# DIRECTV's First HD Competition: Time Warner Cable?



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

DIRECTV's First HD Competition: Time Warner Cable?

Analysts and observers of the pay-TV marketplace have long suspected that DIRECTV's plans for high definition later this year will be hard to match for any other provider. And until this week, it looked as if no competing video company would be able to offer the HD volume that the DBS giant says it will.

But reports surfaced Monday that one cable company - Time Warner Cable - says it will be able to go toe-to-toe with DIRECTV for the fight over high definition subscribers.

According to TVPredictions.com, TWX's Senior Vice President and Chief Programming Officer Melinda Witmer said the cable company will have the technical capacity to offer just as many high def channels as the satcaster by the end of 2007. Witmer told the HD-centric website that she is "100 percent" sure that Time Warner will have just as a compelling high definition lineup as DIRECTV.

The exec also commented on Time Warner's lawsuit against the satellite company over the DIRECTV commercials boasting three times more HD capacity than any other provider and the satcaster's recently announced deal with professional baseball.

As far as DIRECTV's HD commercials, Witmer said Time Warner Cable's rollout of switched digital video by the end of the year will allow the company to crank up the high def channels making DIRECTV's claim of three-times more HD factually incorrect. Competition is one thing, she said, but the cable company was not willing to accept the false statement. And the DIRECTV/MLB deal? Witmer said she wasn't sure why people have criticized the deal as if it were "rigged" against competition, and the issue boils down to the "evaluation of whether acquiring programming is too expensive or not."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

I'm betting all new hardware for the end-user. To upgrade all their HD users by the end of 2007, not a chance. They could say it is offered, but I'm sure the vast majority of their subscribers will not be able to receive it.


----------



## NYSat (Nov 18, 2005)

Hopefully this will put a little pressure on D* to get things up and running. I know the whole sat launch is to some degree out of their control but maybe things might speed up a little now.


----------



## nick1817 (Feb 12, 2007)

Tom_S said:


> I'm betting all new hardware for the end-user. To upgrade all their HD users by the end of 2007, not a chance. They could say it is offered, but I'm sure the vast majority of their subscribers will not be able to receive it.


How is them saying it is offered any different than D*'s promise of "capacity" (not programming) for 100+ channels? Just saying...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

This appears to be a "re-hash" of the TVPredictions article.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=81896


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

NYSat said:


> Hopefully this will put a little pressure on D* to get things up and running. I know the whole sat launch is to some degree out of their control but maybe things might speed up a little now.


Ummm, they can't speed up a sat launch unless you want to get out and push. 

They are pretty much right on the timeline for HD expansion that they first announced 3 years ago. Barring any sat launch delays the frist new HD should start lighting up by fall.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

I seriously doubt TWC will be able to match D*, especially on a Nationwide bases. Im not convinced that the "Switch Technology" is going to be as effective as they think! This is just word propaganda by TWC to get people to choose them. Like they say about D*, PROVE IT!


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Smthkd said:


> I seriously doubt TWC will be able to match D*, especially on a Nationwide bases. Im not convinced that the "Switch Technology" is going to be as effective as they think! This is just word propaganda by TWC to get people to choose them. Like they say about D*, PROVE IT!


Agreed! Unlike the satcos, remember that EVERY home has to have access to the fiber cable, and that in many places they aren't close to upgrading the local cabling. While some markets (or some PORTIONS of some markets) might get this in 2007, it will not be nationwide this year IMO.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Ummm, they can't speed up a sat launch unless you want to get out and push.


I hear you, but there are always ways to speed up a variety of executions within a corporation when you have the right focus, leadership, resource allocation, etc. Perhaps this could be a bump to fine tune that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And to a degree... I think that is where the FCC or what other governing body has to get involved.

A determination of "when" you can say you "have" the technology / ability, vs just starting to roll it out or testing it in a limited fashion.

Kinda like right now saying McDonalds has a 1/3 pound burger.
They do... but only if you are in the LA area

So yes... "they have it"... but do they "really" have it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DonCorleone said:


> I hear you, but there are always ways to speed up a variety of executions within a corporation when you have the right focus, leadership, resource allocation, etc. Perhaps this could be a bump to fine tune that.


But with regards to the SAT Launch you have no less then three major corporation that have to be on the Same Page at all times:

DirecTV
Boeing
The "launch" company

DirecTV only has control of their part of the equation... they can put pressure on the other two... but ultimately... this process can only go so fast.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

The good news here is that *if* TW is serious about ramping up HD, then you can be sure that the HD providers will be that much more motivated to start up new channels. Whether TW will be able to deliver the numbers is an entirely different story.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

TWC owns TNT-HD, uncontested leader in calling stretched SD content HD. I keep that in mind when I hear the company talking about expanding HD.


----------



## ralphfurley (Jun 12, 2004)

dont overlook the fact that the TW rep being interviewed DOESNT EVEN HAVE AN HDTV! I hope the Ford Family drives FORD cars occasionally, and Bill Gates uses Windows Vista, and Murdoch reads the NY POST and watches FNC. Someone who doesnt watch HD cannot really appreciate the zeal most of us feel when it comes to HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Smthkd said:


> Im not convinced that the "Switch Technology" is going to be as effective as they think! This is just word propaganda by TWC to get people to choose them. Like they say about D*, PROVE IT!


It would appear that TWC has lowered themselves to competing on D*'s level. That's not good.

Switched digital _is_ going to work and it doesn't require fiber. It requires capable equipment, but we don't know with certainty that the existing equipment can't handle it.

The point that many are missing is that the TWC lady is promising to match DirecTV's delivered programming, not their bandwidth availability. It has nothing to do with whether or not DirecTV has the "capacity" for 150 channels or that they _plan_ on 100 HD channels by year end. This is a poker "call" on the part of TWC in their battle with DirecTV. I think that TWC is approaching it with the idea that D* will fail to deliver to the extent that they promised and when that happen's, they'll be vindicated.

As for widespread availability, I remember when I wanted a cable box with S-VHS connectors and they insisted that if I wanted it, I would have to have it delivered by them at my expense (versus taking a composite version home with me). They have methods of keeping demand in line.


----------



## Homebrew101 (Jul 12, 2006)

In the first link to this article last week, I saw that TWC would begin rolling out this technology by years end not that it would be available systemwide.

Here in Milwaukee TWC is out of HD boxes, no one can get an HD box now because so many people are buying HD tv's TWC ran out and is way back ordered for more. I don't think there is any way they can roll out switched digital in the next year or more if every one would need new hardware. They can't even get ESPN2HD yet and how long has that been? They took forever to add ESPNHD and in fact finally got that the same time D* added the duece in HD - what 2-3 years ago? 

Wasn't the government hasselling them for using switched digital in the markets they were? Seems to me that folks with cable cards suddenly found them useless and the guv stepped in. Any one have the details to this?


----------



## Robert L (Dec 13, 2005)

I'd be surprised if TWC has many more HD channels at the end of the year than they have now. They been testing that SDV in SC for around 2 years, or something like that. I know its being used there for some HD, but they actually have less HD than some other area's of TWC.

Plus they aren't even adding local HD like the CW. So I think its actually funny its TWC that's in this fight with Directv. I'd bet that Comcast will have more faster.

They're having to update everyone that is on Passport software, because it won't work with SDV or other features they are trying to add. The new software is called Navigator, and doesn't appear to be going so good.

http://journalstar.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/local/doc45ecf3ff5e793858046256.txt

I think TWC is mostly just talk and find them one of the slowest cable companies for HD, and its not clear how well SDV is going to work. I know they cannot keep their mouth shut about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with major bandwidth problems.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

I don't understand how cable companies like Time Warner make statements like this, and lead everyone to believe it is nationwide. My family lives in Terre Haute, IN, and are serviced be Time Warner. I think they JUST got HD capability in late 2006... and it's only 2 or 3 channels... no local affiliates available at all.

They only got RoadRunner the year before. There's NO WAY Time Warner will have capability like that in Terre Haute.

Sure, they might have it in some large markets, but that's it. I always get so tired of people saying "Comcast has a better picture," or "Cox is more reliable," etc. Cable company offerings and quality vary HUGELY from market to market. The vast majority of channels on Time Warner in Terre Haute are still mono/analog/grainy.

That's one thing I really like about Directv... we all get the same service nationwide. (I know there are local affiliate issues, but it's still WAY more uniform than a cable provider.)


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

My parents are in a little town in western MI. They have TWC  

No digital.
No HD.
No cable modem.

Shoot, the town didn't even get wired for cable until the early 90's. It's going to be the 22nd century before they get an upgrade.  

Unless I get my parents to see the light first.  (or I just put in D* and see here watch this. :hurah: )


----------



## mfogarty5 (Jun 19, 2006)

Time Warner Cable(TWC) is the provider here in Charlotte and I have done an extensive amount of research about Switched Digital Video(SDV).

First, it isn't coming to Charlotte anytime soon and certainly not by the end of the year.

Second, the reason I went with Directv back in August was that I knew TWC was planning to implement SDV which in effect breaks the CableCard I was going to use in a TiVo Series 3. I used the TWC HD DVR for one week and it was an abomination.

I even exchanged posts with a woman that worked for TWC in Columbia, SC which has implemented SDV and who evidently did such a good job spreading misinformation that she was promoted to a corporate job.

You can read the exchange below.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7956765#post7956765

Anyway, the FCC has not backed down on the CableCard requirement that goes in effect on 7/1/2007 so there is literally no way that TWC can provide all these new HD channels without running afoul of the FCC mandate.


----------



## brownram (Jan 18, 2007)

must be the new thing in advertising flood the air waves with whats coming down the road as LOOK WHAT WE HAVE my internet provider has been plastering the air waves with INSIGHT 10.0 6 TIMES FASTER THAN DSL thats about 10,000 kbps well i and others only get about 2000kbps max most of the time its 750kbps


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

It is for sure that TW can not flip a switch and an HD channel will go nationwide, but D* can do exactly that. D* pretty much has the infrastructure to do all they claim they can do, it just amounts to getting that infrastructure in the right place (Sats up and operating). I don't think that TW is that far ahead of the curve.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lwilli201 said:


> D* pretty much has the infrastructure to do all they claim they can do, it just amounts to getting that infrastructure in the right place (Sats up and operating).


You speak as if the D10 and D11 are already bouncing signals.

Neither company thinks the other is capable of coming anywhere near their respective claims. They're probably both right.


----------



## Rkw1111 (Mar 14, 2006)

I think we are all missing the most important thing learned in this thread:

MCDONALD'S HAS A 1/3 LB BURGER IN LA?! :eek2: 

Earl wrote:

Kinda like right now saying McDonalds has a 1/3 pound burger.
They do... but only if you are in the LA area


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Switched digital is going to work and it doesn't require fiber. It requires capable equipment, but we don't know with certainty that the existing equipment can't handle it.


We have over 80 switched digital channels here with more on the way, digital simulcast is switched digital, about 6 digital only channels and 3 HD channels are also. It's obvious the cable headend can handle it and I have no problem on my end.



> Sure, they might have it in some large markets, but that's it.


Not exactly. Rochester is a smaller market, #78 and SDV is alive here and has been for a year. Smaller markets are actually better, less chances of things going wrong. In New York City, our nations largest market, TW is just now getting customers upgraded to where our internet speeds have been in Rochester for about a year and a half now. And in December our speeds got upgraded again. Rochester has been a launch market for quite a few new services and features. From what I've read on DSLReports and other sites large Time Warner franchises are crap. Rochester, Syracuse and San Antonio seem to be the top three franchises in the country as far as new features and service go.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Rkw1111 said:


> I think we are all missing the most important thing learned in this thread:
> 
> MCDONALD'S HAS A 1/3 LB BURGER IN LA?! :eek2:


Yuck! I haven't eaten a McD burger in about four years. About the best burger I've found is from a place called Backyard Burgers. Thick, juicy and they come with waffle fries!


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> You speak as if the D10 and D11 are already bouncing signals.
> 
> Neither company thinks the other is capable of coming anywhere near their respective claims. They're probably both right.


I did not say D10 and D11 were up. I said they are built and ready to deploy and they have the capacity to uphold D*s claims. Does TW have all the equipment bought to upgrade their systems? I don't think so. It is a good possibility that TW is just not sure about the technology they have rigth now. I think they would like to see improvements in that area before sinking a lot of money into the upgrades. It will be years before TW or Comcast can say that every market they service are providing 75-100 additional HD channels. Only time will tell, but I know where my money lies on this bet.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

it doesn't help that TWC is not available everywhere, in our area charter was the only cable company for many many years until verizon fios came in last july, so the only other way to get more HD is through directv or dish.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

mfogarty5 said:


> I used the TWC HD DVR for one week and it was an abomination.


Can you provide some details about the TWC HD DVR - i.e., how it compares to the HR20 and what you didn't like about it?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

harsh said:


> You speak as if the D10 and D11 are already bouncing signals.
> 
> Neither company thinks the other is capable of coming anywhere near their respective claims. They're probably both right.


Well, unless D10 and D11 blow up on launch or have a failure, DirecTV will indeed be able to back up their claims.

I know of some TWC systems that don't even have digital yet (still all analog) or just got digitial in the past couple years. :hurah:


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I think the idea that TWC is the first HD competitor to D* is incorrect because TWC is not an alternative for every D* customer, but E* is. And E* does offer more HD content all round than D* at this moment.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I know of some TWC systems that don't even have digital yet (still all analog) or just got digitial in the past couple years. :hurah:


...not to mention they don't carry NFL Network, which would be a complete dealbreaker for me.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

Three cheers for Capitalism!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

hr20manray said:


> Three cheers for Capitalism!


Definately. There should always be competition and I'm glad someone (at least in the press) has said they will stand up and compete with DirecTV. If nobody does then DirecTV doesn't have to innovate.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Definately. There should always be competition and I'm glad someone (at least in the press) has said they will stand up and compete with DirecTV. If nobody does then DirecTV doesn't have to innovate.


Well said.
I have no intention of leaving DirecTV but I have to admit I'm bothered a little about the lack of competition. Just as you have said, no competition no innovation. "It's too hard." or "Do you know how complicated that would be?" coming from a multimillion dollar corporation speaks for itself.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

I have a great cable company, that in my opinion is superior to D* in price, SD PQ, HD PQ, no equipment costs, free service calls, and DVR equipment reliability.

That said.....

I don't buy it. D* is apparently going to roll out all of this new HD. Cable will be playing catch up. Some cable markets may do well, but others are still stuck in the stone age.

And even if every TWC market, and other cable cos rolled out switched digital successfully, what would that really do for us? Hell, we've yet to reach a deal for ESPN2 HD... What makes anyone think they we'll ink up deals for 99 other channels?

Then one has to ask, what is all of this going to do to our bills?

I pay $6/mo for the complete HD package. Does anyone think I will get dozens of more channels for $6/mo? I doubt it.

Honestly, I work 40 or more hours a week. I have a family. I have time for a few hours of TV a night, if I am lucky. I could easily live with about 12 channels, 9 of which are already offered in HD. If my cable company turned on 100 HD channels tomorrow, I am not sure I'd be willing to pay for it.

I really wish this a la carte thing would happen. 

Those of you who have HD, and have DVRs, and have TV in multiple rooms, and have pay channels or sports packages, you know how significant your bill has gotten recently. I just hope they don't lump all HD together into one big expensive package.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> I have a great cable company, that in my opinion is superior to D* in price, SD PQ, HD PQ, no equipment costs, free service calls, and DVR equipment reliability.
> 
> That said.....
> 
> ...


Hopefully the marketplace will offer more options. The NFL package keeps me with D*, no doubt about it.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

hr20manray said:


> Hopefully the marketplace will offer more options. The NFL package keeps me with D*, no doubt about it.


My cable company is running a compaign to pass a law that forbids telephone companies from offering TV service in my area.

As happy as I am with the cable co, why would I ever want to do that. Competition is the best thing we 've got going for us.

Tell me one thing, they are afriad of verizon FIOS and possibly others.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bidger said:


> And E* does offer more HD content all round than D* at this moment.


If you count local and regional HD offerings (and you should), D* has a significant advantage. Whether they serve all of those markets well is debatable.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ClubSteeler said:


> Tell me one thing, they are afriad of verizon FIOS and possibly others.


If I were a cable company, I'd have both Verizon and AT&T on my telemetry.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> My cable company is running a compaign to pass a law that forbids telephone companies from offering TV service in my area.
> 
> As happy as I am with the cable co, why would I ever want to do that. Competition is the best thing we 've got going for us.
> 
> Tell me one thing, they are afriad of verizon FIOS and possibly others.


I think D* walks a fine line sometimes when it comes to what's theirs and what is not. Way back in the old days there were customers who used to say, "Since these airwaves are crossing my backyard I have a right to view them.", without any compensation to the content providers or the content "distributer". (Which is what I consider D*). HBO and DirecTV certainly thought differently and you can look at your bill to see who won that one. Usually you can just follow the $$$ to see the motives behind most of their actions.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

harsh said:


> If you count local and regional HD offerings (and you should), D* has a significant advantage.


I meant as far the specific HD package each offers, not HD locals or RSNs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lwilli201 said:


> I said they are built and ready to deploy and they have the capacity to uphold D*s claims.


I've seen nothing to suggest that any of the D1n satellites are completed. Can you give us a reference?


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> My cable company is running a compaign to pass a law that forbids telephone companies from offering TV service in my area.
> 
> As happy as I am with the cable co, why would I ever want to do that. Competition is the best thing we 've got going for us.
> 
> Tell me one thing, they are afriad of verizon FIOS and possibly others.


I bet they want to offer phone service. If Qwest had their VDSL service in the neighborhood I moved to I would have kept it (they do now). I found the picture quality was much better than Cox (ghosting on all vhf local stations) and was less expensive. Qwest is now offering HD, but no DVR yet. Qwest uses equipment from Motorola (formally Next Level Comm.)


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

machavez00 said:


> I bet they want to offer phone service. If Qwest had thier VDSL service in the neighborhood I moved to I would have kept it (they do now). I found the picture quality was much better than Cox (ghosting on all vhf local stations) and was less expensive. Qwest is now offering HD, but no DVR yet. Qwest uses equipment from Motorola (formally Next Level Comm.)


That's a great point. My cable company does offer phone and internet service, but they want phone and internet providers to NOT be allowed to offer TV.... PUH-LEASE!!


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

DonCorleone said:


> I hear you, but there are always ways to speed up a variety of executions within a corporation when you have the right focus, leadership, resource allocation, etc. Perhaps this could be a bump to fine tune that.


If the bridge is out, and the ferry is at the bottom of the river, no amount of leadership will get the semi across the lake on-schedule for less than a million dollars. (rent a sikorsky skycrane)


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

D* hasn't even launched the new Sats yet and already we have new content on 622, 625, and NGHD appears to be coming soon. 

What is Time Warner's response to that?


----------



## sjso395 (Dec 15, 2006)

I personally love competition and hope this holds true. This may keep the feet close to the fire and get things rolling a little faster for D* They have been promising New Orleans HD channels since last year,,, then February, now I call and they tell me April. Rediculous


----------



## hermanns (Jan 20, 2007)

My local TWC in palatka/St. Augustine florida just got bought out by comcast and is currently switching service. I did like TWC back when I had it, but Sunday ticket was the reasoning for switching to Directv


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

Kinda like right now saying McDonalds has a 1/3 pound burger.[/QUOTE said:


> McDonald's has a 1/3 pound burger, I'm moving to LA.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

ClubSteeler said:


> That's a great point. My cable company does offer phone and internet service, but they want phone and internet providers to NOT be allowed to offer TV.... PUH-LEASE!!


Actually, in defense of the nasty cable co's, they had to bend over seven different ways to gain access rights from each individual podunk, town, municipality, county and city to get their franchises to run wires.

Teh telcos are trying to, in the name of "fair competition" get a waiver from having to go through the same hassle.

At the same time, the telcos are allowed to do what was horribly forbidden to cable co's...run wire ONLY to the rich side of town...I.E., the barely-legal or illegal practice of "redlining"

Cable usually had to wire everyone or no-one, and sometimes fulfill ridiculous requests from towns (like planting trees)

'course, telcos got huge government grants to wire rural areas with copper for the same reason, and that was a federal mandate.

Sooooo....the whiny cable co's have a point...their flaming hoops were more numerous and painful to jump through.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

I wish they would do a side by side HD PQ. You can have more but if it looks like low bit/ down rez why even watch/pay for it.


----------



## Nivek (Sep 21, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> ...not to mention they don't carry NFL Network, which would be a complete dealbreaker for me.


But last I heard is that they are in negotiations to carry ESPN 360 (well, at least the Syracuse TW is). That would be the first cable or DBS provider to get the channel since it is Internet-only as far as I can tell.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

Rochester may be just the right size test bed. Large enough for them to see what full scale roll-out issues may crop up, but not so big that they can't get a grip on problems. TW probably has a smaller market or two where they do initial roll-outs to find out what basic equipment issues may be present. 

But it all comes down to specmanship. Trying to put doubt about satellite into the minds of people that don't want to or can't grasp the plusses and minuses of each system. Like the old cable (or Comcast - can't remember which) commercial where they showed a dissatisfied satellite customer who was complaining it went out when it rained and when the dish got loose and mis-pointed (with the husband on the roof swinging it in every direction yelling now? Like a car never goes through a telephone pole or a cable gets cut. I've lost my cable signal more times than my D*.


----------



## rquick (Feb 17, 2007)

There is no defense of the nasty cable companies. They were forced to jump throught those hoops because at that point in time there was no competing technology and their franchises were exclusive licenses to steal - and they did so with extraodinary zeal. 

In case you have all forgotten, the service and treatment we recieved from the cable companies in the 70's and 80's was absolutely unforgivable. When I dropped them in the 80's to set up a C-Band dish, the local cable provider reported me to the city for installing an illegal dish because they couldn't find a copy of my permit. Like I would just drop it and come back begging for service. They lobbied the city to make dishes illegal to cut the competition. Fortunately they failed. I dropped the cable and switched to sat becuse they couldn't even supply a tuner with a stereo output and they refused to allow the use of cable ready tvs. And that was in a million subscriber market in 1985. 

Never forget that your local cable company did not start out as a competitive business - they were government supported monopolies and they would dearly love to stay that way. With the availability of new tech there is no longer a justification for the monopoly. Let them compete. But don't try to defend them. They made a killing while they could. They certainly don't need our sympathy now.


----------



## Xram (Nov 19, 2005)

rquick said:


> There is no defense of the nasty cable companies. They were forced to jump throught those hoops because at that point in time there was no competing technology and their franchises were exclusive licenses to steal - and they did so with extraodinary zeal.
> 
> In case you have all forgotten, the service and treatment we recieved from the cable companies in the 70's and 80's was absolutely unforgivable. When I dropped them in the 80's to set up a C-Band dish, the local cable provider reported me to the city for installing an illegal dish because they couldn't find a copy of my permit. Like I would just drop it and come back begging for service. They lobbied the city to make dishes illegal to cut the competition. Fortunately they failed. I dropped the cable and switched to sat becuse they couldn't even supply a tuner with a stereo output and they refused to allow the use of cable ready tvs. And that was in a million subscriber market in 1985.
> 
> Never forget that your local cable company did not start out as a competitive business - they were government supported monopolies and they would dearly love to stay that way. With the availability of new tech there is no longer a justification for the monopoly. Let them compete. But don't try to defend them. They made a killing while they could. They certainly don't need our sympathy now.


Great post! I agree 100%.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

rquick said:


> There is no defense of the nasty cable companies. They were forced to jump throught those hoops because at that point in time there was no competing technology and their franchises were exclusive licenses to steal - and they did so with extraodinary zeal.
> 
> In case you have all forgotten, the service and treatment we recieved from the cable companies in the 70's and 80's was absolutely unforgivable. When I dropped them in the 80's to set up a C-Band dish, the local cable provider reported me to the city for installing an illegal dish because they couldn't find a copy of my permit. Like I would just drop it and come back begging for service. They lobbied the city to make dishes illegal to cut the competition. Fortunately they failed. I dropped the cable and switched to sat becuse they couldn't even supply a tuner with a stereo output and they refused to allow the use of cable ready tvs. And that was in a million subscriber market in 1985.
> 
> Never forget that your local cable company did not start out as a competitive business - they were government supported monopolies and they would dearly love to stay that way. With the availability of new tech there is no longer a justification for the monopoly. Let them compete. But don't try to defend them. They made a killing while they could. They certainly don't need our sympathy now.


You could not be more correct. Since cable companies did not have to compete, they could be as slow as they wanted to be when it came to upgrading their systems. Now that they have to compete, they do not know how to do it. They are finding it very hard to commit the large amounts of money needed to upgrade to satallite capability. D* does not have that problem. They were forward looking and commited over a billion dollars on D10, 11, and 12. I believe that there are many unhappy execs in the cable cos boardrooms, that don't know what to do. The last thing they want to do is open their wallets. Competition is not a concept that they understand.


----------



## hr20manray (Dec 18, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> You could not be more correct. Since cable companies did not have to compete, they could be as slow as they wanted to be when it came to upgrading their systems. Now that they have to compete, they do not know how to do it. They are finding it very hard to commit the large amounts of money needed to upgrade to satallite capability. D* does not have that problem. They were forward looking and commited over a billion dollars on D10, 11, and 12. I believe that there are many unhappy execs in the cable cos boardrooms, that don't know what to do. The last thing they want to do is open their wallets. Competition is not a concept that they understand.


Also, if anyone remembers, they said by "paying" for the service you would get commercial-free programming. How's that worked out?


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> You speak as if the D10 and D11 are already bouncing signals.
> 
> Neither company thinks the other is capable of coming anywhere near their respective claims. They're probably both right.


No he stated it exactly and said that the launch of DIRECTV 10 is what is missing. I actually think its you that will be the most wrong - and that DirecTV will be the most right on this (yes it depends on a successful launch of D10) - but if that goes right (and I'm beginning to think you are hoping for a mis-hap) - your gloom and doom is BYE BYE.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

When Comcast started rolling out hi-speed internet I saw an improvement in their service level. However, it is falling again. I see them as dropping back to their old mentality, how much more can we get from the subscriber. When Comcast cut my standard tier back by 2/3's to off-airs, a shopping channel and local access and I would have to pay 3 times as much to get back the channels I had or go with their triple play at over $100/month I said it was time to go back to D*. WHile I am paying more than my origianl cable standard tier its still a little less than Comcast's equivalent. Plus the locals are now included (extra $$$ several years ago) so I'm finding D*worth it.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Can you provide some details about the TWC HD DVR - i.e., how it compares to the HR20 and what you didn't like about it?


Sure,

I was an analog cable customer who used a standalone TiVo for years. I tried digital cable a few years ago and had issues with the box. When I bought my HDTV in August I needed a HD DVR so I ditched the standalone TiVo for the TWC Scientific Atlanta HD DVR. I had it for about a week and it missed recordings and had the same audio issues that I had years ago. The interface is also cartoony and terrible. The remote has these stupid A, B and C buttons. All my coworkers have had to return their DVRs(SD and HD) multiple times.

I thought about getting a Series3 but it was literally released within a few days of my HDTV purchase so I switched to directv so I could get the HD TiVo. I had problems getting an OTA signal so Directv actually shipped me an HR20 for $20 and let me keep the HR10-250.

Until the most recent release I had very few problems with the HR20. After the last release I was on the phone for an hour with support, but afterwards it sarted behaving again.

In fact I really like the HR20 and the only thing I wish it had was an option for the TiVo style guide vs. the standard grid guide.

Hope that helps.


----------



## patchs (Jan 22, 2006)

LA Times had a story today that TW has POed a lot of subs and they are leaving for D* in droves, one number used was 10,000.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

For the other side of the story. The issue is specific to the LA area and the migration of former Adelphia and/or Comcast subscribers onto the TW SoCal network. The division went from about 350,000 customers to nearly two million and they haven't been able to handle it. Personally I would blame them to a point and say the migration should not have happened so fast. They should have gave it time and planned it out better.

There are over 50 individually operated TW franchises in the country and this is only affecting one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2007)

mfogarty5 said:


> I was an analog cable customer who used a standalone TiVo for years. I tried digital cable a few years ago and had issues with the box. When I bought my HDTV in August I needed a HD DVR so I ditched the standalone TiVo for the TWC Scientific Atlanta HD DVR. I had it for about a week and it missed recordings and had the same audio issues that I had years ago. The interface is also cartoony and terrible. The remote has these stupid A, B and C buttons. All my coworkers have had to return their DVRs(SD and HD) multiple times.
> 
> In fact I really like the HR20 and the only thing I wish it had was an option for the TiVo style guide vs. the standard grid guide.


Thanks. That doesn't exactly jibe with the rosy picture being painted by a couple of cable subscribers in this forum. If you could believe their comments, TWC has a "wa-a-ay" better HD picture than DirecTV, DVRs that never miss a recording, cable that rarely if ever goes out, and great customer service. Not exactly what I remember from having cable TV for more than 20 years.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> For the other side of the story. The issue is specific to the LA area and the migration of former Adelphia and/or Comcast subscribers onto the TW SoCal network. The division went from about 350,000 customers to nearly two million and they haven't been able to handle it. Personally I would blame them to a point and say the migration should not have happened so fast. They should have gave it time and planned it out better.
> 
> There are over 50 individually operated TW franchises in the country and this is only affecting one.


Make that two. Cleveland. Since the takeover TW has increased rates twice. Thats in less than 8 months. They have also dropped channels.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Cable companies use different software and different software versions on the same DVRs. Time Warner has SARA, Passport and the new Navigator, and not all divisions run the same version. My two SA8300HD HD DVRs have been flawless, just like my old DirecTiVos. Never missed a recoding, never records what it's not supposed to. It's lacking in a few features compared to TiVo, but it's just as reliable and it doesn't even compare to the nightmare I had with DishDVRs. It is an excellent piece of hardware.

Really, what is your problem, does it threaten you that much there are some very good cable companies out there and that the almighty DirecTV is not the preferred multichannel provider for the rest of the country? I had Dish for 5 years, DirecTV for 2, if they were better then my cable company I'd still have one of them, but they're not.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Can you provide some details about the TWC HD DVR - i.e., how it compares to the HR20 and what you didn't like about it?


I used Comcast's DVR for 3 days & it was an abomination. Slow menus, flipping through channels fast caused error boxes. I cancalled their junk.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Really, what is your problem, does it threaten you that much there are some very good cable companies out there and that the almighty DirecTV is not the preferred multichannel provider for the rest of the country?


There are plenty of former cable subscribers in this forum who are debunking your comments on a regular basis. It only takes a quick glance at this thread to see that.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Do any of those have experience with Time Warner Cable in Rochester, NY, if not, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Do any of those have experience with Time Warner Cable in Rochester, NY, if not, then it doesn't mean a damn thing.


You have a point, Steve. It's possible that there is good cable TV in Rochester and bad cable TV everywhere else. It's also possible that Time Warner uses their good DVRs in Rochester and foists their bad DVRs on subscribers in other areas. If that is the case, you are fortunate to live in Rochester.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Rochester is the "home base" for TWC and they are the test market for all the new goodies. There are several TWC systems around here that *just* got digital service in the past 2 years. Don't know how to spell HD yet.

Cable is so widely different from town to town and city to city. When someone says "hey, Comcast is awesome!". Yea, in your town only. Comcast down the road may still be analog with 40 channels.


----------



## nick1817 (Feb 12, 2007)

patchs said:


> LA Times had a story today that TW has POed a lot of subs and they are leaving for D* in droves, one number used was 10,000.


My market, Memphis, just went/is still going through a Time Warner to Comcast transition and its a total cluster #@%. Billing issues, service issues, you name it. I know several median sized markets are having to make this switch right now.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Rochester is the "home base" for TWC and they are the test market for all the new goodies. There are several TWC systems around here that *just* got digital service in the past 2 years. Don't know how to spell HD yet.


I check on the TWC programming in the surrounding areas and if I lived in Ulysses, I would definitely be looking at satellite. Less than 40 channels and only 2 premium channels. I don't see any RSNs either.

ETA: I found out the town has a population of less than 5,000 so I can understand why TWC wouldn't want to invest a lot, but I'd still be looking at sat. if I lived there.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Cable is so widely different from town to town and city to city. When someone says "hey, Comcast is awesome!". Yea, in your town only. Comcast down the road may still be analog with 40 channels.


On the other hand, when a company like Time Warner Cable decides _*not *_to carry NFL Network, nobody gets it anywhere.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> There are plenty of former cable subscribers in this forum who are debunking your comments on a regular basis. It only takes a quick glance at this thread to see that.


Isn't it remarkable that in a satellite forum in a DirecTV area you don't find a lot of enthusiastic cable users? Come on, now. In my area TWC carries several local (3) and several national HD channels, while D* offers no local and no national HD at all. So much for D*.

I believe very little of the recent D* promises for HD, so I think TWC will need to do little to better D*, locally or nationally. But if D* can put some pressure on TWC, I'll be pleased as well as surprised.

Greg


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

GregLee said:


> no national HD at all. So much for D*.


You may live in area not serviced with local HDs but to say D* doesn't have any national HD is flat wrong. D* offers HBO-HD, Sho-HD, ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD, Universal HD, TNT-HD, Discovery-HD, HD Net, and HD Net Movies and certain special events stuff like The NFL Network Football games and NBA-TV games in HD. Others like Dish currently offer more but to say D* has none is incorrect.


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Cable companies use different software and different software versions on the same DVRs. Time Warner has SARA, Passport and the new Navigator, and not all divisions run the same version. My two SA8300HD HD DVRs have been flawless, just like my old DirecTiVos. Never missed a recoding, never records what it's not supposed to. It's lacking in a few features compared to TiVo, but it's just as reliable and it doesn't even compare to the nightmare I had with DishDVRs. It is an excellent piece of hardware.
> 
> Really, what is your problem, does it threaten you that much there are some very good cable companies out there and that the almighty DirecTV is not the preferred multichannel provider for the rest of the country? I had Dish for 5 years, DirecTV for 2, if they were better then my cable company I'd still have one of them, but they're not.


Bottom line is if you have "old school" cable, directv has the better picture. If you have a good cable provider, I have found that the quality on cable is better. I have them side by side in my market, Time Warner beats out dbs. Sorry to all who don't have the opportunity to actually see an all digital cable provider. And by the way, all of these debates will be better for the consumer in the long run. Cable can't get away with what they did in the past, but Directv will not get away with what they are doing now.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

uncrules said:


> You may live in area not serviced with local HDs but to say D* doesn't have any national HD is flat wrong.


To verify my understanding, I just checked DirecTV's website and talked with a CSR at 1-877-897-8131. No HD for Hawaii -- no local HD, no DNS HD, no national HD channels in HD. Nada. In case you want to check out the web site yourself, you can give their wizard my area code 97695, and then you will get an error message referring to "Hawaii's unique equipment and programming needs" and giving the above telephone number.


----------



## BruceS (Sep 23, 2006)

Here is one more advantage for D*.

They have been digital for years, while many of the cable companies still have not implemented it at all.

I have both D* and TW cable in my home. I almost never have pixellation problems with D*, but they happen many times a week with TW.

As soon as FIOS becomes available in my area, I plan to drop TW, but I will still keep my D*.


----------



## uncrules (Dec 20, 2005)

GregLee said:


> To verify my understanding, I just checked DirecTV's website and talked with a CSR at 1-877-897-8131. No HD for Hawaii -- no local HD, no DNS HD, no national HD channels in HD. Nada. In case you want to check out the web site yourself, you can give their wizard my area code 97695, and then you will get an error message referring to "Hawaii's unique equipment and programming needs" and giving the above telephone number.


I didn't realize you were talking about Hawaii. I thought you were talking about D* for everybody.  It looks like you're stuck being at the mercy of TWC. A lack of competition isn't good for anybody.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

bidger said:


> I check on the TWC programming in the surrounding areas and if I lived in Ulysses, I would definitely be looking at satellite. Less than 40 channels and only 2 premium channels. I don't see any RSNs either.
> 
> ETA: I found out the town has a population of less than 5,000 so I can understand why TWC wouldn't want to invest a lot, but I'd still be looking at sat. if I lived there.


The line up for my area is a little different then that

http://www.timewarnercable.com/Cust...Us.ashx?CLUID=477&Zip=&Image1.x=20&Image1.y=3


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BruceS said:


> Here is one more advantage for D*.
> 
> They have been digital for years, while many of the cable companies still have not implemented it at all.


Digital is not for the customer's benefit. Digital is for the distributor's benefit. The distributors are selling it hard because it saves them _lots_ of bandwidth, not because the quality is necessarily better.


> I have both D* and TW cable in my home. I almost never have pixellation problems with D*, but they happen many times a week with TW.


If TWC weren't digital, you wouldn't have pixellation problems. You would probably have ghosting or static instead.


> As soon as FIOS becomes available in my area, I plan to drop TW, but I will still keep my D*.


FIOS is just another cable provider with a whole lot less experience in the marketplace than TWC.


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

regular coax cable tv is going the way of dial up internet and landline copper telephones. 

Fiber cable tv is the only thing that will give Directv a run for its money. My friend in Temecula has it and loves it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2007)

GregLee said:


> Isn't it remarkable that in a satellite forum in a DirecTV area you don't find a lot of enthusiastic cable users? Come on, now. In my area TWC carries several local (3) and several national HD channels, while D* offers no local and no national HD at all. So much for D*.
> 
> I believe very little of the recent D* promises for HD, so I think TWC will need to do little to better D*, locally or nationally. But if D* can put some pressure on TWC, I'll be pleased as well as surprised.
> Greg


It does seem to depend on where you live as to whether cable or satellite is the better choice. If you're in one of the areas where DirecTV hasn't added the HD locals, you might be better off with cable. In my area, I get 5 locals in addition to the 7 national HD channels, plus the 2 premiums that are offered nationwide, plus the 2 channels used for HD sports events that are on non-HD channels, plus the NFL ST HD channels. It's not as much as I would like, but it's a lot more than I had before I made the switch to HD.

I don't think there is much doubt that DirecTV will be able to add a ton of new HD channels - it's really more a question of whether they can add them as quickly as they have promised. If not, they will have some unhappy subscribers.


----------



## hialoa (Apr 15, 2007)

GregLee said:


> To verify my understanding, I just checked DirecTV's website and talked with a CSR at 1-877-897-8131. No HD for Hawaii -- no local HD, no DNS HD, no national HD channels in HD. Nada. In case you want to check out the web site yourself, you can give their wizard my area code 97695, and then you will get an error message referring to "Hawaii's unique equipment and programming needs" and giving the above telephone number.


Directv does in fact have HD available in Hawaii --- it takes TWO 1.2 meter dishes
the CSR got it wrong

--- it is normal for the CSR not fill you in on exactly what you can get in Hawaii

--- I believe Hawaii may have HD available on one dish soon --- I have not confirmed this yet


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

hialoa said:


> Directv does in fact have HD available in Hawaii --- it takes TWO 1.2 meter dishes


That's good. If you could post on the HD Hawaii thread at AVSforum, "www dot avsforum dot com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=329826", giving the source of your info, that would be useful for other HD enthusiasts here.


----------

