The Best of Both Phone, and Tablet
June 13, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
HDTV--the clincher in war between cable and phone?
- Related Stories
-
IPTV promise meets reality
June 8, 2006 -
IPTV prepares for prime time
June 5, 2006 -
TV industry frets over high definition
April 26, 2006
(continued from previous page)
AT&T, which plans to officially begin offering commercial TV service this summer, has taken a different approach to building its network. It has put fiber further into neighborhoods and is using a technology called Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line, or VDSL, to deliver up to 25Mbps of bandwidth into homes over its existing copper lines.
But when doing the math, it's easy to see that AT&T's initial service plans will have it bumping up against its bandwidth ceiling. The carrier has said it will provide one HDTV channel, which eats up about 8Mbps each stream, using MPEG-4 compression technology. But on top of this, it is promising up to three standard-definition channels (roughly 2Mbps to 3Mbps of bandwidth per stream) plus at least 6Mbps of high-speed Internet access, for every home. If a household is consuming all these services at full capacity, it is using up 23Mbps.
AT&T executives say they are confident that the carrier will have enough bandwidth to serve plenty of HDTV content in the 15 to 20 U.S. markets it plans to reach with TV service this year. They also argue that most people won't use all kinds of services at the same time, and that when more bandwidth is needed, the company will upgrade its network to newer DSL technology. Still, the company is not offering HDTV in its controlled release of the service in San Antonio.
"I can deliver HDTV today, no problem," said Christopher Rice, executive vice president at AT&T. "Even if you assume that people will go to 3 HDTVs, we can double capacity to 45Mbps and 50Mbps by using VDSL2+ bonding technology."
AT&T won't be the only company that needs to upgrade its network to keep pace with HDTV demand. Cable operators will also have to do some building. These companies broadcast TV signals across their networks to all subscribers, and when people click on a channel, it tunes that particular stream of video. With higher-capacity HDTV streams traveling over this network alongside analog streams, cable networks are nearly tapped out.
But Cox's Esser said cable companies have several options for tapping deeper into their existing infrastructure to increase the volume.
Esser said that his company, which offers nine HDTV channels today, is upgrading and re-spacing electronics on its network to increase bandwidth. Cox and other cable operators are also trying to encourage customers to switch to digital cable from analog TV, which eats significantly more capacity, he said.
And finally, cable companies are also looking into a technology called "switched digital," which mimics Internet Protocol. Instead of broadcasting every TV signal throughout the entire network, "switched digital" allows only the channels currently being watched to be sent to customers' homes along the coaxial cable.
"We've known for a long time that we are going to need more capacity on the network," he said. "And we've already been planning for it for a long time."
See more CNET content tagged:
HDTV, cable company, subscriber, fiber, TV
82 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
I think a lot of those HDTV sales are of the smaller sets that you can now buy for well under $1,000. I just don't see $1500+ TV's being bought in "droves".
Time-Warner Cable here has about a dozen HD channels. Occasionally, I'll notice compression artifacts (typically with very "busy" images, like a full-screen view of a babbling brook), but the average viewer probably wouldn't notice.
The problem a lot of shows have is that they are not broadcasting in much higher quality just using HDTV signals. This is true of HD channels that are showing older TV programming and movies.
I think a lot of those HDTV sales are of the smaller sets that you can now buy for well under $1,000. I just don't see $1500+ TV's being bought in "droves".
Time-Warner Cable here has about a dozen HD channels. Occasionally, I'll notice compression artifacts (typically with very "busy" images, like a full-screen view of a babbling brook), but the average viewer probably wouldn't notice.
The problem a lot of shows have is that they are not broadcasting in much higher quality just using HDTV signals. This is true of HD channels that are showing older TV programming and movies.
The reason is that, especially on Canada, service providers have been concentrating on upping the total number of both regular digital as well as HDTV channels as a draw to compete for subscribers.
To do that, the typical means is not to increase bandwidth so much as to compress signals more so that they fit in the narrow pipe. In Canada on digital pay movie channels the dark areas of a picture are now often black--rendered so by the effect of the channel stuffing extra compression.
This kind of sub-standard digital product isn't gonna do anything for the popularity of digital TV or HDTV (which is digital by default).
TIP: If thinking about moving to a digital cable box or an HDTV box, check out the service on a set within your immediate neighborhood. You may find that the service you'll pay a mint for leaves you looking as shows that appear as though their sets were lit with flashlights.
The cable (and phone) companies are interested in making more money, not providing you with a higher quality product, and it's the ability to fit more and more paid content and services over the same line that has gotten them on the digital bandwagon. The sad thing is that their greed is going to convince the average person that digital technology is still very primitive, when in fact it has the capacity to deliver amazing quality if it's allowed to.
The reason is that, especially on Canada, service providers have been concentrating on upping the total number of both regular digital as well as HDTV channels as a draw to compete for subscribers.
To do that, the typical means is not to increase bandwidth so much as to compress signals more so that they fit in the narrow pipe. In Canada on digital pay movie channels the dark areas of a picture are now often black--rendered so by the effect of the channel stuffing extra compression.
This kind of sub-standard digital product isn't gonna do anything for the popularity of digital TV or HDTV (which is digital by default).
TIP: If thinking about moving to a digital cable box or an HDTV box, check out the service on a set within your immediate neighborhood. You may find that the service you'll pay a mint for leaves you looking as shows that appear as though their sets were lit with flashlights.
The cable (and phone) companies are interested in making more money, not providing you with a higher quality product, and it's the ability to fit more and more paid content and services over the same line that has gotten them on the digital bandwagon. The sad thing is that their greed is going to convince the average person that digital technology is still very primitive, when in fact it has the capacity to deliver amazing quality if it's allowed to.
because they have an HDTV they're getting it. You have to
subscribe. If you did, you would see that even on smaller
screens, there's a VAST difference between even HDTV that's
720i let alone 1080i or 1080p. You must be one of those who
thinks he has it but doesn't.
My HDTV, a Sony rated the best HD picture around two years
ago, is only 34" and in my small apartment, that's just fine for
size. And the difference between HD programming and the rest
has made me almost quit watching regular TV.
If you want stuff like Discovery HD then yes you have to subscribe to an HD package, but if you just want to watch LOST in HD, no subscription necessary.
They have no clue about the differences between Digital (EDTV) and HDTV. By their posts, they'd obviously never seen an HDTV broadcast. But don't sweat it. Just be smug in the FACT that in a country with free education, you can accomplish enough to afford HDTV. While these dingdongs can't do anything but whine about life and illiterate migrants "stealing" their jobs.
because they have an HDTV they're getting it. You have to
subscribe. If you did, you would see that even on smaller
screens, there's a VAST difference between even HDTV that's
720i let alone 1080i or 1080p. You must be one of those who
thinks he has it but doesn't.
My HDTV, a Sony rated the best HD picture around two years
ago, is only 34" and in my small apartment, that's just fine for
size. And the difference between HD programming and the rest
has made me almost quit watching regular TV.
If you want stuff like Discovery HD then yes you have to subscribe to an HD package, but if you just want to watch LOST in HD, no subscription necessary.
They have no clue about the differences between Digital (EDTV) and HDTV. By their posts, they'd obviously never seen an HDTV broadcast. But don't sweat it. Just be smug in the FACT that in a country with free education, you can accomplish enough to afford HDTV. While these dingdongs can't do anything but whine about life and illiterate migrants "stealing" their jobs.
I would, and that "horse" is Fiber.
I declare Verizon the winner, IF they invest in the infrastructure, AND if they get past the "last mile" into the home.
Fiber has to actually be part of the interface between the TV, computer, whatever to allow for the future bandwidth needs.
Oh, and just how much difference is there between HDTV and your current monitor?
Hint: Not much, if any.
What's that mean?
All the new HDTV sets are actually monitors in disguise.
How's that for a convergence possibility?
"Children, can we say Verizon and Conversion in the same sentence?"
Diogenes
midwest where AT&T (was SBC) is the main player?
I would, and that "horse" is Fiber.
I declare Verizon the winner, IF they invest in the infrastructure, AND if they get past the "last mile" into the home.
Fiber has to actually be part of the interface between the TV, computer, whatever to allow for the future bandwidth needs.
Oh, and just how much difference is there between HDTV and your current monitor?
Hint: Not much, if any.
What's that mean?
All the new HDTV sets are actually monitors in disguise.
How's that for a convergence possibility?
"Children, can we say Verizon and Conversion in the same sentence?"
Diogenes
midwest where AT&T (was SBC) is the main player?
Dish Network currently offers 29 HD channels
My Local cable company only offers 13.
Dish Network currently offers 29 HD channels
My Local cable company only offers 13.
This is in part because witg HDTV it is the DIGITAL encoding of any broadcast signal--DTV or HDTV--that makes it sharp, not the resolution, until you hit 40" HDTV or over. A related factor is that most analog sets today also INTERPOLATE existing scanlines and create a greater apparent sharpness, such that when a digital cable signal is pumped to the set's analog jacks, it may be indestinguishable from HDTV at 40" or smaller sizes (HDTV measure).
But there are other limitations most HDTV sellers don't mention at all. When analog TV programs were packaged over the years, they would be produced to meet certain minimum resolution and image quality standards. A news story shot on an analog Betacam, for example, or a show that was videotaped to start with, would go through edits of tape to tape that would downgrade the resolution. Certain rules were normally followed as to how many times a tape to tape edit could be done and still be broadcast quality. But it was not uncomon to edit to the margin of permitted quality.
The end result of this process is that many analog recorded TV shows were not representative of a highly-detailed first generation analog tape to begin with. When such programming is broadcast as a digital or HDTV signal, there is no real benefit in seeing it as a an HDTV image, as it was not at such resolution to begin with. You can't get more out of an HDTV picture on the receiver side that was input by the broadcaster. In effect all the HDTV does for such shows is help reduce signal quality loss when received, as does the digital TV feed. But there is stil a loss because of teh aggressive compression that can be applied in the cable pipleine, as well as the compression that occurs when the digiral recording itself is made of the analog source.
When we consider that some 40 years of TV production is ensconced in such tapes and in tapes made from awful 16mm film-to-tape transfers, the real benefits of HDTV are not all the great, UNLESS you watch only new content.
HDTV has a huge drawback in displaying analog-format shows, since the only way old but still excellent analog shows will appear undistorted on an HDTV feed or DTV feed will be by showing it in a box in the middle of the HDTV screen. LCD and other non-cathode ray sets are going to be prone to uneven pixel burn in this respect.
TIP: Wait at least for the new thin CRT sets that are coming to market; they will offer HDTV at a much lower cost, with much longer durability ans a more vieweable picture.
For all these reasons HDTV in itself will not play a role in shaping service provider battles. Rather the QUALITY of the deilvered DTV or HDTV signal will be what wins the war. He who compresses least will win this war.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsh!t off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsht off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
This is in part because witg HDTV it is the DIGITAL encoding of any broadcast signal--DTV or HDTV--that makes it sharp, not the resolution, until you hit 40" HDTV or over. A related factor is that most analog sets today also INTERPOLATE existing scanlines and create a greater apparent sharpness, such that when a digital cable signal is pumped to the set's analog jacks, it may be indestinguishable from HDTV at 40" or smaller sizes (HDTV measure).
But there are other limitations most HDTV sellers don't mention at all. When analog TV programs were packaged over the years, they would be produced to meet certain minimum resolution and image quality standards. A news story shot on an analog Betacam, for example, or a show that was videotaped to start with, would go through edits of tape to tape that would downgrade the resolution. Certain rules were normally followed as to how many times a tape to tape edit could be done and still be broadcast quality. But it was not uncomon to edit to the margin of permitted quality.
The end result of this process is that many analog recorded TV shows were not representative of a highly-detailed first generation analog tape to begin with. When such programming is broadcast as a digital or HDTV signal, there is no real benefit in seeing it as a an HDTV image, as it was not at such resolution to begin with. You can't get more out of an HDTV picture on the receiver side that was input by the broadcaster. In effect all the HDTV does for such shows is help reduce signal quality loss when received, as does the digital TV feed. But there is stil a loss because of teh aggressive compression that can be applied in the cable pipleine, as well as the compression that occurs when the digiral recording itself is made of the analog source.
When we consider that some 40 years of TV production is ensconced in such tapes and in tapes made from awful 16mm film-to-tape transfers, the real benefits of HDTV are not all the great, UNLESS you watch only new content.
HDTV has a huge drawback in displaying analog-format shows, since the only way old but still excellent analog shows will appear undistorted on an HDTV feed or DTV feed will be by showing it in a box in the middle of the HDTV screen. LCD and other non-cathode ray sets are going to be prone to uneven pixel burn in this respect.
TIP: Wait at least for the new thin CRT sets that are coming to market; they will offer HDTV at a much lower cost, with much longer durability ans a more vieweable picture.
For all these reasons HDTV in itself will not play a role in shaping service provider battles. Rather the QUALITY of the deilvered DTV or HDTV signal will be what wins the war. He who compresses least will win this war.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsh!t off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
Instead of talking like you did, why don't you try watching a 30" HDTV with HDTV broadcasts (480p)? I'm not even suggesting HD-DV at 720p right now. That would definitely be out of your league. Oh, and try it with component input as the minimum, hdmi preferred.
Than after you'd wiped the bullsht off, come back and really give an INFORMED opinion.
As for those who are extolling the wonders of their small HD sets in the homes: There are plenty of pundits out there who say that viewing HD on sets smaller than 40" or so in the typical home setting provides little discernible improvement in the viewing experience (these were in comparing the new high def DVD formats vs std def DVD format). Since the TV I plan to buy is 42", I think I should experience some modest improvement in viewing quality if I bother to subscribe to HD (I won't pay money for a built-in tuner, so please don't tell me I can just put up an antenna). But, I'm still left with this question: Those folks posting to this thread who extoll the virtues of small HD sets: At what size is HD no longer an advantage (in you opinions, that is)?
mark d.
As for those who are extolling the wonders of their small HD sets in the homes: There are plenty of pundits out there who say that viewing HD on sets smaller than 40" or so in the typical home setting provides little discernible improvement in the viewing experience (these were in comparing the new high def DVD formats vs std def DVD format). Since the TV I plan to buy is 42", I think I should experience some modest improvement in viewing quality if I bother to subscribe to HD (I won't pay money for a built-in tuner, so please don't tell me I can just put up an antenna). But, I'm still left with this question: Those folks posting to this thread who extoll the virtues of small HD sets: At what size is HD no longer an advantage (in you opinions, that is)?
mark d.
I have subscribed to digital cable that comes with some HD channels; hd is pretty nice. The biggest difference I have noticed is people's faces. You can really see the imperfections in people's faces with HD. I know that sounds mean, but the truth hurts.
I would say that the biggest barrier to the next gen HD in the home is not the cable providers but the greedy media companies that will choke us with DRM.
You cannot tell the US consumer market that their brand new HDTV will not work with their new Blue ray/ Hd Dvd player because of their drm scheme and not expect some major backlash.
I for one will not be buying any next gen that will not work with what I have already bought right out of the box. Sony: you can go to hell.
I have subscribed to digital cable that comes with some HD channels; hd is pretty nice. The biggest difference I have noticed is people's faces. You can really see the imperfections in people's faces with HD. I know that sounds mean, but the truth hurts.
I would say that the biggest barrier to the next gen HD in the home is not the cable providers but the greedy media companies that will choke us with DRM.
You cannot tell the US consumer market that their brand new HDTV will not work with their new Blue ray/ Hd Dvd player because of their drm scheme and not expect some major backlash.
I for one will not be buying any next gen that will not work with what I have already bought right out of the box. Sony: you can go to hell.
On the other side of the coin, I'm very unhappy with my local phone company, as their wireless division has screwed up my cellphone account to a rediculous degree.
I dont' want to stick eith either of them. I think one of the satellite companies is still absent from my list of hate, but I don't know how else to get broadband without caving into one of these two jokers.
On the other side of the coin, I'm very unhappy with my local phone company, as their wireless division has screwed up my cellphone account to a rediculous degree.
I dont' want to stick eith either of them. I think one of the satellite companies is still absent from my list of hate, but I don't know how else to get broadband without caving into one of these two jokers.
there's no real difference between HDTV signals and regular NTSC
signals in terms of quality.
But you are correct about not having to pay for it!
there's no real difference between HDTV signals and regular NTSC
signals in terms of quality.
But you are correct about not having to pay for it!
If the capacity is there but not being used, it is a free resource to tap. This is the same situation as cell phone text messaging. There is a systme in place to allow it and if we can get consumers to use it we can make money.
At the same time the phone companies are moving into TV, the Cable companies are taking note of VOIP technology and starting to offer direct phone service over Cable.
I don't know about you, but I have had very few problems with my phone service. I can't think of a single problem that would make me think I should not consider adding TV from the same company.