not have a digital box, you get the analog version of 2-13. My friend tells me that the digital versions of 2-13 are very compressed and if he has to watch something on 2-13, he uses the analog input to his TV and not the digital cable box because of the compress TWC Raleigh is using on the digital 2-13. I haven't seen it so I am relying on my friends say.

The way I understood it is that the analog channels are converted to digital and simulcast.. If that is the case it is an absolute waste of bandwidth and proves to me it's a mere marketing ploy against the Satelite services for the 100% digital channels.. I don't use either so I can't speak of the current quality of channels I have however used TWC in the past and it was a huge mistake to do so. Analog quality of channels were almost as bad as watching it over the air with an indoor rabbit ears antenna. There was nothing but problems with their "digital" box locking up etc. I hope for the sake of their customer someday they will get what they're supposed to be paying for.. DIGITAL CABLE.

RLJSlick

07-24-2005, 04:37 PM

Oh ok! :)

No no... I was replying to GBK... I guess he was so embarrassed by his pointless post he erased it.

mhz40

07-25-2005, 08:13 AM

GBK

07-25-2005, 12:35 PM

most of the stuff that digitized these days is from analog. that wasn't my point. I'm saying simulcasting the same channel in analog and digital after taking the analog channel and digitizing it then compressing it to fit into their stream is pointless. I mean why have analog and then have digitzed analog?? why not have the digitized analog if the source is only analog and have digital only if the source was digital? where are these signals digitized? at the source... broadcast network or in a local office? What is the point of TWC digitizing the CBS58 analog when CBS58 is already providing digital service. On the other hand digitzing a channel that isn't providing digital is different but keeping both analog and the digitized portion is stupid.

Mark Strube

07-25-2005, 12:57 PM

It was my understanding that 4, 5, and 6 were actual digital feeds, not digitized analog. All I know is that on our standard tv's with a digital box, those channels look much nicer now.

GBK

07-25-2005, 01:00 PM

Mark Strube

07-25-2005, 01:05 PM

Any customer with a digital box gets the digital versions of 4, 5, and 6... which looks nicer than when they were in analog. So there's your answer.

RS922

07-25-2005, 05:43 PM

Chs 4, 5 and 6 really do look great on TWC with the digital settop to receive the QAM signals. I'm reminded of this every time I tune to Ch 12, which is not in digital format. I also suspect that many folks living near the analog transmitters on Capital Drive also get much cleaner signals with a digital box. My only gripe with the process at TW is that 10, 12, 16, 18 & 24 are not in digital format as well. Another benefit for those with DVRs recording chs 4, 5 or 6...recording these services takes up less space on the hard drive, as the analog to digital encoder in the DVR uses more bandwidth than recording most SD digital streams.

mhz40

07-26-2005, 01:34 PM

they are but they're only available to HD customers (I think) I don't know if the digital customers get those free or if they have to subscribe to HD package to get regular networks free of charge which they are anyway. let say that Digital customers get those networks... why carry a simulcast digital (of the analog) or even the analog for that matter.
All digital subs do get the SD's. All HD subs get the HD's as well. You keep the analog simulcast for customers without digital service, or additional outlets feeding analog tuners in basements, kitchens, gatages, bedrooms etc...

Mark Strube

07-26-2005, 04:27 PM

Getting real tired of GBK, someone who has neither satellite nor cable, filling this thread with incorrect information about both. If you're going to try and bash something, at least know what you're talking about. :bang:

gparris

07-29-2005, 09:50 AM

Speaking of simulcasting, which is this is about in this thread, I have a link that tries to explain I found in the avsforum link.
http://www.bigbandnet.com/news/inTheNews/2005/news_053105a.php

Since Time Warner is doing this, per this article and it is very hard to follow, at least for me... :(
Does it mean that we as subs will get more HD channels or does it mean TWC gets to dictate what we get at any given time?
Maybe I don't understand the technology...VOD is always been slow at best and confusing to access, at least for me.