The other digital-TV transition

As a cable customer, I thought I was immune to any problems related to the upcoming digital-TV transition. But I recently discovered that cable's own migration to digital-TV transmission also has its share of headaches.

Imagine my surprise last month when I turned on the TV in my bedroom to watch a rerun of Sex and the City to discover that TBS, which had been part of my basic cable package, was no longer viewable. I clicked a few more channels and discovered that TNT was also missing. In fact, all that I am now left with on this particular TV are the basic national networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, along with the public access station C-SPAN and WNET, my local public television station.

I was annoyed to say the least. I live in New York City and subscribe to Time Warner Cable. I pay about $66 a month for my basic and expanded digital-cable service with a DVR-enabled set-top box in my living room, which I love. But in my bedroom, I was not willing to pay the extra $7 to $10 per month for a converter box. So I simply plug the cable into my TV, and I had been able to get at least a dozen or so channels of basic cable. But now it looks like my choices for even the very basic TV channels are shrinking.

When I first called Time Warner to inquire about what had happened, I was told by a misinformed customer service agent that my shrinking cable lineup was a result of the government mandated switch to digital TV.

This information was, of course, incorrect. The transition to digital for over-the-air TV broadcasters was mandated by Congress and has a deadline of February 17, 2009, when all broadcasters will transmit signals only in digital format.

But this broadcast transition to digital has nothing to do with the cable industry's switch to digital. In fact, for cable customers, the over-the-air switch to digital should have no effect on their service. Customers who subscribe to cable TV service won't have to get a digital converter box nor will they have to do anything else to their TVs in anticipation of the February 17 deadline.

That said, cable is also migrating to digital transmission. As a result, I discovered that some cable operators, such as Time Warner Cable, are moving channels from their basic analog tier of service to a more expensive digital tier that requires renting a digital set-top box.

While the Time Warner Cable spokesman I spoke to for this article, apologized for the misinformation I received from the customer representative, he defended the company's practice of moving some analog channels to digital.

"Like any business, we change our offering from time to time," said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable. "Our customers won't have to do a thing when the over-the-air digital transition occurs in 2009. But we are also migrating some of our channels to a higher digital tier to make room for new services. And if customers want to receive those channels, they'll have to rent a box."

Suspicious timing?
Some consumer advocates say that the timing of these channel moves is suspicious considering it coincides with the broadcasters' transition to digital. A survey conducted in October by Consumer Reports found that about 19 percent of cable customers said they noticed in recent months channels in their basic cable package disappearing and moving to a higher tier.

Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, argues that cable's timing for moving channels off basic service to a higher tier service was done deliberately to capitalize on the confusion around the over-the-air TV broadcast digital transition. Despite the fact that there is nothing legally prohibiting the cable industry from moving channels into different tiers, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has opened an inquiry into this practice.

"The timing of these moves seems deceptive," said Joel Kelsey, a policy analyst at Consumers Union. "Many cable companies are doing this when consumer confusion is at its peak. Consumers essentially feel painted into a corner and are forced to choose between paying the same amount for less service or paying more to get the same service back."

But cable operators argue the timing is more coincidence than an underhanded attempt to squeeze more cash out of consumers.

"For us, this is purely a bandwidth issue," Time Warner Cable's Dudley said. "We need to move certain channels from our basic analog tier to digital to accommodate more HD channels. It has nothing to do with getting folks to upgrade their service, but it has everything to do with us remaining competitive by delivering as many HD channels as we can."

Indeed, Time Warner Cable, which is facing stiff competition from Verizon Communications' new Fios TV service, has added about 40 to 50 HD channels in the New York City market alone. The company hopes to offer about 100 HD channels by the end of the year in New York.

Like TV broadcasters and cell phone operators, which have also switched to digital transmission, cable is migrating to digital because it's much more efficient than transmitting using analog technology. This means that cable operators can free up more bandwidth to offer services like telephony, video on demand, and more high-definition TV programming.

Cable's transition to digital has been happening for over a decade. Some cable operators are much further along in their migration to digital than others. For example, Cablevision, which serves the New York metropolitan area, has converted about 90 percent of its customers to digital service. Nationwide about 60 percent of cable customers have already switched to digital, according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry's trade organization.

So what is a consumer, such as myself, to do? Well, it looks like I have a couple of choices. I can pony up the extra $7 a month for another converter box and remote. Or I can get a digital converter box and an antenna to attach to my old TV and try to receive digital TV signals over the air. Digital TV over theair is free. And because more capacity is available via digital than was available with analog, many broadcasters have added additional channels of TV programming, which could mean that I would get even more channels than before.

While I may be tempted to take the over-the-air TV option, Time Warner's Dudley said the company isn't worried about massive subscriber defections to over-the-air TV.

"Cable offers a convenient way to ensure signal quality on your TV," he said. "We actually think that the customers we may lose to over-the-air TV will be offset by the new customers we sign up who don't want to deal with converter boxes and antennas."

[alskiontheweb]

Time Warner says "Cable offers a convenient way to ensure signal quality on your TV," he said. "We actually think that the customers we may lose to over-the-air TV will be offset by the new customers we sign up who don't want to deal with converter boxes and antennas."

But they require a converter box monthly fee for their service so what the hell is he talking about? That's exactly why I DON'T get digital cable because I don't want to hassle with boxes on my 5 televisions. To me, over the air, if the content gets richer, is definitely a better option.

[Renegade Knight]

Ditto. When basic cable goes away (which is also no muss no fuss with multiple TV's) I'll go to over the air.

[MadLyb]

They are locking in poorer customers who have to choose between purchasing a new TV or buying a converter box. Why do you think the first HD channels most cable providers added were the local stations? The only competition they have in many areas is OTA and that will go away on Feb 12 for a significant portion of the population.

[ferricoxide]

Why would OTA go away for a significant proportion of the population? Cost can't be a factor: if you sent for the DTV-converter coupon, you're typically out about $10 (and it's not like you'd need a new antenna, etc.) That's WAY cheaper than the recurring costs of even basic cable or the recurring costs of a set-top box.

[sting7k]

So basically they are now going to force us to have a box on every TV. What was the point of all these new TVs have digital tuners built in? I know there was a huge outrage when comcast in my area moved the preview channel to the digital channels. It has not returned, but I know a lot of people simply dropped comcast and are waiting for fios or got satellite instead.

[3rdalbum]

Foxtel in Australia did that during their digital switchover. It now just means that I watch less Foxtel and use Surf The Channel more. It's not HD, but at least it's not costing me $60 a month.

[sandor_f]

I get about 25 total channels, for free, via ATSC (aka digital OTA). When cable can compete with this, i may switch, but as it is, i get to use the 25 year old antenna on my roof again, i get less commercials, and i get all the benefits of digital broadcast, including HDTV.

Best of all, in the Philadelphia metro area, there have been lower powered digital (ATSC) broadcasts for almost three years now, so plenty of time to adjust everything in getting ready for analog broadcasts being turned off in a couple of months.

[zenwaves]

Marguerite, the channel line-up you listed in your second paragraph is exactly what I've paid $12/month for in the last 4 years. For everything else, it's Hulu and BitTorrent piped to my set via an S-Video cable ... consumers do have a choice!

[Craig_W]

This has been predicted and reported numerous times over the past year and should come at no surprise. See:
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/07/the-other-digit.html#posts
http://www.ezdigitaltv.com/Cable_Television.html
http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#faq16

[JoshMiller79]

With all of the online outposts such as Hulu and television network's own websites, I'm considering dropping my cable TV and using and antenna + my PC. It's a lot cheaper and I can use the money savings for a better/faster internet connection.

[renGek]

Just remember cable companies have a remedy for that too. They will limit the amount of upload/download you have per month. At the moment there is probably enough that you won't have to pay. But as more people migrate to hulu and online viewing expect that threshold of 250gigs (comcast) to drop like a rock. Good luck if there are many in your household or if you share a line with multiple parties.

But yeah I'm in the same boat as you. I barely watch whats on tv. If I miss something I fetch it online and stream it to my tv via a dedicated pc.

[mjw149]

I know the limits are coming, but so are cell phone companies and Clearwire offering broadband anywhere. And it can't come fast enough. Why oh why couldn't Google win that spectrum?

[schwartz_jg]

1. I also live in NYC. If you have a new TV with a built-in QAM tuner (aka Digital Cable Ready), you will get the unscrambled digital channels TWC broadcasts. While it isn't a huge list, you do get some "free" HD channels as well as all the local broadcast channels. You even get some of the SD channels in much clearer digital. (Many of the analog broadcasted channels on TWC-NYC were very fuzzy without the cable box or QAM tuner.)

2. TWC has "scrambled" their lineup for years. While you may have tuned your cable box to 2, 4, 7, etc. without the box, you had to hunt for your channels on 12, 14, 17, etc. I agree that Time Warner is trying to squeeze every last dime out of the thier customers but not every cable company is being so greedy. My parents have RCN in Brooklyn and they are giving away low end boxes for SD cable channels for free and no "Digitial Duplication Fee" that TWC charges. So much for their "Sir Charge" commercials.

Yes some of the cable companies are using the digital transition to fatten their wallets but to blame them for moving programs from analog to digital is misguided. we want more HD channels and the analog channels are hogging the bandwidth. Best option is for the consumer to get a new TV with a built-in QAM tuner and for the cable companies to broadcast their basic tier in digital and unscrambled. Everyone wins!

[wango2007]

Time Warner is a rip and rape company if there if was one. Citizens need to demand Federal control over cable providers.

Time Warner is a horrible company. They have poorly trained people, and they and their supervisors are in a constant state of apology for providing false information. No one wants to hear them keep saying, "I apologize," --we all want competent service in the first place.

Time Warner hates its customers and proves it everyday by running what seem to be thousands of commercials each day for its own products... phone service, Internet connections and all that. Yhere needs to be a limit on Time Warner advertising itself. There is so much of it that It devalues all other commerical advertising.

The idiots at Time Warner don't understand they are hated by their customers, and only stupid people would trust their phone or Internet connection to them. In my area, Time Warner can barley keep the TV up aand running in my area... there is a constant interruption in service, sometimes for an annoying 10-30 seconds in the middle of a program, sometimes full outages that last hours.

I think Time Warner must be ripping off advertiser as well as subscribers. In my area they very often show a commercial. but cut it off early to show another one. Advertisers are not getting value for money when Time Warner cuts the end of their commercial off. It happens very often.

A government investigation of Time Warner Cable is needed.

[donsms]

WOW!! Thats a lot of hate for just 1 company,don`t ya think?

[contentcreator--2008]

Please don't forget to follow up with an article on cable companies "trans-rating" of HD ---- digitally recompressing the OTA HD signal into a lower bitrate with less image quality, all in the name of cramming more "HD" signals into the same bandwidth. It's HD that isn't. This isn't the wave of the future, you can see it every day now.

And the beauty of transrating now for the cable companies is that if they do it now, before customers see true full-bit-rate HD over the air, customers will never know what they are missing.

Cable companies must be required to carry the broadcast image bits unchanged in order to be able to advertise it as HD.

[SteveW928]

So, when they move these channels.... are they tunable with a standard QAM tuner, or do you have to have their 'box' to descramble them. If it is the later, then this is clearly NOT coincidence.
The cable companies know that many people won't be able to tune in OTA digital because reception of these signals is much more picky if you don't have a good roof antenna. This is their way to force the use of converter box. If a cable provider isn't up to something, you'll know because all the basic content will be QAM tunable and able to be received by a TV with a digital tuner, without their 'box'.

It won't be long before cable tv is obsolete. We'll be using the internet to watch most of our programs in the near future. It has already started with services such as Hulu.com

http://talktochad.blogspot.com

[brianbot5000]

And cable TV will have a counter attack ready for that, which they're already setting up: monthly bandwidth limits and charging for going over those limits. Comcast has a 250 gig monthly limit now. It's a lot, but as the quality of video online improves, and as people begin watching more online, 250gigs will be attainable. Soon the internet will be a teired system as well.

[Rick4135]

Several have commented that they will now go to the alternative of using feeds over the Internet (HULU, etc). I find it extremely interesting that Comcast, who sold me an "unlimited" download capability, has now unilaterally restricted the amount that can be downloaded monthly - and then you pay through the nose. Although Comcast says that most current users will not meet that limit - just wait until everything goes digital and you start using the Internet for television programming!

Interestingly, also, is that Comcast is not digital in my area, although they market it and even provide all the extra channels through their converter boxes. They cannot provide phone service or HD, yet we will have to start paying that rate, if we want to get anything. I am in an area where there are no local TV stations. There is an analog repeater site that pulls in distant stations and rebroadcasts them into the valley. That was done years ago to protest the cable company (then Cox). The whole system was financed by donations and it provided about 10 channels. It cannot convert (money), so it will be cable or nothing.

[renGek]

And don't forget just about every cable company will now charge you an extra $15 to your internet bill if you don't have cable tv with them as well.

[Drazhna]

My wife and I were experiencing this very issue with channels disappearing as well. This past holiday weekend Discovery Channel disappeared. I feel this is extortion to 'make' customers pay up as they take channels away and NOT redude the price of the existing basic offering. Mark my words comcast, your day of reckoning is coming. You have gone on way too long manipulating and misinforming customers while taking money you hardly deserve for what you offer.

[GSale51]

It feels like extortion, because it is - in a way. It is obviously not a RIGHT to have a product or service. It is just an offering that we choose to subscribe to, and we can walk away from it. Unfortunately, since they are providing lcaol stations and a means for reporting dangerous situations to the public, I believe it places them in some gray area of a broadcast entity. There are probably a ton of rights that consumers are getting cheated out of and they are only waiting for a class action lawsuit claim to tone it down. In the meantime, they can basically do whatever they want, since you are the consumer and consumer laws - are actually PRO commercial law,s protecting the businesses from the consumers.
If you read the ALWAYS changing wording of the privacy, rules and guidelines statements that come on those fine print brochures within your billing statements, there are a TON of holes in the wording to basically
You will give up your rights entirely and subject yourself to any rules or changes - without notice - and you may be subject to additional fees they deem appropriate. You will also waive your right to any legal action and you have the right to discontinue the subscription if there is any problem.

This kind of situation is in most contracts, but is less abused in general. One of the worst offenders of this kind of thing is actually ATT.

[RobJMedich]

Hey, no where in here did you mention CableCard, which would get you cable without the box (and is a lot cheaper than a decoder box).

[ittesi259]

Why would you mention something that was a complete commercial failure?

[Retina99]

A friend of mine has cable, and she has as older analog set. It has worked perfectly fine with analog cable. Her cable provider, Comcast, however has recently switched to all-digital, so she had to get a digital converter box, which Comcast provided for her.

Now her cable reception is awful...on every station every 10 seconds or so, there is a signal dropout, usually its a loss of audio, followed by the image freezing, then a blank screen for a second or two. Its extremely annoying, especially considering that she is paying for cable service. Its basically unwatchable. She can't afford a new digital set, so she is considering just completely dropping cable.

[geekpundit]

I had a similar problem with Time Warner when I got HD. I didn't want to wait around for the technician to show up so I was able to get a box from them. Turns out the cables in my house and/or running to the house needed a little upgrading. After dealing with the same issues your friend was having - which, by the way, are similar to the problems you will have if you get a weak OTA digital signal or have a weak antenna - I called to complain. A tech came out a couple days later (this time I waited), and after a couple hours of recabling everything has been great since. Your friend might want to give her cable company a call.

One thing I noticed - the HD quality of PBS OTA was far better than that offered by TW. Until about 3 months ago, that is. I'm not sure what they did, but I honestly cannot tell the difference anymore. I noticed they are busy adding more HD channels. They have very little competition in my market though.

As good as Time Warner has been for me, I really found the overall digital quality of Dish superior (the trees and the proximity of the houses in my new neighborhood made Dish and Directv out of the question for me when I moved). The Dish DVR was great - I tried TW's and it is total garbage. I ended up taking the plunge and going with a TiVo, and will probably go with an HD TiVo and cablecard in a couple months.

[i_am_still_wade]

Not surprise you have problems, that is Time Warner. The only company I know of that treats their customers worse is Sprint. Dump Time Warner. Over the air is far superior than they are.

[ferricoxide]

If it wasn't a money grab, then they'd simply provide a "basic" digital tier at the same rate as the basic analog tier. If they're doing the move to digital to conserve bandwidth, then they're saving money in infrastructure costs. Given that this reduces the delivery cost per-channel, they should discount a basic digital tier such that the cost of the set-top boxes disappears in the wash. Instead, they screw you twice: once on the monthly box rental fees and once with the higher rate for the digital tier. Nope: doesn't sound like a money grab at all...

[ejschlapp]

I live in North Texas and I currently have TWC and they recently added $20 per month to my bill. I can already switch to ATT Uverse and Verizon Fios is currently wiring up my neighborhood. Adios Time Warner Cable.