Cable v. D*

[Spazzman]

Here is a very detailed and interesting article regarding the Cable vs. Directv War. It details Directv's efforts to hold exclusive rights to sporting packages like extra innings and NFL ST.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6448417.html

[Proc]

Good article.

Bottom line?

D* still has exclusive rights to the Sunday Ticket, which is its crown jewel and the reason millions are with D* in the first place.

[mluntz]

Good article.

Bottom line?

D* still has exclusive rights to the Sunday Ticket, which is its crown jewel and the reason millions are with D* in the first place.

It's the only reason I'm still here!

[Radio Enginerd]

Here is a very detailed and interesting article regarding the Cable vs. Directv War. It details Directv's efforts to hold exclusive rights to sporting packages like extra innings and NFL ST.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6448417.html

And as I mentioned in another thread, not all cable companies are made equal.

Minus locals, what you get on DirecTV in New York is the same as if you had DirecTV in San Francisco.

[ansky]

And as I mentioned in another thread, not all cable companies are made equal.



Agreed. The Time Warner system in Westchester Co., NY is probably the best cable lineup I have ever seen. Every channel imagineable is on there. The thing I don't like about D* is their lack of local programming like NY1 and News 12 here in the NYC area...

[tonyd79]

First plus for cable is wrong for a very big company...Comcast.

They are moving NFL and its free on demand to a higher pay tier.

[Steve Mehs]

I couldn't see it before, but when Sunday Ticket is up for renewal, I can see InDemand putting up a big fight for it. They never backed down when it came to MLB Extra Innings, and I am a very happy MLB EI subscriber and I really am grateful. Come on InDemand, get us NFL ST!

[Radio Enginerd]

I couldn't see it before, but when Sunday Ticket is up for renewal, I can see InDemand putting up a big fight for it. They never backed down when it came to MLB Extra Innings, and I am a very happy MLB EI subscriber and I really am grateful. Come on InDemand, get us NFL ST!

You may be right but I imagine DirecTV to fight hand over fist for it too. We all know Charlie is too cheap at E* so I imagine they won't be in it until the bitter end.

[Titan25]

I couldn't see it before, but when Sunday Ticket is up for renewal, I can see InDemand putting up a big fight for it. They never backed down when it came to MLB Extra Innings, and I am a very happy MLB EI subscriber and I really am grateful. Come on InDemand, get us NFL ST!Two completely different situations. MLB never sold EI as an exclusive before, so they were breaking with tradition. NFLST has never been anything BUT an exclusive.

The real outcome of that is that NFLST is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than MLBEI. Even at the exhorbitant rates DirecTV gets for NFLST these days, it is no better than a breakeven proposition for them. They don't make money from NFLST, they make their money from the base package nearly all NFLST subscribers have as well.

Also, remember how the NFL broadcast "negotiations" go...first, all the existing contractees are offered renewal contracts. Only if they choose to not accept the renewal rate does the contract go to bidding by other broadcasters. In the case of NFLST, the contract has never even been offered to anyone beside DirecTV since they originally picked it up over 10 years ago.

In that climate it is hard or anyone to get into the mix. DirecTV is currently paying $3.5 billion for 5 years of NFLST, ending in 2010. The renewal will likely be worth at least $5 billion for 5 years. If InDemand wants to break the exclusivity, then they have to convince the NFL that they and DirecTV will end up paying more than $1 billion/year for a non-exclusive. Will DirecTV pay for a non-exclusive NFLST? I doubt it, and they've been telling the NFL that they wouldn't.

So, the question becomes, can InDemand afford to pay more than DirecTV for exclusivity?

DirecTV would probably be willing to go to at least $1.5 billion/year.

Can InDemand go beyond that? I doubt it. The problem is that DirecTV can afford to lose money on NFLST since they can make it up in the base subscription fees of new subscribers that are attracted by NFLST. InDemand can't afford that. At 1.7 billion per year, even if the annual rate for NFLST was $500, InDemand would need 3.4 million subscribers to break even. That's about 6% of all cable subscribers in the country. Ain't gonna happen.

[Jeremy W]

Whenever NFLST comes up for renewal, there is always a lot of talk about how "it's cable's time!" DirecTV isn't going to lose NFLST exclusivity, period. The company will go out of business before they let that happen. It's the one thing they can trumpet that nobody else can touch.

[Steve Mehs]

MLB never sold EI as an exclusive before

Sure it was, from the very beginning to about 2002, all sports packages were exclusive to DirecTV. Primestar had NHL CI I believe but it doesn't matter since DirecTV bought them out.

[convem24]

Steve Mehs - I very much doubt that InDemand will bid enough to get NFLST. Typically D* get first crack at the bidding and if they do it right (they will probably spend 1 billion a year with the new set of bids) the cable group and E* will not have NFLST for another 5 years. I doubt NFLST will get as much of an uproar as the MLBEI package got since MLBEI has never been exclusive. Look at Titan25's analsys. He is correct. Typically D* has more sports package subs than the cable group and E*. I would not be suprised if D* has more sport package subscribers than the cable group and E* has combined (I have no proof but D* I believe was very close to having more MLBEI subs than the cable group).

And again I go back to Titan25's analsys of the situation. Lets say that InDemand does bid 1.5 bln and they are doing a break even analsys, they would need 3.6 mln subscribers to NFLST at a minimum and D* has over 2 mln currently, so I am very doubtful that the cable companies that are part of InDemand would want to lose a fair amount of money on NFLST. Typically the cable group wants to make money.

[rjdude]

Steve Mehs - I very much doubt that InDemand will bid enough to get NFLST. Typically D* get first crack at the bidding and if they do it right (they will probably spend 1 billion a year with the new set of bids) the cable group and E* will not have NFLST for another 5 years. I doubt NFLST will get as much of an uproar as the MLBEI package got since MLBEI has never been exclusive. Look at Titan25's analsys. He is correct. Typically D* has more sports package subs than the cable group and E*. I would not be suprised if D* has more sport package subscribers than the cable group and E* has combined (I have no proof but D* I believe was very close to having more MLBEI subs than the cable group).

And again I go back to Titan25's analsys of the situation. Lets say that InDemand does bid 1.5 bln and they are doing a break even analsys, they would need 3.6 mln subscribers to NFLST at a minimum and D* has over 2 mln currently, so I am very doubtful that the cable companies that are part of InDemand would want to lose a fair amount of money on NFLST. Typically the cable group wants to make money.

Would cable be able to carry all of the HD games??? DirecTV has that advantage with the new Sats so they would have to convince the NFL that they could carry all of the games in HD.

[Jeremy W]

Would cable be able to carry all of the HD games???
Without pre-empting other channels, I highly doubt most cable systems could handle it.

[Steve Mehs]

Without pre-empting other channels, I highly doubt most cable systems could handle it.

For the 1 millionth time, SDV and analog channel removal. Any decent cable company can easily compete with DirecTVs potential bandwidth. My cable company has never preempted a channel, DirecTV on the other hand....


Steve Mehs - I very much doubt that InDemand will bid enough to get NFLST.

I said put up a big fight, no where did I say InDemand will get NFL ST, but I expect them to put up a bigger fight then they have in the past, if they prevail, who knows, when the renewal is up DirecTV will most likely be under the management of Liberty, who knows what the new ownership will be like and what their focus will be.

MLBEI package got since MLBEI has never been exclusive.

Also, for the 1 millionth time, yes MLB Extra Innings was a DirecTV exclusive at one point. Then it was opened up to InDemand then Dish got it 2 seasons later I believe.

[Jeremy W]

For the 1 millionth time, SDV and analog channel removal.
For the 1 millionth time, how many cable systems out there have SDV or are 100% digital? It's going to be a while before either one of those things are found on any significant number of systems.

[Steve Mehs]

Comcast and Time Warner, the nations two largest cable companies have already laid out plans and are testing. No different then what DirecTV is doing. But it doesn't really matter, it comes down to my vaporware is better then yours (even though cables vaporware is already on my cable system).

[garn9173]

The local cable company here, Mediacom, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade it's system state wide, however, that was several years ago and today, as of late, I see Mediacom falling behin the 8 ball because:

1 - Their VOD is a joke (unless you have premium movie channel, it's basically useless

2 - Very weak HD lineup and no plans to improve it (at the present time, I haven't jumped into the HD world, but seriously thinking about it before D10 comes online)

3 - No EI, Leauge Pass, or Center Ice

4 - It's price for basic/expanded cable costs just as much as D*'s TC+

5 - No NFL Network, heck, Mediacom doesn't even have a deal yet with the Big 10 Network (could care less about that one)

[bidger]

I said put up a big fight, no where did I say InDemand will get NFL ST, but I expect them to put up a bigger fight then they have in the past, if they prevail, who knows, when the renewal is up DirecTV will most likely be under the management of Liberty, who knows what the new ownership will be like and what their focus will be.

I question whether Liberty Media/Malone will still own D* the next time NFLST comes up for bid.

But, Jeremy, you must have missed it. TWC announced that they expect to deploy SDV for 50% of their coverage areas by the end of the year. It didn't set well with the TiVo S3 owners, but I can see why TWC would do it to compete.

I'd like to see how they handle it with customers who don't want to go digital.

[RobertE]

For the 1 millionth time, how many cable systems out there have SDV or are 100% digital? It's going to be a while before either one of those things are found on any significant number of systems.

Not my parents system thats for sure. I have more channels removed from my list then they have available. They have no digital, no PPV, no VOD, no cable internet. They only have the main HBO, Sho & Cinemax. Thats it. You look up sucky cable in the dictonary, and their is a picture of their system. Its TWC. :barf:

The next time I'm there, I'm switching them to D*. :)

[Jeremy W]

I'd like to see how they handle it with customers who don't want to go digital.
SDV in itself has no effect on analog customers.

[Titan25]

Sure it was, from the very beginning to about 2002, all sports packages were exclusive to DirecTV. Primestar had NHL CI I believe but it doesn't matter since DirecTV bought them out.
No, DirecTV was the only distributor, but the packages were not exclusive. This was the whole issue with Dish Notwork not carrying any of them, even after they had the bandwidth. For EVERY package except NFLST any other distribuitor that wanted could have paid the fee and carried the games. ONLY NFLST has always had exclusivity built into their contracts.

[bidger]

SDV in itself has no effect on analog customers.

I'm talking about what Steve said re. elimination of analog channels, not SDV.

[Jeremy W]

I'm talking about what Steve said re. elimination of analog channels, not SDV.
Well to those customers I say TS, get a box or get a TV with a QAM tuner. I don't think that the cable companies should have to be saddled with the legacy analog crap any longer. It's 2007.

[Steve Mehs]

Wow for the first time, we see eye to eye. I fully agree. Analog cable should have been gone years ago. All the so called negatives of 100% digital are all the positives of DBS, I can’t understand why some people can't get that through their think skulls. Analog cable is a burden on the cable industry as a whole, and customers should either be forced to adapt for the greater benefit, or find a new source for TV entertainment. If analog cable must exist, it should be in the form of a basic lifeline package only, locals only and maybe a shopping channel and a CSPAN. Digital simulcast is great and I’m glad TW in my area does it, but that’s a band-aid, not a solution, more bandwidth is being used, not less, even though all the digital simulcast channels are in SDV.

Every cable customer should be forced to have a box, just like satellite.

[Jeremy W]

Wow for the first time, we see eye to eye.
A once in a lifetime event! :lol:
Every cable customer should be forced to have a box, just like satellite.
I say have a lifeline package in clear QAM, and make the rest SDV. No analog at all, period. If someone is so adament about not having a box, they can get a TV with a QAM tuner and live with the 13 or so channels they get from that. Otherwise, shut up and get a box. I've never had cable and therefore never had the option of NOT having a box on every TV in the house, so I really don't see what the big deal is.

[harsh]

Watch out for an AP story today about how at some point in the near future, all new cable boxes will themselves be required to use cablecards for security.

[Jeremy W]

Watch out for an AP story today about how at some point in the near future, all new cable boxes will themselves be required to use cablecards for security.
Yeah, that's next month, isn't it?

[Steve Mehs]

A once in a lifetime event

Yeah, Hell freezes over once in a while :D

I don't understand the STB issue either. We had cable since our house was built in 1988, left cable in 1998 for Dish Network. I'm a technofreak, my mother is a technophobe, neither of us had any issues of problems going from using the TVs tuner to an external set top box. We only have two TVs in the house (that are plugged in), and have always had two, one in the living room and one in my bedroom ever since December 1998 we've used set top boxes, ever since 2001 DVRs.

A lot of complaints pertain to the ease of use for people who don't want to deal with technology, and an extra piece of equipment. Well, most remote controls that cable companies issue have a 'Master Power' button that will turn both the set top terminal and TV on with the touch of one button. And if that's too difficult, you can go one step further. Every Scientific Atlanta and Motorola cable box that I know of has a switched power outlet on the back, so all you have to do is plug the TV into that and the TV will turn on automatically when the terminal is powered on. Seamless integration for the most part.

I like that idea, locals and a few other in unencrypted QAM, rest in Switched Video, that would be a bandwidth savior, and allow killer PQ all around. Only problem is cable companies would have to find away to filter it out for broadband and/or phone customers only. And if this is possible, I would imagine I would lose access to Rochester HD locals.

[bills976]

Every cable customer should be forced to have a box, just like satellite.

I disagree with this assertion. A post that I made at dslreports regarding this same issue with Comcast in Chicago:

Too many people are preaching that digital is the be-all, end all solution for EVERYONE. That's simply not the case. Digital cannot:

- Be split to allow for PIP/different shows on multiple TVs
- Change channels as fast as analog cable
- Seamlessly integrate into existing TVs without a STB
- Be easily understood by elderly people

I think people are really ignoring that last bullet point. People in their late 70s/early 80s have used tvs for 50 years without many changes. The last big feature introduction was the remote control in the 1980s - and we're now expecting them to understand the concept of a STB? These are the same people who are afraid of DVDs because they're too complicated. Comcast tech support is going to have fun with that.

[Steve Mehs]

I saw your post their and I was going to comment but I didn't. I'll be frank, as I always am. Some people have to be left behind, that's how it is. You can’t please everyone, but you should be able to please your high end loyal customers and have their wants ahead of the lifeline only subscriber.
- Be split to allow for PIP/different shows on multiple TVs
Cable boxes have built in PIP, different shows on different TVs require addition set top boxes like satellite.

- Change channels as fast as analog cable

Yeah that's a tough one. I think I'll take that extra 3/4 of a second it takes to change a channel with digital, then crappy analog picture quality that’s instant. I really can’t believe people complain about that, after 10 years of analog cable, then going to satellite, I never even realized the channel changing delay was an issue for some people.

- Seamlessly integrate into existing TVs without a STB
- Be easily understood by elderly people
You don't need to understand the concept of the STB. Just use Master Power or the switched outlet like I mentioned above and show them on the remote, power, ch +/- and vol +/- and it’s all good. My 89 year old great aunt dislocated her shoulder last month, she is now staying with her daughter and has no problem using the HDTV in the bedroom with the cable box connected to it. Besides out of the about 30 million satellite TV subscribers, I bet at least one of them is 75 or older and can handle a set top box. Cable should be no different then DBS, box on every TV, period.

I really don't understand this. People bitch that cable isn't all digital and PQ is awful, then people bitch about the poor souls who can't handle digital. You can't have it both ways! You can with digital simulcast, but like I said that is not the answer. Analog removal is the answer

Cable going all digital is nothing but progress. The cable companies make out with extra cash from terminal rentals, subscribers (who care about quality) make out with better picture quality, more HD and less compression. I really applaud what Comcast is doing in Chicago, they are standing up and showing they have balls, I wish Time Warner would do the same.

[bills976]

I saw your post their and I was going to comment but I didn't. I'll be frank, as I always am. Some people have to be left behind, that's how it is.

That's ridiculous. My 81 year old grandmother died of Parkinsons a couple weeks ago, and one of the few things she could still do up to her death was watch TV. It was one of the few things she could actually enjoy. There's no way on Earth that we could explain to her the concept of using a set-top box.

In fact, I'd wager to guess that elderly people watch more TV than any other demographic, and for many it's their only source of entertainment for the day. It's far easier said than done to just leave them behind.

Cable boxes have built in PIP, different shows on different TVs require addition set top boxes like satellite.

Not the Motorola unit that Comcast set me up with last July. This varies widely depending on the equipment given.

Yeah that's a tough one. I think I'll take that extra 3/4 of a second it takes to change a channel with digital, then crappy analog picture quality that’s instant. I really can’t believe people complain about that, after 10 years of analog cable, then going to satellite, I never even realized the channel changing delay was an issue for some people.

This was the first thing I noticed when I got a digital box back in 1998 and when I first got satellite. It's not a major issue for me either - but you'd be surprised how many people feel this way. WAF plays big here.

My 89 year old great aunt dislocated her shoulder last month, she is now staying with her daughter and has no problem using the HDTV in the bedroom with the cable box connected to it. Besides out of the about 30 million satellite TV subscribers, I bet at least one of them is 75 or older and can handle a set top box. Cable should be no different then DBS, box on every TV, period.

That's great for your aunt, and my maternal grandmother could probably get it too with enough coaching. But there's a large enough segment of the population that can't get it no matter what you do. I'd love to see the over/under on how many calls Comcast will get (and subsequent visits they'll have to make) from elderly folks who turn channels using the buttons on the front of their set only to get snow, and think something's wrong (why can I only get channel 3/4?)

Cable going all digital is nothing but progress. The cable companies make out with extra cash from terminal rentals, subscribers (who care about quality) make out with better picture quality, more HD and less compression. I really applaud what Comcast is doing in Chicago, they are standing up and showing they have balls, I wish Time Warner would do the same.

Here I agree with you - this is all about the cable companies making additional revenue with rentals of new STBs. Many folks have 3 or 4 tvs, and watch 90% of their programs on one set in their living room. They have the extras hanging around that get channels 2-99 and no digital programming. Once analog is pulled, those sets can't get anything without a STB. A bill that used to be $50/mo goes up to $65 assuming 3 additional TVs @ $5/mo. One major advantage that cable had over satellite goes away.

Of course there are other problems too that I haven't even addressed here - VCRs or DVD recorders needing to use unreliable IR blasters or serial connections to change channels, increased power consumption of idle STBs, situations where STBs are impossible (TVs on treadmills for example), and diplexers becoming obsolete. However, since I think I made my feelings quite clear I'll leave it at that.

[Steve Mehs]

In the eyes of a cable company, who is more important, my great aunt who pays about $40 for analog cable only, or me, with Digital Cable, all four movie packages, Sports Tier, HD Tier, Two HD DVRs, Premium Broadband, MLB Extra Innings, NHL Center Ice in the fall and Digital Phone as soon as it becomes available. Whose wants should be catered to and who should be a higher priority?

All I want from cable is what satellite delivers, 100% digital. As for the additional STB costs, you’d have to pay them with satellite, so why not cable. Being able to watch fuzzy analog TV on twenty different TVs in the house isn’t what I’d call an advantage. If I wanted another TV in the house I wouldn’t even think about analog only, I’d be at the cable office picking up another HD DVR and a 4 way splitter.

I honestly cannot believe the about of people on DSLReports who are against digital cable. You’d think a group of tech geeks would want to advance the technology, not hinder and place burden on it.

As for VCRs and DVD Recorders, do people actually use VCRs anymore? I threw mine in the garbage a few years ago. You can always connect a set of the cable boxes outputs to the DVD-Rs inputs. But for normal non archival recordings, DVRs rule. Like I said, I’ve been using DVRs (Dish 501, Dish 508, DirecTiVo, Explorer 8300HD) since 2001, both TVs have had DVRs since 2002. I can’t imagine watching TV and not being able to pause or rewind, seems so 1990s.

[convem24]

About the analog cable issue, there are many customers who are on analog cable because one they don't want to upgrade their tvs to a digital or HD set. And two they don't want a set top box. Many customers will fight change that are on a cable system. It is a no win situation for the cable systems. I know many people like my parents (who are on Comcast, yuck, their video feed sucks). I am going to switch them to D* with two DVR and two digital receivers for less than Comcast wants for equivilent service (which is about $90 bucks a month for two DVRs with basic digital service). I can get them the same thing under D* for $70 a month (less with new customer promos, more like $50 for the first year). Plus Verizon has FIOS internet where they live so they can bundle their D* with Verizon billing. They feel that they are getting less every year under Comcast. I believe in general when Verizon FIOS is available in some markets that is going to threaten Comcast, TWC and Cox in those particular markets.

[Jeremy W]

Many customers will fight change that are on a cable system.
That's fine, but where are they going to go? Satellite? They'll run into the same thing. Time to give up on these luddites.

[bidger]

All I want from cable is what satellite delivers, 100% digital.

And there are a good number of cable subs who are still with cable because they don't want what satellite offers, namely a STB required for every TV they want programming on.

The original purpose of cable was to deliver TV programming to a community that otherwise would have been denied because they were in a valley. They did it at a monthly rate that was reasonable for the residents and that's why it became a popular option for people who didn't want to put up an antenna or who wouldn't have received all the broadcast networks if they did. Been around for over 50 years as a result.

So now you want to subvert all that, the community service aspect of cable, and throw money at them and say, "Serve me and screw Grandma!" because you want from cable what you had with satellite. Then when FIOS is available in your area, you'll flit to that because the can give you what you had with satellite and more and the folks that were happy with cable for years before you came along are stuck paying an additional monthly fee for that STB.

[braven]

For the 1 millionth time, SDV and analog channel removal. Any decent cable company can easily compete with DirecTVs potential bandwidth. My cable company has never preempted a channel, DirecTV on the other hand....




I said put up a big fight, no where did I say InDemand will get NFL ST, but I expect them to put up a bigger fight then they have in the past, if they prevail, who knows, when the renewal is up DirecTV will most likely be under the management of Liberty, who knows what the new ownership will be like and what their focus will be.



Also, for the 1 millionth time, yes MLB Extra Innings was a DirecTV exclusive at one point. Then it was opened up to InDemand then Dish got it 2 seasons later I believe.


Why so militant?

[BruceS]

I am staying with a friend. Their are five TVs in the house.

My HD TV, which is connected to both cable and satellite through four different DVRs.

Of the other four, none of them are connected using a STB. They are all just using the cable which comes out of the wall.

I guarantee my friend is not going to pay for four different STBs. If our local cable company ever trys to implement digital only, he will just cancel the cable account and connect them all to our antenna.

Of course the same thing will happen, when our cable company tries to implement SDV.

FIOS has internet service available in our area. Whenever our local community board grants them the right to provide TV service in our area, we will be switching from cable anyway.

[carl6]

With regard to the elderly, both my mother and my mother in-law are approaching 90. Both are showing significant signs of dimentia. Both watch analog cable (a very recent upgrade from ota for my mother, although she still only watches the same channels she watched ota). I can't even imagine trying to teach either one of them to do anything different - even as simple as using a different remote control. It just isn't going to happen. Both have their tv set on the entire day.

As to VCR's, well both of them have a VCR. I still have three (including a very well functioning Betamax).

While I do enjoy technology, and enjoy playing with new technology, that doesn't stop me from using perfectly functioning old technology either. There is a place for both.

I really don't know what the "right answer" is for analog cable, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will see cable migrating to digital, and will have a need for STB's on every TV. It's money for them, and that's the bottom line. And even though the FCC ruling about OTA digital has nothing to do with it, I'll bet every cable company that goes 100% digital uses that as their excuse.

Carl

[Steve Mehs]

I give up. Some of you guys will bash the crappy picture quality of analog cable up and down, and then later defend analog. As Carl said, analog cable will do away at some point, and that will be a very good day. IMO, analog cable should have went away like yesterday, but the time will come when my side will win.

The original purpose of cable was to deliver TV programming to a community that otherwise would have been denied because they were in a valley. They did it at a monthly rate that was reasonable for the residents and that's why it became a popular option for people who didn't want to put up an antenna or who wouldn't have received all the broadcast networks if they did. Been around for over 50 years as a result.

So what. I don’t give a crap what the original purpose was, times change. And if you remember the original purpose of satellite was very similar. To provide TV service to rural areas that were not wired for cable. If you lived in a town that had paved roads and more than one gas station you were not the target of satellite TV. But ya know what? Things change. Would anyone here be willing to trade in their HD DVRs and whatnot for Primestar service from 1993? I don’t think so.

About the analog cable issue, there are many customers who are on analog cable because one they don't want to upgrade their tvs to a digital or HD set.

How does that relate to anything? You don't need an HDTV or Digital TV for digital cable.

Why so militant?

Because that's the way I am.

[Jeremy W]

While I do enjoy technology, and enjoy playing with new technology, that doesn't stop me from using perfectly functioning old technology either. There is a place for both.
I've got no problem with analog cable, aside from the fact that it's a massive waste of space on the cable spectrum. That is the reason it needs to go. Yes it's perfectly functional, even though the PQ isn't great. Yes it's easy, yes it's cheap. But it's holding back technological progress. That is the signal to me that it's time to take the analog horse out back, and put it down for good.

[jpl]

I've got no problem with analog cable, aside from the fact that it's a massive waste of space on the cable spectrum. That is the reason it needs to go. Yes it's perfectly functional, even though the PQ isn't great. Yes it's easy, yes it's cheap. But it's holding back technological progress. That is the signal to me that it's time to take the analog horse out back, and put it down for good.

Holding back technological progress? How is analog cable doing that? There are lots of all digital systems out there (DirecTV, Dish, FiOS)... how are they being held up by analog cable? Traditional analog cable systems will convert to all digital, but not because they're interested in technological progress... but because they're interested in staying in business. If they want to compete, they're going to need to be able to offer a decent amount of HD. And they won't be able to do that if they stick to lots of analog channels (as you correctly point out, analog takes way too much bandwidth).

Still that transition won't be easy. Every time Comcast moves a channel from their analog to their digital tier around here, it causes an uproar - particularly among the elderly. It's a tough nut to crack - but they've had a protected status for so long, that they've been seen, in many areas, as a utility - and that is exactly how many folks see cable. Force all those users over to all digital and you've got a major problem.

All that being said, I think it can be done. But the cable companies have to be smart about it. Most of these households, I would guess, have 1 TV. Offer a base digital tier (as opposed to treating digital cable as an add-on to standard), and offer to give boxes, for a cheap monthly rental fee, to those folks, and I think you can transition a vast majority with a minimal amount of pain.

[JLucPicard]

I'm primarily a DirecTV subscriber and have Comcast for internet access. I also have a couple of stand-alone Series 2 TiVo boxes connected to lifeline cable for back-up recordings of the stuff that I watch most (it's come in handy a few times when a program got deleted from my DVR because it 'needed space for other recordings'). My main viewing is D* programming on my DVRs.

My point in having cable TV at all is two-fold. One, a cheap back up as noted above. Two, my Comcast bill is actually cheaper by subscribing to life-line cable TV because the discount off my internet bill is higher than the cost of life-line.

I have a sister with 5 kids and economics dictate that the only way they can afford any cable TV is just getting life-line service (about $10 a month here).

For either of us, if analog vaporizes and STBs are required to get any cable at all, bye-bye cable. Will that hurt Comcast at all? Not in the least - they'll actually get more money from me for non-discounted internet service. But their service doesn't offer me enough to actually get STBs as I get all of that already with DirecTV - Comcast will never get me as a subscriber to anything more than life-line.

My point - at least in my circle, analog isn't an issue of having or not having an STB - it's a matter of $10 a month for cable service at all versus $40-$50-$60 a month or whatever their basic packages are that now require STBs to subscribe. If they were to go all digital and require an STB and still have a package that's only $10 a month, we may still get cable. That is NOT about to happen, though.

Either way, I'm still happy as a pig in a mud hole with my DirecTV.

[Jeremy W]

Holding back technological progress? How is analog cable doing that? There are lots of all digital systems out there (DirecTV, Dish, FiOS)... how are they being held up by analog cable?
They're not, I was only referring to cable.

[garn9173]

I'm still posting on the Mediacom fourm on DSL reports.com and there's a Mediacom techy that's saying it's going to be at least 5 years, yes 5 years before Mediacom gets serious about HDTV, because he claims that most of Mediacom's subscribers live in small towns and don't care about HDTV. With an outlook like that, wanna make any bets that Mediascam is still around in 5 years?

[purtman]

That's ridiculous. My 81 year old grandmother died of Parkinsons a couple weeks ago, and one of the few things she could still do up to her death was watch TV. It was one of the few things she could actually enjoy. There's no way on Earth that we could explain to her the concept of using a set-top box.

In fact, I'd wager to guess that elderly people watch more TV than any other demographic, and for many it's their only source of entertainment for the day. It's far easier said than done to just leave them behind.


Before getting frustrated by the original comment, just consider the source. Just think! When you have an Opie and Andy supporter icon, that should tell you enough.

[Steve Mehs]

Just think! When you have an Opie and Andy supporter icon, that should tell you enough.
:lol:

[jpl]

They're not, I was only referring to cable.

I kinda got the gist of what you were saying. I think most cable companies will go MOSTLY digital in order to compete - even FiOS, a new system built from the ground up, has some analog channels. Local channels are carried both in analog (for folks without an STB) and digital (for folks that do). You can opt to just get the local channel package, which means you wouldn't need a box on your tv. I think other systems will follow that model, mainly because, as I understand it, in many areas cable companies are required to carry a locals-only tier to make the service available to low-income people.

Still the market is a funny thing - if there are enough people out there that want analog only, I'll bet that there will be some niche companies that will continue to do just that. Now that systems like FiOS and U-Verse are forcing areas to deal with cable competition (in many areas cable is a protected monopoly, and bringing in those systems require actual legislative changes), there's nothing stopping a more traditional cable operator from coming into those areas and offering a niche service. No, it won't be anything fancy, and it won't be designed to compete with the big boys. But if the need/want is there, and the market is big enough, you can bet that someone's going to come in and fill that need.

Besides, you now appear to have the beginning of an HD race going on. Comcast and TWC and other big cable operators aren't going to want to be at that much of a disadvantage over DBS and fiber. And right now they're tapped. They have two choices, in my opinion - turn to switched video (ala TWC), which brings in all sorts of challenges of its own - or keep the existing paradigm, and figure out ways to cram more bandwidth into that cable pipe. One "easy" way to do that - move channels from analog to digital.

[Paul Secic]

And as I mentioned in another thread, not all cable companies are made equal.

Minus locals, what you get on DirecTV in New York is the same as if you had DirecTV in San Francisco.

BINGO! If you move a lot you'll know which channel is on with Dirrerctv & E. With cable you don't. Even cites 7 miles away have different channels #.

[Skip Towne]

For the 1 millionth time, SDV and analog channel removal. Any decent cable company can easily compete with DirecTVs potential bandwidth. My cable company has never preempted a channel, DirecTV on the other hand....




I said put up a big fight, no where did I say InDemand will get NFL ST, but I expect them to put up a bigger fight then they have in the past, if they prevail, who knows, when the renewal is up DirecTV will most likely be under the management of Liberty, who knows what the new ownership will be like and what their focus will be.



Also, for the 1 millionth time, yes MLB Extra Innings was a DirecTV exclusive at one point. Then it was opened up to InDemand then Dish got it 2 seasons later I believe.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

[Steve Mehs]

Make that 1,000,001 times now ;)

[Paul Secic]

That's ridiculous. My 81 year old grandmother died of Parkinsons a couple weeks ago, and one of the few things she could still do up to her death was watch TV. It was one of the few things she could actually enjoy. There's no way on Earth that we could explain to her the concept of using a set-top box.

In fact, I'd wager to guess that elderly people watch more TV than any other demographic, and for many it's their only source of entertainment for the day. It's far easier said than done to just leave them behind.



Not the Motorola unit that Comcast set me up with last July. This varies widely depending on the equipment given.



This was the first thing I noticed when I got a digital box back in 1998 and when I first got satellite. It's not a major issue for me either - but you'd be surprised how many people feel this way. WAF plays big here.



That's great for your aunt, and my maternal grandmother could probably get it too with enough coaching. But there's a large enough segment of the population that can't get it no matter what you do. I'd love to see the over/under on how many calls Comcast will get (and subsequent visits they'll have to make) from elderly folks who turn channels using the buttons on the front of their set only to get snow, and think something's wrong (why can I only get channel 3/4?)



Here I agree with you - this is all about the cable companies making additional revenue with rentals of new STBs. Many folks have 3 or 4 tvs, and watch 90% of their programs on one set in their living room. They have the extras hanging around that get channels 2-99 and no digital programming. Once analog is pulled, those sets can't get anything without a STB. A bill that used to be $50/mo goes up to $65 assuming 3 additional TVs @ $5/mo. One major advantage that cable had over satellite goes away.

Of course there are other problems too that I haven't even addressed here - VCRs or DVD recorders needing to use unreliable IR blasters or serial connections to change channels, increased power consumption of idle STBs, situations where STBs are impossible (TVs on treadmills for example), and diplexers becoming obsolete. However, since I think I made my feelings quite clear I'll leave it at that.
Sorry you lost your Grandmother..