Latest Comcast ads challenge DTV's HD superiority

[captain_video]

The latest onslaught of TV ads by Comcast have been echoing what I've been saying all along. It's not the number of HD channels you provide but rather how much actual HD programming you broadcast. I'm no fan of Comcast and I have no way of verifying their claim of having more HD programming per week than DirecTV but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Everyone's been raving about all the new HD channels being offered by DirecTV but nobody is telling us how much HD content is actually being provided. I get all of my local channels in HD but they mostly provide HD content only during prime time. Just because a channel claims to be HD doesn't mean you're getting HD programs.

I would really like to see a breakdown of all of the new HD channels offered by DirecTV with regards to the number of hours of HD programming they provide on a weekly basis. I would also like to see a breakdown of the same offerings from other providers so we can see who's really telling the truth about HD programming. The total number of HD channels is meaningless unless you've got HD programs to air on them.

There are probably only a handful of channels offering HD programs 24/7, and I'd be willing to bet most were among the original channels we were getting prior to the activation of all of the latest HD channels. Still, a great number of channels have made the switch to digital broadcasts (i.e., NTSC to ATSC) so it's probably just a matter of time before steady HD content becomes available.

[leww37334]

Somehow I don't think it is Directv's fault that the SciFi channel has not put all their programming in HD yet. All Directv can do is give us the channel, and they are doing a darn good job of that. These attack ads usually start showing up when it looks like someone (Directv) is on the verge of dominating the market (HD).

[ElVee]

Somehow I don't think it is Directv's fault that the SciFi channel has not put all their programming in HD yet. All Directv can do is give us the channel, and they are doing a darn good job of that. These attack ads usually start showing up when it looks like someone (Directv) is on the verge of dominating the market (HD).

Advertising - what a business, huh?

DirecTv is not providing content. They are providing channels. Put it this way - DirecTv is providing as much HD content as it possibly can. Sci-Fi HD may not be showing much HD, but even if they show one HD program, it's one more than what you'll get with Comcast, Cablevision, or any other cable provider. At least the channels are there.

[JeffBowser]

That's exactly right - all DirecTV can do is provide the channel, they have no control over what the channel owner puts on there. Down here in S. Fl., they are, however, having great success in momentarily fooling people with that silly ad.

Advertising - what a business, huh?

DirecTv is not providing content. They are providing channels. Put it this way - DirecTv is providing as much HD content as it possibly can. Sci-Fi HD may not be showing much HD, but even if they show one HD program, it's one more than what you'll get with Comcast, Cablevision, or any other cable provider. At least the channels are there.

[hilmar2k]

To make thier claim, Comcast includes their HD content available via On Demand. There is no shot that Comcast (or anyone else, for that matter) has more HD content than does DIRECTV without including On Demand.

[fineware]

It's all just marketing PR BS and none of it should be taken all that seriously. Think about how silly and utterly predictable this is: I mean, once we start talking about the quantity of HD programming, the next obvious counter-attack is to start talking about the quality of the programming - a subjective argument at best. For example, I personally could care less about HD cattle auctions on RFD, but somebody must somewhere, wouldn't they?

[Earl Bonovich]

You remove COMCAST onDemand.... and don't they show the "SAME" HD content, that are the same channels that they both have?

As hilmark2k pointed out.... There are several channels that DirecTV carries that not many other carriers provide IN EVERY MARKET (note: COMCAST is not consistant accross all their markets in what channels they offer in HD... and I am not referring to locals)

It is all just a marketting spin... and COMCAST made sure they stamped a comparison date on it, as they know once DoD is removed from BETA status and HD is available on it, then the comercial is no longer valid.

[Cable Lover]

The latest onslaught of TV ads by Comcast have been echoing what I've been saying all along. It's not the number of HD channels you provide but rather how much actual HD programming you broadcast. I'm no fan of Comcast and I have no way of verifying their claim of having more HD programming per week than DirecTV but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Everyone's been raving about all the new HD channels being offered by DirecTV but nobody is telling us how much HD content is actually being provided. I get all of my local channels in HD but they mostly provide HD content only during prime time. Just because a channel claims to be HD doesn't mean you're getting HD programs.

I would really like to see a breakdown of all of the new HD channels offered by DirecTV with regards to the number of hours of HD programming they provide on a weekly basis. I would also like to see a breakdown of the same offerings from other providers so we can see who's really telling the truth about HD programming. The total number of HD channels is meaningless unless you've got HD programs to air on them.

There are probably only a handful of channels offering HD programs 24/7, and I'd be willing to bet most were among the original channels we were getting prior to the activation of all of the latest HD channels. Still, a great number of channels have made the switch to digital broadcasts (i.e., NTSC to ATSC) so it's probably just a matter of time before steady HD content becomes available.



You be breaking it down!!:eek:

[lwilli201]

I think what may be lost in the conversation is that all these new channels have converted to digital broadcasting. That is the first thing that has to happen before HD is possible. Many of use have HD LIL but most of the content is upconverted SD. The upconverted SD programming is far superior to the old analogue source. More HD content will come in time. Content providers see a cash cow in HD content and the broadcast providers will be paying dearly for it. Each channel has to weigh the cost/return of providing HD programs. Many channels are doing the same as the networks, providing most HD content in primetime hours like SciFi.

If the writers strike continues there will probably be very little HD on the nets in primetime. All reality and games shows. :nono2:

[gregchak]

Must be why DirecTV advertises HD CHANNELS and not PROGRAMMING. They have no control over the programming. All they can do is give the content provider a means to broadcast their content in HD if it is produced in HD. Anyone that is upset at the lack of programs in HD should be upset with the content provider not at DirecTV, ad should be contacting them about how upset you are. One of my favorite prime-time shows, Scrubs, is still not in HD. I've written NBC multiple times in hopes that they might consider it. I didn't write to DirecTV.

[MIMOTech]

Comcast can not be called a content provider also. Since many of the channels selections overlap with D* then the content count would be the same for those channels. PPV and On Demand programing is the main difference. On Demand from D* will become a sore spot with Comcast, Verizon and other Internet providers when D* begins HD On Demand. AS of now D* has more HD on a Channel by Channel comparison. Add in On Demand programing and things even up a bit.

[lifelong]

Comcast HD on demand is pretty legit, there's no way around that. Even if DirecTV starts offering HD VOD, for the vast majority of people (probably over 90%) it will not work as well as Comcast's on demand service. It will probably be a huge pain in the arse, in fact. You will have to add an HD program to your queue and then come back an hour or two later in order to watch it so that you have enough video buffered. I used and enjoyed Comcast's on demand service, but I found that I prefer live HD channels like NFL Network, Big 10 network, HDNet and CNN HD.

[msmith198025]

Comcast can not be called a content provider also. Since many of the channels selections overlap with D* then the content count would be the same for those channels. PPV and On Demand programing is the main difference. On Demand from D* will become a sore spot with Comcast, Verizon and other Internet providers when D* begins HD On Demand. AS of now D* has more HD on a Channel by Channel comparison. Add in On Demand programing and things even up a bit.

Or it will even up(in that respect) anyway. I think that the general public, if they take the time to look at the actual CHANNELS offered by both will see that this is basically the spinning of info by a company (comcast) that is running scared at the moment.

[msmith198025]

Comcast HD on demand is pretty legit, there's no way around that. Even if DirecTV starts offering HD VOD, for the vast majority of people (probably over 90%) it will not work as well as Comcast's on demand service. It will probably be a huge pain in the arse, in fact. You will have to add an HD program to your queue and then come back an hour or two later in order to watch it so that you have enough video buffered. I used and enjoyed Comcast's on demand service, but I found that I prefer live HD channels like NFL Network, Big 10 network, HDNet and CNN HD.

I have actually heard that it works pretty good. Havent used it myself, but i plan to soon

[lwilli201]

I hope Directv does HD DOD via the sats. The internet is just not fast enough for all the new high volume vidio content being pushed through the system. It will also prompt more ISP's to set limits. That would not be a good thing.

[Earl Bonovich]

I hope Directv does HD DOD via the sats. The internet is just not fast enough for all the new high volume vidio content being pushed through the system. It will also prompt more ISP's to set limits. That would not be a good thing.

They will not be doing it via SAT.
The by far VAST majority of DoD will be via Internet Connection.

[tonyd79]

The latest onslaught of TV ads by Comcast have been echoing what I've been saying all along. It's not the number of HD channels you provide but rather how much actual HD programming you broadcast. I'm no fan of Comcast and I have no way of verifying their claim of having more HD programming per week than DirecTV but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

You really are a sucker for advertising, huh? How about checking it out yourself. Comcast has only ONE channel that DirecTV doesn't have. Mojo, a full time HD channel. Meanwhile, DirecTV has HDNet and HDNet Movies that Comcast doesn't. They are both full time HD. So already DirecTV is ahead.

Then add that DirecTV has about 80 HD channels, the vast majority that Comcast doesn't have. Even at some HD on each, DirecTV wins on channel content.

Comcast is relying on their On Demand material. Which is pretty good but most of the HD is either PPV (which DirecTV has) or repeats of programming on DirecTV's (or Comcast's) broadcast channels (Discovery, History, Showtime, Starz, etc.) Comcst has a handful of free movies in HD (usually about a dozen) that are not readily availalbe on DirecTV.

Let's see. That gives Comcast a dozen movies on DirecTV. They lose on HD channels (by a lot) and have nowhere near the HD sports (NFL, NHL, BTN, multiple RSNs, MLB, NBA).

Yeah, Comcast is the real leader in HD. Not.

Glad they "proved" you right. ;)

[lifelong]

I have actually heard that it works pretty good. Havent used it myself, but i plan to soon

If you are referring to DirecTV VOD, I have found that it does work good for SD content, but with my 6Mbps DSL connection, I wouldn't be able to watch a HD VOD program "live." Plus, relying on the internet to deliver HD video to its customers will probably result in a very mixed user experience for customers.

[Upstream]

Looking at HD conten versus HD channels is a more meaningful comparison, even though DirecTV can only control the channels they carry and not the content.

If DirecTV carries 75% more HD channels, that seems like a lot more. But if it is only 4% more HD content, then the difference is actually minuscule. Especially in areas where DirecTV isn't providing HD locals or limited HD locals, they could have more channels and less content.

Of course, as Fineware notes, the most meaningful comparison is amount of content you want to watch ... and that differs for every person.


It is also misleading for Comcast or DirecTV to include On-Demand or PPV in their count of HD channels or content, without identifying the cost to access the additional content. It isn't meaningful to claim to have more HD content if it costs you $500 per month more to access the content. (It is also misleading to count On-Demand or PPV if the content is double counted, either by duplicating content already counted on standard channels, or counting non-changing content as new content every month.)


Unfortunately, it is not easy to do an accurate analysis to show what HD content is delivered by which provider. So we are at the mercy of misleading ads.

[tonyd79]

Comcast HD on demand is pretty legit, there's no way around that. Even if DirecTV starts offering HD VOD, for the vast majority of people (probably over 90%) it will not work as well as Comcast's on demand service. It will probably be a huge pain in the arse, in fact. You will have to add an HD program to your queue and then come back an hour or two later in order to watch it so that you have enough video buffered. I used and enjoyed Comcast's on demand service, but I found that I prefer live HD channels like NFL Network, Big 10 network, HDNet and CNN HD.

Comcast On Demand is a dual edged sword.

Yes, it is relatively instant (but from the point you know what you want until you get it is 5 to 10 minutes because the menus are so darned slow and cumbersome...and buggy) but then you get the program for 24 hours access and it is not local so any interruption will lose what you are watching and the trick play is agonizingly slow because you are really using a "DVR" at the Comcast office.

The internet aspect of DirecTV's system can be an issue but the fact that that the program is local is a very nice feature as you can keep it for a long time and use real trick play. So far, for SD programming, I only have to wait about 5 to 10 minutes to watch the program. I know that will be different (longer) for HD, but that is not that much different than the time to start watching on Comcast. Once you have the program, the DirecTV system wins.

[tonyd79]

If DirecTV carries 75% more HD channels, that seems like a lot more. But if it is only 4% more HD content, then the difference is actually minuscule. Especially in areas where DirecTV isn't providing HD locals or limited HD locals, they could have more channels and less content.

I know you were being extreme to make a point but 4%??? The sports content alone is far more than 4%. Gee, since Comcast is somewhere around 25 channels of HD (not all HD, of course, since many are the same as DirecTV), just the Big Ten Network (which Comcast is battling) accounts for more than 4%.

Of course, as Fineware notes, the most meaningful comparison is amount of content you want to watch ... and that differs for every person.


Yeah but when you are advertising to millions of people, really hard to tailor the ads that way. A good point for the individual but silly for national advertising.


It is also misleading for Comcast or DirecTV to include On-Demand or PPV in their count of HD channels or content, without identifying the cost to access the additional content. It isn't meaningful to claim to have more HD content if it costs you $500 per month more to access the content. (It is also misleading to count On-Demand or PPV if the content is double counted, either by duplicating content already counted on standard channels, or counting non-changing content as new content every month.)


Totally disagree. You have to count only base packages? Why? Content is content. It costs varying amounts. Everyone knows that. They say they have HBO, for example. That costs extra. They should not count that? What package level do they count? Lifeline cable (anything more costs more)?

As for double counting, you are opening up Pandora's box. Are you going to discount reruns? Are you going to count the HBO channels as one because movies show up more than once. Are you going to say ESPN HD is not all that much becasue they rerun Sportscenter 10 times a day? What if HBO shows the same movie as Starz? Does it not count?


Unfortunately, it is not easy to do an accurate analysis to show what HD content is delivered by which provider. So we are at the mercy of misleading ads.

As with any purchase, do your homework. Don't depend on ads.

[lifelong]

Comcast On Demand is a dual edged sword.

Yes, it is relatively instant (but from the point you know what you want until you get it is 5 to 10 minutes because the menus are so darned slow and cumbersome...and buggy) but then you get the program for 24 hours access and it is not local so any interruption will lose what you are watching and the trick play is agonizingly slow because you are really using a "DVR" at the Comcast office.

The internet aspect of DirecTV's system can be an issue but the fact that that the program is local is a very nice feature as you can keep it for a long time and use real trick play. So far, for SD programming, I only have to wait about 5 to 10 minutes to watch the program. I know that will be different (longer) for HD, but that is not that much different than the time to start watching on Comcast. Once you have the program, the DirecTV system wins.

The "local" aspect of the DirecTV system is a benefit, I agree. But, if you're watching a movie or other programming that isn't burdened by commercials (which is most of it is not, save for a promo at the beginning and/or end), the trick play is less important. "Instant-ness" is most important to me. And come on, "5 to 10 minutes" for Comcast's on demand menu system is a HUGE overstatement, too.

I hope that for DirecTV VOD they are smart about proactively pushing popular HD content to our DVRs so that we get the "instant-ness." Unfortunately they won't be able to push everything.

[Upstream]

I know you were being extreme to make a point but 4%???

[...]

As with any purchase, do your homework. Don't depend on ads.

I was being extreme to make a point.


Regarding doing homework, that can be difficult to do:

As I indicated, the most meaningful comparison for any person is to compare the HD content that he/she wants to watch. But there is no easy way to get a list of HD content on each provider to make the comparison.

The next best comparison would be to list the channels I watch, and see which channels are offered in HD by each provider. You would also need to look at what percentage of programming on each HD channel is actually in HD.

Then, if you are a person who would make use of On-Demand or PPV, you would need to make an assessment what is available and how much you would purchase.


But most people won't really go to all that effort. So they'll either believe the ads, say more HD channels is better, or say that specific HD channels are sufficient.

[msuspartan]

Interesting discussion but lets not forget the "food chain" of any kind of product development. In the case of HD programming the chain looks something like this.

Consummer demand - enough HD capable equipment in hands of you and I reaches critical mass and warrents large investment in capacity.

Capacity - Providers (Cable companies, Sat companies, Telco's) invest in and turn capacity on making room for media providers.

Media Outlets - Providers (Networks, so called cable channels, etc) provide programming outlets once capacity is there to distribute which encourages development of new programming. "If you build it they will come."

Programming - Producers develop new programs for the outlets raising consumer demand.

Increase of consumer demand starts the cycle over and costs begin to come down.

This cycle is not in the hands of one company. D* has done a good job in providing capacity and most likely stimulating development of HD media outlets through negotiations that preceeded the investment in and launch of D-10. I think that on these grounds it is hard not to say that D* is the market leader. It is now in the hands of the programmers to increase content. Bottom line we now must have patience and realize once that the outlets are there the programming will come.

Thanks D* for getting us to this point!

[man_rob]

In much of Comcast's service areas, (As with most cable systems across the nation) they don't provide more HD, even with VOD. Where I am, Comcast's system is antiquated, and can barely push their crappy SD service. They have maybe 15 HD offerings, and they are horrible quality, compressed almost to the point of being unwatchable.

Their only hope is to changeover to a switched video system, but that's going to piss a lot of people off, when their cable ready devices stop working, and they are forced to rent a cable box.

[fineware]

...As with any purchase, do your homework. Don't depend on ads...

Give that man a cigar.

Not sure if anyone's raised this:
Which market is Comcast talking about when they made the claim. I happened to see Comcast's On Demand offering over Thanksgiving. There was hardly anything there and certainly nothing I cared to waste my time with. On cable, every market is configured differently, whereas DirecTV is fairly uniform across the sats' coverage areas.

So, yet again, the counting game makes no sense.

[jpl]

I'll jump into the fray here with a couple of my own observations. First, I don't agree that one can just say that Comcast including on-demand offerings is somehow invalid. While I agree that you can't count an on-demand offering as a 'channel', how is this any different than what DirecTV is doing in their channel counting? Aren't they counting HD PPV feeds as channels? So if there are 4 channels showing PPV offerings for 'Blades of Glory' in HD, why is it ok to say that that counts as 4 HD channels, but when Comcast has that movie in HD and counts it as an offering it's invalid? I guess my point is that DirecTV started with the fuzzy math on this (sorry, but they did), and to cry foul when a competitor just follows essentially the same playbook just doesn't sit right with me.

Second, not all on-demand content is a duplicate of what's on regular cable channels. Even if you take new movies out of the mix, there are still some VOD only channels out there. They're becoming more popular, and it makes alot of sense. For example, on fios we get FEARnet on demand, even though there is no FEARnet channel (not that we get, anyway). Ditto for a handful of other offerings. We now have a VOD-only channel - I forget what it's called - that offers nothing but a handful of foreign independent films.

I'm no fan of Comcast, but to claim what they're doing is out of bounds just seems a bit disingenuous to me. They're pushing the advantages of their system over DirecTV. Why is that any different than what DirecTV does? They ALL do it. And they should. All these systems have different focuses, and tailor to different types of customers. To not point out an advantage would be stupid. For example, when I flip on VOD on my system, I get a promo show up in a little screen - know what the promo says "On-Demand... go where satellite can't..." That's called promoting your product. If your product can deliver something that your competitor can't - or at least not in the same way - then why is it wrong to point that out?

As for HD content per channel, there was a website that I saw that gave you that type of information. You put in your zip code, as well as the provider you used, and it gave you the list of HD channels, as well as the percent of the programming on that channel that was in HD.

I found two main flaws in that website, which caused me to pretty much ignore it - first, they didn't include all HD channels that are available. Second, their methodolgy for computing that percentage must have been screwy - they had TNT HD showing up as 100% HD, e.g. I KNOW that's not right. There could also be one other piece of info that would make that site much more valuable - average bit-rate for their HD programming. That would give you a better idea of the quality of the HD, and not just the quantity.

[sNEIRBO]

If you consider all of the VOOM Channels that DISH supplies - which are running HD 24/7 - DISH probably would win in the amount of content provided in any single day. BUT - there's nothing there I want to watch. And they have very limited content that they rerun over and over again - ad nauseam.

DirecTV has HD Channels that I want to watch. It was nice to be able to watch Battlestar Galactica: Razor in HD - I couldn't do that on either DISH or Comcast. I don't care if SciFi-HD is not broadcasting in HD 24/7 - they are broadcasting what I want to watch in HD.

Believe it or not, I really like watching CNBC-HD in the afternoon for updates on the Market - I couldn't do that on DISH either.

I just spent a very frustrating 30 minutes trying to find out what HD Channels are available from Comcast - it's IMPOSSIBLE to find out from them what they have! They don't give that info out on their website. That's an indication to me, that they're playing with the numbers to make themselves look better. If is VERY easy to find which channels are available on the DirecTV.com site.

[Thaedron]

Comcast may have an arguement because they do have HD content available via on-demand.

However, I view their entire claim as pure marketing spin. With DVRs, how much content is available at any given moment is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not I have the HD content that I want to watch available to me. With enough DVRs, I could have more DirecTV provided HD content available at any point in time than Comcast does. The reverse could also be true... It's an illogical arguement (but then so is most advertising).

[jpl]

I just spent a very frustrating 30 minutes trying to find out what HD Channels are available from Comcast - it's IMPOSSIBLE to find out from them what they have! They don't give that info out on their website. That's an indication to me, that they're playing with the numbers to make themselves look better. If is VERY easy to find which channels are available on the DirecTV.com site.

While I'm no fan of Comcast's website (try figuring out their pricing structure - it's infuriating), what you said isn't really true. You can find the HD channels on their website pretty easily. They have a channel listing, and they even have little icons to indicate the 'type' of channel. The HD channels are clearly marked:

200 Comcast SportsNet HD* High-Definition TV
202 ESPN HD* High-Definition TV
203 ESPN 2 HD* High-Definition TV
204 TNT HD* High-Definition TV
205 HD Theater* High-Definition TV
206 MOJO* High-Definition TV
207 Versus/Golf HD* High-Definition TV
208 Universal HD* High-Definition TV
209 MHD* High-Definition TV


That's without the formatting, but you get the gist. The HD channels are clearly marked.

[man_rob]

Again, as I and other posters have stated. Comcast's claim to more HD programming with VOD is limited to a select few markets. In most of the nation it's simply not true.

[saleen351]

Doesn't using the internet to deliver HD content make you a "cable company"??? VOD is dumb, there is no way I'm going to use my internet to download HD content. It simply won't work. The entire grid will come to a halt.

Push it via the Sats or leave it off. They just spent tons of money on two new sats, the idiots should have built them to push HD on Demand.

[JeffBowser]

I'm guessing you don't really understand the bandwidth limitations involved here.

I have no real interest in VOD myself, but I do agree, pushing it via the internet will be hit or miss for a few years yet, until bandwidth becomes a true commodity.


Doesn't using the internet to deliver HD content make you a "cable company"??? VOD is dumb, there is no way I'm going to use my internet to download HD content. It simply won't work. The entire grid will come to a halt.

Push it via the Sats or leave it off. They just spent tons of money on two new sats, the idiots should have built them to push HD on Demand.

[sNEIRBO]

While I'm no fan of Comcast's website (try figuring out their pricing structure - it's infuriating), what you said isn't really true. You can find the HD channels on their website pretty easily. They have a channel listing, and they even have little icons to indicate the 'type' of channel. The HD channels are clearly marked:

. . .

The HD channels are clearly marked.

My apologies! I was looking under the HD Button, and not under the general button. When I went back to the main page I found their Channel Lineup button, and it was right there.

Having found it though - their HD Channel Lineup for Detroit is NOT very impressive -

199 National Geographic HD
200 A&E HD
201 FSN Detroit HD
202 ESPN HD
203 ESPN2 HD
204 TNT HD
205 Discovery HD Theater
206 MOJO
207 Versus/The Golf Channel
208 Universal HD
209 MHD
215 /300 HBO HD*
219 /319 Cinemax HD*
223 /339 Showtime HD*
227 /369 Starz! HD*
231 WXYZ-(ABC) HD
232 WDIV (NBC)-HD
233 WWJ CBS HD
234 WJBK Fox HD
235 WMYD MNT HD
236 WKBD CW HD
240 WTVS (PBS)-HD

The only things I see on that list that they are providing that DirecTV HD is not - is the local CW and PBS HD feeds (which I get via OTA on my HR-20 so not really a big deal) and MOJO(??). Or do we get MOJO and I just don't watch it??

[itguy05]

Let me just say this, my Comcast here in Central PA had the locals + the limited selection that other poster listed.

Since going to DirecTV, we gained lots of channels, lots of programming that I watch, and in HD (or uprezzed SD). The Quality of the shows I watch is much better.

And I pay about $10/less per month.

The OnDemand section was worthless to me on Comcast, as the stuff there was pretty much junk.

[ansky]

Doesn't using the internet to deliver HD content make you a "cable company"??? VOD is dumb, there is no way I'm going to use my internet to download HD content. It simply won't work. The entire grid will come to a halt.

Push it via the Sats or leave it off. They just spent tons of money on two new sats, the idiots should have built them to push HD on Demand.
I agree. HD on Demand via the internet is pointless. SD is bad enough. If you have to wait 6 hours for a movie to download then it's not "on demand". Even if you wait an hour and then start watching the movie, the running time of the movie will outpace the download. My impression of DOD right now is just D*'s half-assed approach to trying to offer a service just because other providers have it.

The other problem with comparing VOD between D* and cable is that D* relies on a high speed internet connection, which for most people is a $40/month or more investment. With cable you don't need this extra service/cost to watch on demand. You can't just assume that everyone has a high speed connection available.

So ultimately we are not comparing apples to apples when talking about the VOD services between D* and cable.

[Doug Brott]

Don't forget, after you watch all of that HD content from Comcast On Demand, it's still the same content .. at least for some period, right? .. Your choices go down after watching each show.

In any event, Comcast doesn't really say anything wrong per se, but there reasoning for calling themselves the best is weak.

[msmith198025]

Don't forget, after you watch all of that HD content from Comcast On Demand, it's still the same content .. at least for some period, right? .. Your choices go down after watching each show.

In any event, Comcast doesn't really say anything wrong per se, but there reasoning for calling themselves the best is weak.

very well put doug

[frederic1943]

As to HD vs. SD content on HD channels remember when color TV was first being broadcast it took 13 years from the first primetime show in color until all of the primetime shows were being broadcast in color.

[gfrang]

does anybody know if comcast will enforce the download cap on internet ?
that will limit use of on demand for comcast brodband cust.

[gabe23]

does anybody know if comcast will enforce the download cap on internet ?
that will limit use of on demand for comcast brodband cust.

That's what I'm wondering. You can bet that if TWC and Charter find out how to detect DIRECTV VOD traffic, they'll throttle the hell out of those customers. And when they get complaints, they'll be happy to pitch their cable services (probably at a low introductory price!).

[lifelong]

That's what I'm wondering. You can be that if TWC and Charter find out how to detect DIRECTV VOD traffic, they'll throttle the hell out of those customers. And when they get complaints, they'll be happy to pitch their cable services (probably at a low introductory price!).

good thing I switched to AT&T DSL along with the DirecTV switch. Now all I have to worry about is AT&T invading my privacy. No big whoop...

[MikeR]

does anybody know if comcast will enforce the download cap on internet ?
that will limit use of on demand for comcast brodband cust.

They do..but the limit is dependent on your node loading and other network factors. Comcast sends a letter warning you that you exceeded the limit, if you do it again...bye bye internet access.

[Araxen]

I think Directv is really missing an opportunity this week to get back at Comcast. They should have advertised the hell out of them having the NFL Network HD and that it is readily available through them on Choice.

It really puzzles me they haven't used that as ammo against Comcast especially this week with the Packers/Cowboys.

[tonyd79]

The NFL has been using that hammer quite a bit. To the point where Comcast sent them a cease and desist letter. Next stop....injunction!

[Araxen]

They can't stop Directv though for showing ads.

[tonyd79]

Not sure the NFL Network is that big a selling point.

It only costs $1.95 per month as a starter price for the sports pack on Comcast and it gets you 9 other channels. (Regular price is $4.95.) If the NFL Network were a big seller, that cost is far less than the cost (I mean time and money) of switching to DirecTV.

DirecTV should take a whole view approach. NFL Network, Big Ten Network, ESPNU, Sunday Ticket, MLB EI, NHL, NBA, college packages. And almost all in HD. That would be better from a broad view.

[captain_video]

My original post had to do with the total amount of HD content provided by DirecTV vs. Comcast. If Comcast provides more HD via PPV and On-Demand then that definitely counts towards the total. DirecTV's DOD is in standard definition only, IIRC, and is only available via an internet connection. Both providers have access to the same channels so they should be running neck and neck with respect to HD content on the same channels each one provides.

Everyone seems to be blaming the content providers for the lack of HD programming instead of DirecTV. While it is true that they are the primary source for HD content, it's DirecTV that's hawking the quantity of HD programming and not the individual channel providers. DTV is telling us all about the number of HD channels they've added to their lineup when in reality they're just more numbers in a channel guide with little or no HD content. Comcast is showing actual numbers that mean something, regardless of whether you want to believe them (I take anything Comcast says with a bag of salt so don't take me for a Comcast fanboy).

You couldn't pay me to sign up for Comcast, but if their numbers hold true then they are shoving DirecTV's hype right back down their throats. The one thing that will probably come back and bite them in the a$$ is their restriction on downloading due to bandwidth limitations. I find it rather ironic that they hype all of the extra VOD content yet want to limit you on the amount you can download. If that isn't shooting yourself in the corporate foot then I don't know what else to call it. OTOH, anyone that has DirecTV for HD programming and Comcast for wideband internet is really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

FYI - I don't currently have either DirecTV or Comcast, which is why I'm asking the questions and playing devil's advocate.

[lifelong]

My original post had to do with the total amount of HD content provided by DirecTV vs. Comcast. If Comcast provides more HD via PPV and On-Demand then that definitely counts towards the total. DirecTV's DOD is in standard definition only, IIRC, and is only available via an internet connection. Both providers have access to the same channels so they should be running neck and neck with respect to HD content on the same channels each one provides.

Everyone seems to be blaming the content providers for the lack of HD programming instead of DirecTV. While it is true that they are the primary source for HD content, it's DirecTV that's hawking the quantity of HD programming and not the individual channel providers. DTV is telling us all about the number of HD channels they've added to their lineup when in reality they're just more numbers in a channel guide with little or no HD content. Comcast is showing actual numbers that mean something, regardless of whether you want to believe them (I take anything Comcast says with a bag of salt so don't take me for a Comcast fanboy).

You couldn't pay me to sign up for Comcast, but if their numbers hold true then they are shoving DirecTV's hype right back down their throats. The one thing that will probably come back and bite them in the a$$ is their restriction on downloading due to bandwidth limitations. I find it rather ironic that they hype all of the extra VOD content yet want to limit you on the amount you can download. If that isn't shooting yourself in the corporate foot then I don't know what else to call it. OTOH, anyone that has DirecTV for HD programming and Comcast for wideband internet is really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

FYI - I don't currently have either DirecTV or Comcast, which is why I'm asking the questions and playing devil's advocate.

True, I haven't seen any HD programming so far on TBS, Speed, Bravo, FX, MTV, VH1 or TLC. If there is, it must be few and far between because I haven't seen any of it yet. It's probably a vicious circle because if I check the channel and I don't see HD, I am less apt to check it again later.

We just have to wait for the content providers to catch up, I guess.

[ansky]

True, I haven't seen any HD programming so far on TBS, Speed, Bravo, FX, MTV, VH1 or TLC. If there is, it must be few and far between because I haven't seen any of it yet. It's probably a vicious circle because if I check the channel and I don't see HD, I am less apt to check it again later.

We just have to wait for the content providers to catch up, I guess.
TBS showed the baseball playoffs in HD. FX shows Nip/Tuck in HD. I don't really watch the other channels so I'm not sure.

[ansky]

My original post had to do with the total amount of HD content provided by DirecTV vs. Comcast. If Comcast provides more HD via PPV and On-Demand then that definitely counts towards the total. DirecTV's DOD is in standard definition only, IIRC, and is only available via an internet connection. Both providers have access to the same channels so they should be running neck and neck with respect to HD content on the same channels each one provides.


But again, it depends on location. Comcast in my city is terrible. They only offer about 5 HD channels, two of which are premium channels. In other areas they may offer more. The situation really needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[man_rob]

My original post had to do with the total amount of HD content provided by DirecTV vs. Comcast. If Comcast provides more HD via PPV and On-Demand then that definitely counts towards the total. DirecTV's DOD is in standard definition only, IIRC, and is only available via an internet connection. Both providers have access to the same channels so they should be running neck and neck with respect to HD content on the same channels each one provides. On this you are right, and this is a good thing because competition is good for consumers.

Everyone seems to be blaming the content providers for the lack of HD programming instead of DirecTV. While it is true that they are the primary source for HD content, it's DirecTV that's hawking the quantity of HD programming and not the individual channel providers. DTV is telling us all about the number of HD channels they've added to their lineup when in reality they're just more numbers in a channel guide with little or no HD content. Comcast is showing actual numbers that mean something, regardless of whether you want to believe them (I take anything Comcast says with a bag of salt so don't take me for a Comcast fanboy).
This is where I disagree with you. DirecTV isn't saying content, they are saying channels, and on that DirecTV delivers. If you tune to any of the advertised channels , and look at your resolution indicator, it shows an HD feed coming through.

The new networks will continue to add more and more HD programming, but DirecTV doesn't have a say on how fast they do it. Also, in Comcast's count of available HD, (in addition to HD VOD) they are including some the exact same channels as DirecTV.

You couldn't pay me to sign up for Comcast, but if their numbers hold true then they are shoving DirecTV's hype right back down their throats. The one thing that will probably come back and bite them in the a$$ is their restriction on downloading due to bandwidth limitations. I find it rather ironic that they hype all of the extra VOD content yet want to limit you on the amount you can download. If that isn't shooting yourself in the corporate foot then I don't know what else to call it. OTOH, anyone that has DirecTV for HD programming and Comcast for wideband internet is really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

FYI - I don't currently have either DirecTV or Comcast, which is why I'm asking the questions and playing devil's advocate.

DirecTV is at a disadvantage for VOD, but most of Comcast's systems across the country doesn't have much HD content, VOD or otherwise. Comcast's advertising speaks of a select few markets. (Locally, Comcast has only about 15 HD channels, with few HD VOD choices, and the system is maxed out in regards to bandwidth.)

For me, VOD has never been a big draw. With my DVR, I have more stuff to watch than I have time to watch it.

[jpl]

(Locally, Comcast has only about 15 HD channels, with few HD VOD choices, and the system is maxed out in regards to bandwidth.)


I KNOW this is way off topic, but I have to respond. I keep reading this - it's not true (again, I'm no fan of Comcast). Granted, the way Comcast is configured, they're tapped out, but it would take surprisingly little to make them the HD leader (at least in many of their markets). Around here, they have about 75 channels in analog. Get rid of those analogs, make them digital, and they have enough room to offer over 150 HD channels without compressing them. Toss mpeg4 in the mix (which they're going to) and that number goes up dramatically. All without having to resort to SDV. Will they do that (get rid of all their analogs)? No, I don't believe they will - they have alot of analog only customers. But they very easily could, and they would have more bandwidth than satellite.

[tonyd79]

Everyone seems to be blaming the content providers for the lack of HD programming instead of DirecTV. While it is true that they are the primary source for HD content, it's DirecTV that's hawking the quantity of HD programming and not the individual channel providers. DTV is telling us all about the number of HD channels they've added to their lineup when in reality they're just more numbers in a channel guide with little or no HD content. Comcast is showing actual numbers that mean something, regardless of whether you want to believe them (I take anything Comcast says with a bag of salt so don't take me for a Comcast fanboy).


Oh, crap. Did you read my analysis? I guess not. And I guess that Comcast counting some of the same channels is them being correct?

You have been bashing DirecTV on the amount of content for HD channels (which is not under their control) and you found an ally in a Comcast ad and are touting it as proof of your contention.

BTW, I have been noticing a slow but steady increase in HD content even in the last few weeks. SciFi, which had been bashed for a lack of HD content has shown several MOVIES in HD. As has FX.

[tonyd79]

True, I haven't seen any HD programming so far on TBS, Speed, Bravo, FX, MTV, VH1 or TLC.

TBS is showing first run versions of their comedy/variety shows (like the Ellen special, Frank Caliendo) in HD. Not the reruns, oddly.

FX has shown movies in HD.

I think Speed isn't doing true HD until Spring.

[man_rob]

I KNOW this is way off topic, but I have to respond. I keep reading this - it's not true (again, I'm no fan of Comcast). Granted, the way Comcast is configured, they're tapped out, but it would take surprisingly little to make them the HD leader (at least in many of their markets). Around here, they have about 75 channels in analog. Get rid of those analogs, make them digital, and they have enough room to offer over 150 HD channels without compressing them. Toss mpeg4 in the mix (which they're going to) and that number goes up dramatically. All without having to resort to SDV. Will they do that (get rid of all their analogs)? No, I don't believe they will - they have alot of analog only customers. But they very easily could, and they would have more bandwidth than satellite.

No only the way they are configured. In this area, except in very limited places, the infrastructure for upgrading the system, isn't in place yet. For business, they have some fiber optic networks run, but they are years away from offering it to residential customers. Also a long way in the future is SDV. As for the analog service here, it's unwatchable, and the digital service is very limited, over compressed, and way, waaaay over priced. I had cable here for a few months. When i complained about the problems, comcast blamed the wiring in my house...the wiring they installed. I unplugged the cable boxes and dropped them off at the local comcast office, and told them I was no longer a customer. I called DirecTV, they connect to the exact same wiring, and it was like I had a new TV.

[jpl]

No only the way they are configured. In this area, except in very limited places, the infrastructure for upgrading the system, isn't in place yet. For business, they have some fiber optic networks run, but they are years away from offering it to residential customers. Also a long way in the future is SDV. As for the analog service here, it's unwatchable, and the digital service is very limited, over compressed, and way, waaaay over priced. I had cable here for a few months. When i complained about the problems, comcast blamed the wiring in my house...the wiring they installed. I unplugged the cable boxes and dropped them off at the local comcast office, and told them I was no longer a customer. I called DirecTV, they connect to the exact same wiring, and it was like I had a new TV.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying at all. Their limitation is due to the fact that they run QAM - not that they don't have fiber all over the place - fiber has nothing to do with it. With QAM there are only so many 'slots' or channels that you can use. Analog takes up alot of bandwidth. Get rid of one analog channel, and you have enough room for 8 SD digital channels (on average with no compression) or 2 HD channels.

I also don't understand why everyone thinks that SDV is SO far in the future for cable. Who said that they need to switch totally over to SDV to implement SDV at all? From what I read - someone on dbstalk posted a presentation put together by Comcast - their plans for expanding bandwidth over the next 2 years involves a combination of: 1) eliminating a handful of analogs (and moving those channels to digital), 2) implementing SDV in a limited way, and 3) implementing mpeg-4.

[mchaney]

I've seen Comcast, Brighthouse, and FIOS in my area and while they have VOD, very little of their VOD is HD! I don't think a handful of HD VOD selections makes up for 75+ national HD channels. If you're looking for HD content, I don't care what you are looking for, whether it's called PPV, VOD, or a "channel", you'll find more of it on DirecTV than any cable provider... including FIOS!

Mike

[Matt9876]

I have never liked cable and their business practices are like dealing with the mob.

What they need to do is develop a digital mpeg4 box and get rid of analog. "Everyone else has or is in this process of getting rid of it."
They need to catch up and yes it will cost a bundle but not any more then sending up a KA band sat and converting to mpeg4 boxes.

All existing analog customers should get the first box at no additional charge, all the rest are subject to the going rate.

In the long run everybody gets more standard or HD programming

Edit: This would also put an end to all the people that are stealing service by taping into their neighbors cable service.

[Upstream]

Will they do that (get rid of all their analogs)? No, I don't believe they will - they have alot of analog only customers. But they very easily could

I wonder if they'll use the switch to OTA digital as an excuse to force analog customers to switch to digital.

[jpl]

I wonder if they'll use the switch to OTA digital as an excuse to force analog customers to switch to digital.

Not sure - personally I think a company like Comcast should offer a very basic set top box for next to nothing. Or give every household up to say 3 of those boxes for next to nothing. Problem solved. Yeah, there's an expense associated with that, but it would definitely make it doable. Or better yet, I'm wondering why no one is vying for a real MRV capability. I know Dish has something like that, and with fios I have a multi-room DVR, but I'm talking about one box that actually feeds video to say 3 separate TVs. That would take care of most of the issue. Combine that with a very basic STB that you can offer very cheap, and I would think it would be a no-brainer for a cable company to do something like that.

[jpl]

I've seen Comcast, Brighthouse, and FIOS in my area and while they have VOD, very little of their VOD is HD! I don't think a handful of HD VOD selections makes up for 75+ national HD channels. If you're looking for HD content, I don't care what you are looking for, whether it's called PPV, VOD, or a "channel", you'll find more of it on DirecTV than any cable provider... including FIOS!

Mike

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's right to group Brighthouse and FiOS in with this - neither of them are making this claim. It's just Comcast that's doing it. In fact, of all the providers I've seen, I think Verizon does the best job of actually counting channels. They don't count VOD or PPV as channels... they don't count channels that are only on a couple hours a week. They count channels as... channels. Period. They count locals, nationals, RSNs, and premiums when counting channels. Not trying to get into a spitting contest or anything, but DirecTV really did start this whole thing. I don't think it's outside the bounds of reasonableness when a competitor turns around and plays the same game. Now, DirecTV could challenge them on that - they could ask for something that verifies Comcast's claim - but to turn around and say that Comcast shouldn't count VOD, e.g., when DirecTV counts PPV just doesn't sit right with me.

[jjohns]

I've seen Comcast, Brighthouse, and FIOS in my area and while they have VOD, very little of their VOD is HD! I don't think a handful of HD VOD selections makes up for 75+ national HD channels. If you're looking for HD content, I don't care what you are looking for, whether it's called PPV, VOD, or a "channel", you'll find more of it on DirecTV than any cable provider... including FIOS!

Mike

More accurately, DTV is the leader of "HD-capable" channels.

[captain_video]

Oh, crap. Did you read my analysis? I guess not. And I guess that Comcast counting some of the same channels is them being correct?

You have been bashing DirecTV on the amount of content for HD channels (which is not under their control) and you found an ally in a Comcast ad and are touting it as proof of your contention.

BTW, I have been noticing a slow but steady increase in HD content even in the last few weeks. SciFi, which had been bashed for a lack of HD content has shown several MOVIES in HD. As has FX.
Yes, I read it and took it for what it's worth. I haven't been bashing anyone if you bothered to read my posts. I also haven't taken the Comcast ads as gospel but rather indicated that they made a valid point that raises certain questions about the validity of DirecTV's claims of HD superiority. I'm just looking for the truth behind the hype which you would have realized if your arguments weren't so biased in favor of DirecTV.

I have no vested interest in either provider at the moment (I'm with FIOS). I've had both Comcast (pre-digital era for TV for over 10 years in several MD locations but had wideband internet since it was first introduced up until last February) and DirecTV (10 years+) so I'm pretty familiar with both providers. If anything, I'm more in favor of DirecTV winning the HD war but their advertising is as misleading as Comcast's in that neither side is divulging the whole truth. They'll tell you about all the wonderful new HD channels they're providing but fail to mention that there's little or no HD content on the vast majority of them. All DirecTV is telling us is that they're just providing more of the exact same thing current subscribers already have, but with a few extra HD programs tossed in for good measure.

Someone brought out a very good point in that Comcast doesn't provide the same content in every market. Comcast has upgraded their system here in Howard Co. by installing a fiber optic backbone for distributing their program content whereas I'd bet that other areas of the country haven't been upgraded yet, severely limiting their ability to provide HD programming. The comparison between Comcast and DirecTV with respect to actual HD content has to be done on a region by region basis, making their claims of HD leadership just as suspect as DirecTV's.

At least DirecTV's programming is consistent across the country, local programming aside, which is severely lacking in most markets. That's one area where Comcast has a slight edge over DirecTV (at least in this area) since DirecTV limits the number of HD locals provided to each market. I get 14 HD locals via OTA antenna and 12 of them via FIOS vs. only 4 that DirecTV provides in mpeg4 and 6 from Comcast. Comcast is still severely lacking in local HD channels but at least they provide all of the networks in HD. Comcast does provide locals from both Baltimore and DC but only the Baltimore channels are in HD.

[homebase]

I watched that commercial and paused the screen to read the fine print.

Comcast claims they have all that HD programming vs DirecTV as of 10/15/07.

In this topic, http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=97211, there a a *whole* bunch more consistently delivered channels than Comcast offers AFTER 10/15/07.

After dealing with Comcast over the T-giving holiday at a relative's house, I'm happy to be home with my D* system. There's really not *that* much HD content on Comcast's network. If there was, I couldn't find it.

[JLucPicard]

If I remember correctly, the fine print also indicates that the 'claims' for Comcast content are based on their Philadelphia area. Isn't that where Comcast is based? What is available in other locations could surely be less than what is available there.

The thing with both Comcast's and DirecTV's advertisements is that they are going to state things in a manner that is most beneficial to themselves. I can't believe people would think they would do otherwise.

In the "scales" ad, Comcast is using their Philly market as their comparisson point - I would imagine because that is where they HAVE the most of the content of which they are speaking.

I have a feeling the networks that provide their signals to DirecTV would have a large problem with DirecTV putting out ads that said, "We offer the most HD channels available on any system. However, we do feel that claim may be construed by some as misleading because although those channels are providing us a 24/7 HD signal feed (1080i or 720p), the current content on their HD channels is actually mostly either 4:3 aspect ratio or 4:3 aspect programming distorted/stretched to fill a 16:9 aspect ratio screen. Their ACTUAL HD content is primarily carried only in prime-time hours".

It seems that some who post about these advertising comparisons feel that DirecTV is actually stating falsehood by simply claiming they carry more HD channels without some kind of disclaimer like that above. I call BS. Those networks/channels ARE providing HD feeds and DirecTV IS broadcasting their feeds. That is what DirecTV is advertising The fact that those providers may not be providing actual HD content 24/7 is something that needs to be taken up with the content providers and does not invalidate DirecTV's claims.

And again, as I said earlier, I would imagine if DirecTV did pull something like that in their advertising, they would more likely than not be getting some pretty nasty phone calls from the content providers.

[man_rob]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying at all. Their limitation is due to the fact that they run QAM - not that they don't have fiber all over the place - fiber has nothing to do with it. With QAM there are only so many 'slots' or channels that you can use. Analog takes up alot of bandwidth. Get rid of one analog channel, and you have enough room for 8 SD digital channels (on average with no compression) or 2 HD channels.

I also don't understand why everyone thinks that SDV is SO far in the future for cable. Who said that they need to switch totally over to SDV to implement SDV at all? From what I read - someone on dbstalk posted a presentation put together by Comcast - their plans for expanding bandwidth over the next 2 years involves a combination of: 1) eliminating a handful of analogs (and moving those channels to digital), 2) implementing SDV in a limited way, and 3) implementing mpeg-4.

Let me put it simply, the local Comcast system is not ready for such a change. In my area, the infrastructure isn't there, and yes, fiber optics are needed. The switched video set up is used only over the last mile of coax, but fiber optic is needed up to that point. Here, Comcast is nowhere close to having that in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video

[homebase]

Just saw this link in another topic. Comcast can say anything (and they will of course), but the truth is they're not even close to D*.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=419472

[jasonblair]

I saw the Comcast ad over at my in laws yesterday during the Bears/Giants game. It said "twice the HD of satellite" if my memory serves correctly. There's just no way!

(What's this MOJO-HD channel, and what is on it?)

I also cannot STAND how cable companies advertise about their product, and then state "subject to availability." That's what I love about DirecTV... Except for the local channels, everyone gets the same thing at the same time.

I keep getting flyers in my mailbox about 16mpbs download speed from Comcast, and FIOS for TV. I called Comcast, the max speed I get is still 4mbps! And Verizon DSL is not even available in my area... let alone FIOS! Why tease us with false flyers?

[Steve Mehs]

(What's this MOJO-HD channel, and what is on it?)

mojohd.com

It used to be good when it was InHD and InHD 2. Top notch content and a lot of pro sports. When the channels were combined to form Mojo HD, the content went down hill. Now the only thing decent on Mojo is some of the concert series and exclusive Versus HD NHL simulcasts when Versus HD is off air. Thursday night playoff games mostly.

SDV is currently being tested here on TW locally. The cable only news channel and the foreign channels are in SDV. Next year this time, I have no doubt I'll have most of the 984 HD channels D* has, and by then hopefully they'll have some actual content in HD. For now, I'm content with my 21 HD channels from Time Warner.

[Siguy]

HD On Demand has never been available in my area so their claim is meaningless to me. Making big claims like that is dangerous for Comcast since they're so inconsistent in different areas.

[wase4711]

Interesting discussion but lets not forget the "food chain" of any kind of product development. In the case of HD programming the chain looks something like this.

Consummer demand - enough HD capable equipment in hands of you and I reaches critical mass and warrents large investment in capacity.

Capacity - Providers (Cable companies, Sat companies, Telco's) invest in and turn capacity on making room for media providers.

Media Outlets - Providers (Networks, so called cable channels, etc) provide programming outlets once capacity is there to distribute which encourages development of new programming. "If you build it they will come."

Programming - Producers develop new programs for the outlets raising consumer demand.

Increase of consumer demand starts the cycle over and costs begin to come down.

This cycle is not in the hands of one company. D* has done a good job in providing capacity and most likely stimulating development of HD media outlets through negotiations that preceeded the investment in and launch of D-10. I think that on these grounds it is hard not to say that D* is the market leader. It is now in the hands of the programmers to increase content. Bottom line we now must have patience and realize once that the outlets are there the programming will come.

Thanks D* for getting us to this point!

Frankly, if you are going to "thank" anyone, it should probably be VOOM, who was really the first provider to get the HD awareness of America in gear...Too bad they had so many things working against them at the time, but I would love some mega-billionaire to come out with a 24-7 all channel all the time HD service now and see what Direct Tv and Dish net would do about THAT!!

[jpl]

Let me put it simply, the local Comcast system is not ready for such a change. In my area, the infrastructure isn't there, and yes, fiber optics are needed. The switched video set up is used only over the last mile of coax, but fiber optic is needed up to that point. Here, Comcast is nowhere close to having that in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Cable does NOT have to go switched video to significantly increase bandwidth. If Comcast around here got rid all of their analogs and went full digital, they would have enough bandwidth for well over 150 HD channels. That's without going SDV. The reason they're tapped out currently has nothing to do with lack of fiber - they have tons of fiber around here, and they're still tapped out. It has to do with how they're using their bandwidth. Analog takes a boatload of it. Switch over to full digital and they have more bandwidth than DirecTV. Granted, some areas of the country they do need to up their infrastructure to handle this, but they don't need to go SDV (full or partial) to seriously compete with DirecTV. Add mpeg4 in the mix, and they blow DirecTV out of the water in terms of what they can carry. Again, all without going SDV. Not sure where the idea came from that they need to go SDV to seriously increase bandwidth - they don't.

Look at what Verizon is doing. They run QAM, just like cable. And yet they plan on having 150 HD channels by end of 2008. How is that possible? Because they're going to get rid of their analogs in the spring, and they're going to ramp up to carrying a full 135 QAM channels. That's how. What cable is dealing with is no different.

[jpl]

I saw the Comcast ad over at my in laws yesterday during the Bears/Giants game. It said "twice the HD of satellite" if my memory serves correctly. There's just no way!

(What's this MOJO-HD channel, and what is on it?)

I also cannot STAND how cable companies advertise about their product, and then state "subject to availability." That's what I love about DirecTV... Except for the local channels, everyone gets the same thing at the same time.

I keep getting flyers in my mailbox about 16mpbs download speed from Comcast, and FIOS for TV. I called Comcast, the max speed I get is still 4mbps! And Verizon DSL is not even available in my area... let alone FIOS! Why tease us with false flyers?

Not to quibble or anything, but Verizon DSL is not a prerequisite for FiOS being in your area. I have FiOS, for both internet and TV, and I've never been able to get DSL around here. In fact, I've long believed that their roll-out strategy for internet service (at least around here) was driven by that fact. I believed that they laid fiber in areas without DSL first. The reason - to maximize their high-speed internet footprint. If I had DSL instead of crappy dial-up, I may not have been so ready to switch to FiOS. But since I couldn't get DSL around here, I signed up for their internet service as soon as FiOS became available.

[itguy05]

I also don't understand why everyone thinks that SDV is SO far in the future for cable. Who said that they need to switch totally over to SDV to implement SDV at all? From what I read - someone on dbstalk posted a presentation put together by Comcast - their plans for expanding bandwidth over the next 2 years involves a combination of: 1) eliminating a handful of analogs (and moving those channels to digital), 2) implementing SDV in a limited way, and 3) implementing mpeg-4.

SDV is going to be a necessity for Comcast and that's pretty much a fact. If you head over to dslreports.com the Comcast forums discuss this quite a bit. They need more bandwidth than what the Coax (even at 1Ghz) can deliver for Internet/TV/phone services that they are providing.

They are going to have a hard time abandoning analog as many don't want a cable box at all. They just want to hook up the cable to the TV. My parents got FIOS and had their first cable box. In the beginning they hated it - now they needed to re-learn the FIOS/TV remote and such. I'd hate to try to explain a cable box to my Grandmother!

To completely ditch analog they would need to GIVE everyone a basic cable box and support it. That would be a HUGE expense for Comcast and most likely one that they would not want to do. Eliminating analogs may be tough as their various franchise agreements probably have clauses in them prohibiting this behavior. They really are between a rock and a hard place WRT bandwidth.

For DTV to increase bandwidth, it costs, say $1Billion to launch a satellite. Then just about EVERY DTV subscriber can utilize that. Comcast has to have a HUGE expense rewiring communities and replacing tons of equipment to increase bandwidth. Just ask Verizon who is doing just this with FIOS.

Also, Comcast's PQ has been declining especially in areas that have FIOS competition. I was in N. NJ visiting family and friends and was apalled at the the PQ from Comcast's digital service. MPEG artifacting everywhere and that was on the premium channels. My guess is that the high speed internet they are doling out in this area has them cranking up the compression to the video.

Doesn't matter to me - the Comcast HD selection around here is horrible and we're much happier with DTV. Not to mention the better DVR (I'm amazed how much more the HR21 can store vs the Comcast 3412 we had). The only channel I miss was Mojo - I liked the cooking show they had.

[jasonblair]

Not to quibble or anything, but Verizon DSL is not a prerequisite for FiOS being in your area. I have FiOS, for both internet and TV, and I've never been able to get DSL around here. In fact, I've long believed that their roll-out strategy for internet service (at least around here) was driven by that fact. I believed that they laid fiber in areas without DSL first. The reason - to maximize their high-speed internet footprint. If I had DSL instead of crappy dial-up, I may not have been so ready to switch to FiOS. But since I couldn't get DSL around here, I signed up for their internet service as soon as FiOS became available.FIOS is not available anywhere in my county.

I don't get the business model here.... Why do they spend $ advertising in areas where they don't offer service? Just seems like a bad move to explain to the stockholders.

[Upstream]

There are a few reasons why Verizon may be advertising FIOS where it is not available:

* They are trying to create awareness because they are planning future availabilty.

* They are fighting with local regulators to get a franchise, and trying to create public demand.

* FIOS is available in enough nearby areas that it becomes cost effective to do a blanket mail campaign, rather than carve out areas. (Especially if they believe that there is mobility between areas.)

* They screwed up.

[shotdisc98]

I'm not going to beat around the bush... DirecTV is superior to cable. I once had an argument with a CSR at Charter when canceling my cable ISP and he could not prove that cable was better than DirecTV. Check this article out from tvpredictions.com "Showtime: Cable Playing 'Catch-Up' On HD":
http://www.tvpredictions.com/cable120307.htm
I have a limited understanding of how these things work and the small bit I know is from reading these forums. But, wouldn't a network be most concerned with ensuring that all of its channels be available to subscribers in order to make the most money? Networks will work closest with the providers that can provide the most channels at the best price. With the new sat up and the next one going up soon, DirecTV will not have the bandwidth limitations; hence, DirecTV will be able to offer the most channels in HD. People will go for the provider who can provide the next fight in HD or the most movies in HD.

[Steady Teddy]

I wonder if Comcast internet subs can accees this blog, or is it being blocked? (http://comcastmustdie.blogspot.com/)

[jpl]

SDV is going to be a necessity for Comcast and that's pretty much a fact. If you head over to dslreports.com the Comcast forums discuss this quite a bit. They need more bandwidth than what the Coax (even at 1Ghz) can deliver for Internet/TV/phone services that they are providing.

They are going to have a hard time abandoning analog as many don't want a cable box at all. They just want to hook up the cable to the TV. My parents got FIOS and had their first cable box. In the beginning they hated it - now they needed to re-learn the FIOS/TV remote and such. I'd hate to try to explain a cable box to my Grandmother!

To completely ditch analog they would need to GIVE everyone a basic cable box and support it. That would be a HUGE expense for Comcast and most likely one that they would not want to do. Eliminating analogs may be tough as their various franchise agreements probably have clauses in them prohibiting this behavior. They really are between a rock and a hard place WRT bandwidth.

For DTV to increase bandwidth, it costs, say $1Billion to launch a satellite. Then just about EVERY DTV subscriber can utilize that. Comcast has to have a HUGE expense rewiring communities and replacing tons of equipment to increase bandwidth. Just ask Verizon who is doing just this with FIOS.

Also, Comcast's PQ has been declining especially in areas that have FIOS competition. I was in N. NJ visiting family and friends and was apalled at the the PQ from Comcast's digital service. MPEG artifacting everywhere and that was on the premium channels. My guess is that the high speed internet they are doling out in this area has them cranking up the compression to the video.

Doesn't matter to me - the Comcast HD selection around here is horrible and we're much happier with DTV. Not to mention the better DVR (I'm amazed how much more the HR21 can store vs the Comcast 3412 we had). The only channel I miss was Mojo - I liked the cooking show they had.

I really don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I have to respond. First, I agree that from a customer acceptance perspective that it's a tall order to totally eliminate analog. Second, given that I don't understand why SDV would be seen as a panacea in that case. Think about what you're saying - that Comcast won't get rid of analogs entirely because their customers wouldn't abide having a cable box on every TV... well, what do you think will happen when they go SDV? They'll need a cable box on every TV! It's no different. Actually, that's not true - there is a difference. Right now motorola makes a very cheap very basic STB - the DTC700 - which will allow a company like comcast to practically give away one or two to every customer. That's MUCH cheaper than having every customer have to pay for a brand-new box that handles SDV.

Also, you don't need a cable box to get digital channels if you have a TV with a QAM tuner in it. I can hook my fios cable up to my tv directly and get all my locals (both SD and HD), including digital subchannels, and all my music channels. No, it's not alot of channels, but that could be a strategy for these large cable companies - run more channels in the clear (the equivalent of all the channels that they currently carry on analog) so if you have a TV with a QAM tuner in it, it's no different than what you have now. But when they go SDV you WILL need a box on every TV.

I never claimed that it would be easy... I was simply responding to the claim that cable is tapped out in terms of bandwidth, and that they HAVE to go SDV to compete with DBS. It's not, and they don't.

[carl6]

I wonder if Comcast internet subs can accees this blog, or is it being blocked? (http://comcastmustdie.blogspot.com/)

No problem accessing it. After a very brief reading I bailed. Way too much conspiracy theory for me.

Carl