Why don't cable companies carry more Hi-Def channels?

[techs]

For just about all cable tv companies in the US that offer HiDef they offer a relatively few channels. Yet many of the cable networks have a HiDef feed. In order to get Hi-Def where I live I just pay a small charge for the HiDef cable box and then I get the regular Hi-Def channels my cable company provides plus the Hi-Def feed of any premium channel I purchased.
So why don't the cable companies offer more Hi-Def channels? Is it because the current cable systems can't show any more Hi-Def channels due to system limitations on bandwidth?
Or
Is it because the networks charge more money to the cable companies to carry their Hi-Def feeds? And if this is the case why doesn't the cable company offer it at a higher rate?
Or
Is there some other reason?

 

[brxndxn]

I think the Cable companies have plenty of bandwidth..

the reason there aren't more hi-def channels is because most channels still have not converted. All the broadcast channels are in hi-def.. but Food Network, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, etc.. are not (am I right?)

 

[Shawn]

I dunno but the transition to HD has been taking forever! ABC just started airing HD in my area only a few days ago! I remember my dad and I were at Sound Advice back in 2000 and they were showing off a few HDTVs. They told us that every channel would be HD by 2005. So much for that.

 

[BD2003]

Considering how compressed cable HD channels are, its definitely got to be partially a bandwidth issue.

 

[vi edit]

For some it's definitely a $$ issue. In Omaha Cox didn't offer CBS HD feeds because CBS wanted *A LOT* more money than the other networks. CBS also convenienty decided to reneg their contract prices strangely right around Super Bowl time.

Cox refused to pay so they didn't get the CBS HD feeds.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think the Cable companies have plenty of bandwidth..

the reason there aren't more hi-def channels is because most channels still have not converted. All the broadcast channels are in hi-def.. but Food Network, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, etc.. are not (am I right?)

Yeah, there's a lot of available bandwidth in the cable systems of today which are actually fiber optic/coax hybrids. The move to digital allowed for WAY more channels than were available with older analog technology. A lot of this channel capacity is lost with the higher demands of hd but even so, I believe they have a lot of available channels. The real problem is the lack of hd content like you said.

 

[MrChad]

It's both. There's a major push to convert customers to digital cable (and use set top boxes), as digital cable transmissions can be compressed much further than analog transmissions. HD channels obviously require a lot more bandwidth, so if all SD channels were sent digitally that would free up room for HD.

The bigger reason is business. Networks do negotiate their HD channels separately from their SD channels, so even if a network carries, say, Food Network or National Geographic, the HD versions of those channels will require a new contract.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Considering how compressed cable HD channels are, its definitely got to be partially a bandwidth issue.

Wait, now I'm confused. I've always heard it's the satellite companies that compress the HD and that it sucks, but cable doesn't have this issue and they have no need to compress.

So, now you are telling me the cable companies compress now? So, does it not really matter if you go satellite or cable HD?

 

[MrChad]

Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2006-06-04-cable-hdtv_x.htm

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: BD2003
Considering how compressed cable HD channels are, its definitely got to be partially a bandwidth issue.

Wait, now I'm confused. I've always heard it's the satellite companies that compress the HD and that it sucks, but cable doesn't have this issue and they have no need to compress.

So, now you are telling me the cable companies compress now? So, does it not really matter if you go satellite or cable HD?

Comcast definitely compresses their HD. My dad has HD through comcast and you can definitely see compression artifacts if you are close up.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: BD2003
Considering how compressed cable HD channels are, its definitely got to be partially a bandwidth issue.

Wait, now I'm confused. I've always heard it's the satellite companies that compress the HD and that it sucks, but cable doesn't have this issue and they have no need to compress.

So, now you are telling me the cable companies compress now? So, does it not really matter if you go satellite or cable HD?

The only way to view uncompressed HD is over the air (antenna). Of course, this limits you to local stations, but it will yield better PQ than satellite or cable.

 

[Insane3D]

Hmm...this makes my HD choice more difficult. I guess maybe I'll just stay with DirecTV and take retentions deal rather than switch to Comcast. The regular SDTV channels look much better on DirectTV anyhow, and I'll probably watch them more than anything..

Damn this decision is hard...

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Comcast just brought in MTV HD & TNT HD & FSN HD.

Still though, plenty of broadcast TV whether on Fox, CBS, ABC, or NBC is still not broadcast in HD.

 

[NFS4]

So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: NFS4
So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

Generally (though not all cable providers compress the local HD channels), but that's not even always true.

A lot of local OTA HD broadcasters do multicasting, where they use some of their bandwidth for subchannels (usually weather loops or other crap that no one cares about) and thus have to reduce the bandwidth available to their primary HD signal.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Shawn
I dunno but the transition to HD has been taking forever! ABC just started airing HD in my area only a few days ago! I remember my dad and I were at Sound Advice back in 2000 and they were showing off a few HDTVs. They told us that every channel would be HD by 2005. So much for that.

That's because congress kept pushing the dates back. It looks like they have finally tightned things up now. All broadcasters had to be digital (note: digital != HD) this past July. The analog channels go away in 2009.

 

[erub]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Shawn
I dunno but the transition to HD has been taking forever! ABC just started airing HD in my area only a few days ago! I remember my dad and I were at Sound Advice back in 2000 and they were showing off a few HDTVs. They told us that every channel would be HD by 2005. So much for that.

That's because congress kept pushing the dates back. It looks like they have finally tightned things up now. All broadcasters had to be digital (note: digital != HD) this past July. The analog channels go away in 2009.

but as long as you have cable/satellite, you don't have to change anything, right?

 

[Thetech]

Originally posted by: MrChad
It's both. There's a major push to convert customers to digital cable (and use set top boxes), as digital cable transmissions can be compressed much further than analog transmissions. HD channels obviously require a lot more bandwidth, so if all SD channels were sent digitally that would free up room for HD.

The bigger reason is business. Networks do negotiate their HD channels separately from their SD channels, so even if a network carries, say, Food Network or National Geographic, the HD versions of those channels will require a new contract.

I don't know about the biz side, but I agree with you about the bandwith issue MrChad.
I don't mean to pick sides, but cable still hasn't dropped it's analog offerings in most areas .
I remember when I was a kid, and how some of the analog stations were(We had Comcast), one of them always had interference in the signal.

Whoozyerdaddy Said:

That's because congress kept pushing the dates back. It looks like they have finally tightned things up now. All broadcasters had to be digital (note: digital != HD) this past July. The analog channels go away in 2009.

I heard about that, at this rate it'll be 2025 before they move to digital. I suppose it would help if we actually had people who understand technology in the U.S government.

As far as HD goes I haven't seen too much other then what the Discovery channel offers that I want to see in HD. For now it's youtube for me.

Overall I wish HGTV, DIY and retail/marketing would stop spreading lies about HD and HDTV's. I was flipping through my channels and I saw an infomercial on DIY that stated that Plasma TV's aren't suggested/ shouldn't be used for gaming, Yeah I suppose if you've got an old first generation plasme, lol. But now some parents somewhere are going to tell their kids they can't play games on the plasma screen because DIY said so.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hmm...this makes my HD choice more difficult. I guess maybe I'll just stay with DirecTV and take retentions deal rather than switch to Comcast. The regular SDTV channels look much better on DirectTV anyhow, and I'll probably watch them more than anything..

Damn this decision is hard...

I was at boeing and got to see part of the new satellites they are doing for direct tv. Supposedly they will be capable of providing around 500 HD channels :Q but I think they aren't going to be operational untill 2007...

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hmm...this makes my HD choice more difficult. I guess maybe I'll just stay with DirecTV and take retentions deal rather than switch to Comcast. The regular SDTV channels look much better on DirectTV anyhow, and I'll probably watch them more than anything..

Damn this decision is hard...

I was at boeing and got to see part of the new satellites they are doing for direct tv. Supposedly they will be capable of providing around 500 HD channels :Q but I think they aren't going to be operational untill 2007...

Yeah, that is something the retentions rep mentioned. Apparently they have already launched a couple new satellites, and their MPEG-4 rollout is complete.

The claim they made about over 150 HD channels within a year seems overly optimistic though...

 

[Thetech]

Hey guys do you have any links to info about the direcTV sat. launch?

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: NFS4
So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

No. Most Comcast areas do not recompress their HD feeds and just pass it straight through. I don't know who is spreading the BS in this thread.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: NFS4
So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

No. Most Comcast areas do not recompress their HD feeds and just pass it straight through. I don't know who is spreading the BS in this thread.

Time warner most definitely compresseses.

FIOS is guaranteed to be highest quality possible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: NFS4
So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

No. Most Comcast areas do not recompress their HD feeds and just pass it straight through. I don't know who is spreading the BS in this thread.

If it is digital, it is compressed. The real question is, is it over compressed.

But to answer the original question, cable is in a bandwidth crunch. Cable wants to drop the non digital channels and switch to IPTV over next several years to free up bandwidth. Mpeg2 HD is a 20 meg stream for HD. MPEG4 HD is under 10 meg. To put it in perspective, mpeg4 SD is about 2 meg. HD is expensive when it comes to bandwidth.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Linux23

Originally posted by: NFS4
So the only uncompressed HD signals are OTA HD signals?

No. Most Comcast areas do not recompress their HD feeds and just pass it straight through. I don't know who is spreading the BS in this thread.

Time warner most definitely compresseses.

FIOS is guaranteed to be highest quality possible.

Not really, the use the same backend for the most part. The only advatage FIOS will have is less interference from emi.