
The constant
struggle for cable companies to crank out more HD channels with an increasingly limited amount of bandwidth rolled right on through the 2007 Cable Show conference in Las Vegas, as a keen attendee noticed a stark absence of HDTV boasting at an expo that would seemingly showcase the format. Mark Kersey noticed that cable providers at the show set up "absolutely zero breakout sessions devoted to cable HD," and moreover, "virtually none of the high-powered panelists in the general sessions even uttered the word HDTV." His perception was that providers seemed "ashamed" of their offerings in comparison to FiOS and satellite, but considering all the
flack the dishes have taken for
crippling their HD feeds and making
grandiose promises that we've yet to see realized, it's not like the other guys are really showing anyone up. Of course, cable has also been
scolded a time or two about subpar HD quality, but the reality is that breakthroughs such as
OCAP and
channel bonding were able to steal the show due to the newsworthy nature of, say, hitting 150Mbps over copper. That said, we're certainly looking forward to the day when cable (or any other medium, actually) goes out of its way to put hordes of HD offerings up on a pedestal.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
duncan @ May 16th 2007 11:51PM
That is certainly one man's opinion but I attended the same show and saw and heard LOTS about HD. Cable has nothing to be shy about when it comes to HD. If its really more HD (valuable...) that you want, then rant at the content providers. Cable providers are clamoring for more valuable HD channels to offer to put even further distance between themselves and the satellite guys.
riverside_guy @ May 17th 2007 10:41AM
In my area, it's the cable guys clinging onto analog channels that is holding back more HD. Not only that, but they are delivering 3 more HD channels to one particular neighborhood over the rest of my city!
Yodamac @ May 17th 2007 12:07PM
We have HDNet located right here in Denver, but Comcast still refuses to even carry them! What is wrong with this picture?
walk2k @ May 17th 2007 12:46PM
Probably because HDNet has an exclusive deal with D*. Comcast couldn't "carry" it if they wanted to.
I don't know about all the country but here FIOS is absolutely NO competition for cable. VERY limited area, and the service absolutely sucks - slow channel changing and only 1 HD channel to the entire house at once! (Kiss your dual-tuner DVR byebye..)
Satellite is a little better but still suffers from "HD lite" not to mention heavy equipment expenses and long term contracts. Plus, no Tivo S3 in sight...
Also, "increasingly limited amount of bandwidth" - where do you get this crap? I don't know about your area but here the cable co(s) have done nothing but INcrease bandwidth. They are even shutting off analog which will free up much MUCH more b/w for more HD channels.
Cable is absolutely just fine where they are right now.
peter @ May 17th 2007 8:06PM
It has been said that it is better to be quiet and thought a fool, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. It has also been said that there is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action. I would recommend heeding both of these pieces of advice. First of all HDNet is not exclusive with D*, it's on FiOS channel 833. Secondly, channel changing is faster with fios compared to cablevision. Also, FiOS doesn't stream 1 HDchannel one can watch a different HD program on each set top box and record 2 shows at once on their DVR. As for bandwidth, i think 20Mb/5Mb unshared is better than 250-500 people sharing 15Mb/2Mb. in addition as far as bandwidth goes cable companies are using up tv channel space in order to do internet and voice. i guess they just figure if they compress everything a little more no one will mind... i do!
david @ May 17th 2007 6:40PM
The situation with cable is interesting. I really think they should take the bull by the horns and just start migrating all of their users to HD capable boxes. Customers who want HD would pay extra for enabling HD output, but all would receive and tune the HD channels, but with SD quality. This way the cable companies would not need to have 2 versions of every channel. They just have the HD if there is one, or the SD until the HD version arrives. And people with an SD set would use the cable box in the same way as you would an ATSC to analog converter.
I hate the way now that I have HD all the HD channels are numbered as 902, 905, 907, when they should be 2,5,7...
rmb74 @ May 18th 2007 10:28PM
HD Net is also availible on Dish Network, who offers a free dual tuner HD-DVR upgrade + over 35 channels of HD programming (in NY). I signed an 18 month agreement, which seemed like a deal for the free HD equipment that I received.
3waygeek @ May 17th 2007 8:43PM
Not so exclusive -- Charter carries HDNet here in metro Atlanta, and at my brother's house in southern California.
Bill Mac @ May 17th 2007 7:08PM
Well, I don't know what HDNet's contracts are, but right on their website they have a "where to watch" page with a link to Comcast that basically says "Comcast has chosen not to carry us at this point, please contact them and request HDNet & HDnet Movies". So that says to me it's the cable company who needs to get with it.