Comcast Is Up To No Good

[joeynach]

The short version is that comcast is making an active effort to keep adding HD channels and content, and they make this very clear with their advertisings. What they dont tell you is that in order to keep adding HD channels to the cable system they need to constantly reduce the quality of their HD feeds, via compression, in order to keep up with Satellite in the HD offerings war. It has become quite apparent on HD cable channels, AE-HD, TNT-HD, HBO-HD, History-HD, Discovery-HD, etc. They dont seem to compress and reduce bit rate quality as much on sports and local channels. Nonetheless the evidence and the whole story is listed here.

 

IMO, the problem is inherent with coaxial cable as technology. It offers a certain maximum bandwidth and for all intensive purposes that max has been reached. The only thing left for comcast and cable companies to do is sugarcoat the whole thing with campaings highlighting their additions of HD channels, while keeping mum on the fact that in order to so they must sacrifice HD image quality of many stations. The details are referenced in comcast's decision to now supply 3 HD channels in 1 QAM, where as it used to be 2, thus reducing quality. The theory was 2 Channels per QAM supplied the mimimum bitrate, 19Mbps, that was needed to produce true HD images. Since they recently enacted the quantity over quality policy that notion went out the window, which is somewhat understandable given their HD war with satellite. I dont really know capabilities of satellite systems, but it seems an easier problem to fix. If satellite needs a massive bandwidth upgrade all the consumer has to do is get a new dish/box, where as for cable we are talking about region wide hard infrastructure, whole different ballgame.

 

So the solution, yep its fiberoptics. Fiberoptic technology is nothing new, but getting it to your home and community will take a comprehensive infrastructure investment, as was cable 20-30 yrs ago. Fiberoptic cables will basically supply all the present and futuristic communication needs you can think of. Its already being rolled out in select markets by Verizon's FIOS and ATT's U-Verse. As soon as these services are offered in our area I say we all jump on it and send comcast packing.

Edited April 14, 2008 by joeynach

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm no expert in the matter, but why invest in fiber optics when the future is going to be wireless?

 

Also, this is another reason I'm a happy RCN customer.

[knightni]

for all intensive purposes

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...ensive+purposes

 

 

[knightni]

I'm no expert in the matter, but why invest in fiber optics when the future is going to be wireless?

 

Also, this is another reason I'm a happy RCN customer.

 

Being fully wireless is like having perfect communism, impossible to achieve.

You have to have some wires somewhere attached to routers and transmitters in order to allow personal wireless service. Cable companies will have to eventually come up with a better way to send information into people's homes that doesn't require coaxial cables. Perhaps fiber optics are the future. Perhaps they'll use super-enforced CAT 5 cables.

 

[lostfan]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...ensive+purposes

 

Haha. Mild pwnage.

[mr_genius]

Being fully wireless is like having perfect communism, impossible to achieve.

You have to have some wires somewhere attached to routers and transmitters in order to allow personal wireless service. Cable companies will have to eventually come up with a better way to send information into people's homes that doesn't require coaxial cables. Perhaps fiber optics are the future. Perhaps they'll use super-enforced CAT 5 cables.

 

WiFiber is something i've heard a lot about.

 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...ticleId=9000644

[southsideirish71]

The short version is that comcast is making an active effort to keep adding HD channels and content, and they make this very clear with their advertisings. What they dont tell you is that in order to keep adding HD channels to the cable system they need to constantly reduce the quality of their HD feeds, via compression, in order to keep up with Satellite in the HD offerings war. It has become quite apparent on HD cable channels, AE-HD, TNT-HD, HBO-HD, History-HD, Discovery-HD, etc. They dont seem to compress and reduce bit rate quality as much on sports and local channels. Nonetheless the evidence and the whole story is listed here.

 

IMO, the problem is inherent with coaxial cable as technology. It offers a certain maximum bandwidth and for all intensive purposes that max has been reached. The only thing left for comcast and cable companies to do is sugarcoat the whole thing with campaings highlighting their additions of HD channels, while keeping mum on the fact that in order to so they must sacrifice HD image quality of many stations. The details are referenced in comcast's decision to now supply 3 HD channels in 1 QAM, where as it used to be 2, thus reducing quality. The theory was 2 Channels per QAM supplied the mimimum bitrate, 19Mbps, that was needed to produce true HD images. Since they recently enacted the quantity over quality policy that notion went out the window, which is somewhat understandable given their HD war with satellite. I dont really know capabilities of satellite systems, but it seems an easier problem to fix. If satellite needs a massive bandwidth upgrade all the consumer has to do is get a new dish/box, where as for cable we are talking about region wide hard infrastructure, whole different ballgame.

 

So the solution, yep its fiberoptics. Fiberoptic technology is nothing new, but getting it to your home and community will take a comprehensive infrastructure investment, as was cable 20-30 yrs ago. Fiberoptic cables will basically supply all the present and futuristic communication needs you can think of. Its already being rolled out in select markets by Verizon's FIOS and ATT's U-Verse. As soon as these services are offered in our area I say we all jump on it and send comcast packing.

 

I find your comments about compression as if it was a bad thing interesting. You should re-read that thread. The native TV feed comes out at Gig speeds, then is compressed, bounced off a bird in space, then recompressed into a format that can be distributed. The medium at the end has its issues, but the idea of ripping up everyones backyard so they can notice a slight fractal difference in their HD is beyond me. You forgot to talk about the FIOS fiber distribution cabinets that regenerate the light signal, and retransmit the feed to the houses on your block. Cable providers are rolling out DOCIS 3.0 this year, which will support at lot more per channel on the cable plant. Fiber is not the end all and be all cabling to the node.

 

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

 

I have no issues with my Comcast HD channels on my HD tv's in my house. Then again, I wired my house with high end cable rated for HD, not the house cable crap you get from RadioShack. The channels look great, and I have no issues. My only issues is that the current HD box is a bit flimsy and breaks at least once a year. Also Analog channels look like s***, but thats more with the Mottorola chipset and their digital to analog conversion than the cable plant itself. I have done a lot of work with compression algorithms with Video retransmission as well as large multicast designs. You can get a lot out a crappy coax cable.

 

And for those who have talked about Wireless as the last mile. You are on the right path. I have been running a pre-Wimax 100 mb link for disaster recovery for the last 3 years. We had such great success on the 100mb wireless link, we have transitioned it to our primary. It is the most reliable thing I have used yet. No fiber cuts from Joe Jackhammer missing his mark, no local loop charges. Its great. I am using that type of technology as the primary now in 5 of my locations.

Edited April 14, 2008 by southsideirish71

[GoodAsGould]

Yeah, once Verizon comes to your town id definitely suggest switching. I also heard not only is it going to be better quality but either similar or lower price than comcast too.

[Chisoxfn]

I can't speak of Comcast, but DirectTV HD quality can't hold my cable companies jockstrap. Direct does have a few more channels but I really have most channels i'd ever want in HD. Now all I need is for my cable company to find a way to give me xtra innings in HD (I know you can get it if you had Direct TV, but it isn't worth the extra cost I'd have to pay with Direct).

[Brian]

slightly off topic, but for those with Comcast HD, does anyone have ESPNNEWS HD??

 

I don't yet.

[Chisoxfn]

Sweet....I just read where Cox in San Diego is going to be doing MLB in HD. Usually Orange County is right behind San Diego in getting that type of stuff. They claim it will only be 10 games a week, but its a start.

 

I saw where Comcast and Time Warner have indicated they will do the same (but it depends on what region and I don't think any regions are currently offering it).

 

In terms of ESPNNews HD, DirectTV and Dish Network have said they will carry it (don't know if it got added or not) and the cable companies have all indicated they will as well but no timetable for when the various cable companies will go live with such channel.

[joeynach]

I find your comments about compression as if it was a bad thing interesting. You should re-read that thread. The native TV feed comes out at Gig speeds, then is compressed, bounced off a bird in space, then recompressed into a format that can be distributed. The medium at the end has its issues, but the idea of ripping up everyones backyard so they can notice a slight fractal difference in their HD is beyond me. You forgot to talk about the FIOS fiber distribution cabinets that regenerate the light signal, and retransmit the feed to the houses on your block. Cable providers are rolling out DOCIS 3.0 this year, which will support at lot more per channel on the cable plant. Fiber is not the end all and be all cabling to the node.

 

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

 

I have no issues with my Comcast HD channels on my HD tv's in my house. Then again, I wired my house with high end cable rated for HD, not the house cable crap you get from RadioShack. The channels look great, and I have no issues. My only issues is that the current HD box is a bit flimsy and breaks at least once a year. Also Analog channels look like s***, but thats more with the Mottorola chipset and their digital to analog conversion than the cable plant itself. I have done a lot of work with compression algorithms with Video retransmission as well as large multicast designs. You can get a lot out a crappy coax cable.

 

And for those who have talked about Wireless as the last mile. You are on the right path. I have been running a pre-Wimax 100 mb link for disaster recovery for the last 3 years. We had such great success on the 100mb wireless link, we have transitioned it to our primary. It is the most reliable thing I have used yet. No fiber cuts from Joe Jackhammer missing his mark, no local loop charges. Its great. I am using that type of technology as the primary now in 5 of my locations.

 

I understand that compression is something that happens by default, my gripe is more with comcast's public claims. Of course they have no problem tauting their increasing offerings of HD channels, as to compete with the dish, but would never make an acknowledgment for at what cost. The article makes its very clear that 2 HD Channels per QAM created the acceptable true HD images, and the new 3 Channels per QAM thus reduces selected HD channel quality. I can very easily notice the difference of watching HD on say un extra compressed ESPN-HD than watching the extra compressed AE-HD. The bitrates of the stations show the reduction from the normal 19Mbps per channel. Anything below that is a reduction is quality. The point is every channel could get 19Mbps with the 2:1 ratio comcast was using prior to this year, but the new 3:1 ratio has probably started a never ending cascade of bitrate reduction. If its 3:1 now what is it a few years, 4:1, 5:1, where does it end. Where does comcast stop cramming more reduced quality content onto coxial and build a new fiber network, or adopt streaming technology? So far all these seems to be about is the fact that comcast can market "more HD programming" than anyone else, but knowingly leave out the notion that their "programming" is not going to be the pure crisp true HD images they had previously been exposed to. In that sense it sounds seedy, like a used car salesman.

[StrangeSox]

I can't speak of Comcast, but DirectTV HD quality can't hold my cable companies jockstrap. Direct does have a few more channels but I really have most channels i'd ever want in HD. Now all I need is for my cable company to find a way to give me xtra innings in HD (I know you can get it if you had Direct TV, but it isn't worth the extra cost I'd have to pay with Direct).

 

I've heard DirecTV's picture quality has gone up since they launched several new satellites this year.

 

There's a noticeable difference in quality when you keep compressing everything. Like Joey said, where will it stop?

Edited April 14, 2008 by StrangeSox

[southsideirish71]

I understand that compression is something that happens by default, my gripe is more with comcast's public claims. Of course they have no problem tauting their increasing offerings of HD channels, as to compete with the dish, but would never make an acknowledgment for at what cost. The article makes its very clear that 2 HD Channels per QAM created the acceptable true HD images, and the new 3 Channels per QAM thus reduces selected HD channel quality. I can very easily notice the difference of watching HD on say un extra compressed ESPN-HD than watching the extra compressed AE-HD. The bitrates of the stations show the reduction from the normal 19Mbps per channel. Anything below that is a reduction is quality. The point is every channel could get 19Mbps with the 2:1 ratio comcast was using prior to this year, but the new 3:1 ratio has probably started a never ending cascade of bitrate reduction. If its 3:1 now what is it a few years, 4:1, 5:1, where does it end. Where does comcast stop cramming more reduced quality content onto coxial and build a new fiber network, or adopt streaming technology? So far all these seems to be about is the fact that comcast can market "more HD programming" than anyone else, but knowingly leave out the notion that their "programming" is not going to be the pure crisp true HD images they had previously been exposed to. In that sense it sounds seedy, like a used car salesman.

 

Streaming technology wont work in a realtime TV environment. Multicast will work on saving packetting on the backbone pipe, but will do nothing for the end node. Comcast is fiber to your block, but the last run to your house is over a coaxial run. I could care less about the compression ratio, as long as they built in a device at the set top level that can handle the buffering, and decompression of the signal. As far as the 19mbs per channel just take a look at the DOCIS 3.0 standard and what they are getting on a new protocol/compression standard. Video compression is okay as long as you have something on the other end that can reassemble the signal, buffer it, clean it up, and present it in the format requested. The only problem is when you dont have the technology at the end node to perform that type of quality clean up, thats when you get carrier issues.

 

[Texsox]

I understand that compression is something that happens by default, my gripe is more with comcast's public claims. Of course they have no problem tauting their increasing offerings of HD channels, as to compete with the dish, but would never make an acknowledgment for at what cost. The article makes its very clear that 2 HD Channels per QAM created the acceptable true HD images, and the new 3 Channels per QAM thus reduces selected HD channel quality. I can very easily notice the difference of watching HD on say un extra compressed ESPN-HD than watching the extra compressed AE-HD. The bitrates of the stations show the reduction from the normal 19Mbps per channel. Anything below that is a reduction is quality. The point is every channel could get 19Mbps with the 2:1 ratio comcast was using prior to this year, but the new 3:1 ratio has probably started a never ending cascade of bitrate reduction. If its 3:1 now what is it a few years, 4:1, 5:1, where does it end. Where does comcast stop cramming more reduced quality content onto coxial and build a new fiber network, or adopt streaming technology? So far all these seems to be about is the fact that comcast can market "more HD programming" than anyone else, but knowingly leave out the notion that their "programming" is not going to be the pure crisp true HD images they had previously been exposed to. In that sense it sounds seedy, like a used car salesman.

 

That is why we have competition and try, whenever possible, to avoid monopolies in the country. The market decides. And is the VCR war was any indication, quality will lose.

[StrangeSox]

That is why we have competition and try, whenever possible, to avoid monopolies in the country. The market decides. And is the VCR war was any indication, quality will lose.

 

Blue-Ray won out vs HD-DVD, so quality won there.

 

I also don't have a choice for cable providers where I live. Comcast has a monopoly, so I'm stuck with them and their severely overpriced services. RCN and WoW are moving into other areas around Chicago right now, though.

[joeynach]

Streaming technology wont work in a realtime TV environment. Multicast will work on saving packetting on the backbone pipe, but will do nothing for the end node. Comcast is fiber to your block, but the last run to your house is over a coaxial run. I could care less about the compression ratio, as long as they built in a device at the set top level that can handle the buffering, and decompression of the signal. As far as the 19mbs per channel just take a look at the DOCIS 3.0 standard and what they are getting on a new protocol/compression standard. Video compression is okay as long as you have something on the other end that can reassemble the signal, buffer it, clean it up, and present it in the format requested. The only problem is when you dont have the technology at the end node to perform that type of quality clean up, thats when you get carrier issues.

 

Well at least so far that has been a huge problem. You can tell when its a problem when you watch an HD live feed, usually sports and your video stutters. The images get all choppy, like they drop frames and the motion becomes all sketchy. The problem is the MPEG2 encoder in those motorola boxes sucks and doesn't contain enough memory buffer. When the memory and buffer gets cloged with junk over time the encoder cant catch up with live feed, and thus it drops frames and you see the image get all choppy and slow mo like. From what I understand this is a problem at least on 50% of comcast HD users. There is an easy fix, though comcast has no clue when you call them and just like to schedule a technician to come out. They did this to me when all my live HD feeds had image stutter, which I knew from not being a retard was an encoding/frame dropping problem within the box. Moesha, at comcast tech support had no clue what I was talking about and tried to send a technician out. If you are wondering the fix is to turn the cable box off (keep the tv on) and hit the menu button, if it doesn't work the first time turn it on off a second time. You get to a blk/white user setting screen, then you use the arrows on the box to toggle to the setting for HDMI/YpbPr output. Just flip through the choices for that setting, leaving it actually set on what it was orignally (usually 1080I for HD users). The action of flipping through the options is a method to clear the memory and buffers from the box, this will cause the stuttering to go away, temporarily. Its something you will have to repeat as the problem re-occurs over time.

[southsideirish71]

Well at least so far that has been a huge problem. You can tell when its a problem when you watch an HD live feed, usually sports and your video stutters. The images get all choppy, like they drop frames and the motion becomes all sketchy. The problem is the MPEG2 encoder in those motorola boxes sucks and doesn't contain enough memory buffer. When the memory and buffer gets cloged with junk over time the encoder cant catch up with live feed, and thus it drops frames and you see the image get all choppy and slow mo like. From what I understand this is a problem at least on 50% of comcast HD users. There is an easy fix, though comcast has no clue when you call them and just like to schedule a technician to come out. They did this to me when all my live HD feeds had image stutter, which I knew from not being a retard was an encoding/frame dropping problem within the box. Moesha, at comcast tech support had no clue what I was talking about and tried to send a technician out. If you are wondering the fix is to turn the cable box off (keep the tv on) and hit the menu button, if it doesn't work the first time turn it on off a second time. You get to a blk/white user setting screen, then you use the arrows on the box to toggle to the setting for HDMI/YpbPr output. Just flip through the choices for that setting, leaving it actually set on what it was orignally (usually 1080I for HD users). The action of flipping through the options is a method to clear the memory and buffers from the box, this will cause the stuttering to go away, temporarily. Its something you will have to repeat as the problem re-occurs over time.

 

I would figure that eventually they will encode the signal in MPEG4 and use a much better codec. The current Comcast software and hardware DVR platform is going away because of the quality issues you speak of. They are going to get away from running the windows runtime evironment under the Motorolla platform, and run a Tivo probably over Linux on the Panasonic platform. They have had numerous problems with the Motorolla chipset, and their video codec. Hopefully this gets fixed with some better set top hardware and software.

 

[RockRaines]

I'm no expert in the matter, but why invest in fiber optics when the future is going to be wireless?

 

Also, this is another reason I'm a happy RCN customer.

Thats like saying Lexus is downgrading their cars to make them just a little less luxury, and someone pipes in and says, this is why I love my 1985 skylark!

[joeynach]

I would figure that eventually they will encode the signal in MPEG4 and use a much better codec. The current Comcast software and hardware DVR platform is going away because of the quality issues you speak of. They are going to get away from running the windows runtime evironment under the Motorolla platform, and run a Tivo probably over Linux on the Panasonic platform. They have had numerous problems with the Motorolla chipset, and their video codec. Hopefully this gets fixed with some better set top hardware and software.

 

I agree those motorola boxes really suck. Have you noticed how bad the lag is from when you make a command with your remote to when the box actually performs the function. Its sick, the damn thing lags so much. Also the DVR interface is awful. cant tell you how many times I have told something to record only new programs and it records all, even multiple repeats of the same episode. Its awful.

[joeynach]

Blue-Ray won out vs HD-DVD, so quality won there.

 

I also don't have a choice for cable providers where I live. Comcast has a monopoly, so I'm stuck with them and their severely overpriced services. RCN and WoW are moving into other areas around Chicago right now, though.

 

I think Blue Ray won b/c its perceived as a more accessible technology, given that its on every PS3 and associated with every sony products. I just so happened it contained better quality.

[StrangeSox]

I think Blue Ray won b/c its perceived as a more accessible technology, given that its on every PS3 and associated with every sony products. I just so happened it contained better quality.

 

Oh I'd agree that quality isn't what won the battle there. It was just a counter-point to the VCR vs Beta argument that quality will lose.

[RockRaines]

I would figure that eventually they will encode the signal in MPEG4 and use a much better codec. The current Comcast software and hardware DVR platform is going away because of the quality issues you speak of. They are going to get away from running the windows runtime evironment under the Motorolla platform, and run a Tivo probably over Linux on the Panasonic platform. They have had numerous problems with the Motorolla chipset, and their video codec. Hopefully this gets fixed with some better set top hardware and software.

Your freaking nerdisms are hilarious. But you are right, i've been through 4 boxes in 3 years, the platform is awful.

[southsideirish71]

Your freaking nerdisms are hilarious. But you are right, i've been through 4 boxes in 3 years, the platform is awful.

 

The funny thing, is that the geek-english translation is on my professional development track for my bonus. Watching some of the exec's eyes cross when I am explaining about a cyber threat is funny.