backtop

Gadgets NFL Throws Flag on Comcast Play
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - February 19, 2009 2:00 PM
Print 70 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Feb 23 at 1:01 PM

  (Source: AP/MATT SLOCUM)
NFL claims Comcast is bottlenecking its NFL Network

Sports are among some of the most watched programs on TV and during the fall and winter months, the NFL is one of the biggest things going on TV over the weekends and on Monday night. The NFL runs its own cable network called the NFL Network that is relatively unknown to many sports fans depending on TV programming service provider.

The NFL is fighting a battle in Washington against Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV provider. Comcast is also known for its internet access filtering programs that have landed it in hot water with the FCC and its customers.

The NFL Network currently has about 42 million viewers and has been on the air for five years. According to the NFL, the network needs 50 million viewers to attract the attention of national advertisers.

The NFL claims that the reason it only has the 42 million of the 50 million watchers it needs due to discrimination by Comcast, which allegedly promotes its own sports networks over the NFL Network. The NFL is asking the FCC to force Comcast to provide its network to more of its viewers. Comcast moved the NFL Network from a tier that has 8.6 million viewers to a sports bundle seen by only 1.4 million subscribers.

Comcast says that the reason for moving the NFL Network to the sports bundle is that the network has very limited appeal. The NFL points out that Comcast's own sports channels Versus and Golf Channel, both with presumably even more limited appeal than the most popular sport in America, are provided to more subscribers. The league says, "Comcast exploited its bottleneck power."

The case between the NFL and Comcast is set to be heard by an administrative law judge at the FCC, but the case will ultimately be decided by the five-member FCC panel. Comcast also says that the NFL Network is overpriced with the league demanding 70 cents per subscriber and that considering the network offers only eight live season games it provides minimal value to subscribers.

Comcast said, "The NFL is trying to force an overpriced network (on cable providers)." The NFL is employing a lobbying firm to help it persuade the FCC and lawmakers to streamline the process that is used by networks to complain about cable providers mistreating them.

The NFL also lobbies on other topics that could affect its viewership reports Bloomberg. Among its other lobbying efforts are digital TV and taxes. The NFL is also pleading its case to members of the House and Senate. League representative Joe Browne said, "We’ve gone out of our way to explain to members in both the House and the Senate why we had to take this step." Browne also claims that the league has faced discrimination by cable providers who favor their own programming to that of the NFL Network.

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said, "The NFL is a pretty powerful sports monopoly. They don’t need special government help." She also says that Comcast would prefer to settle these differences with the NFL through negotiations rather than with influence from the FCC, House, and Senate.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Uh...
By quiksilvr on 2/19/2009 2:08:17 PM , Rating: 5
Comcast is bottlenecking EVERYTHING. Have you seen their "HD" service? Its TERRIBLE.




RE: Uh...
By webdawg77 on 2/19/2009 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 5
Yep, that's why I just switched to DirecTV. And, it's cheaper for more channels especially HD channels :). I'm still slightly bummed that the locals aren't in HD yet even though Dish has them in my area.

I've been thinking about it ever since Comcast "upgraded" the DVR software. It's terrible, and 5% of the time it doesn't even record what I tell it to record. It will say it's in the list, it will be "red" in the guide, but it just won't record. There aren't any conflicts, and there's plenty of spaced left on the HDD.

I even switched ISPs back to AT&T DSL because Comcast was charging me $15 more a month when I dropped the cable. There's no way $60 is a "deal" for 6 Mbps.


RE: Uh...
By Spivonious on 2/19/2009 3:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Curious how much your DSL is, and if you also have phone service through them. Verizon is in my area and if you don't have phone service as well, they charge you $45/month for 1.5Mbps DSL.


RE: Uh...
By drebo on 2/19/2009 3:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Where I am, I get 6mb DSL for $35/mo with a basic rate phone service for $7/mo. That's $42/mo for 6mb service...far superior to anything cable can offer.

With Uverse now, though, I can get 6mb service for $35/mo with no requirement for phone service. Though I will continue to keep my phone service.


RE: Uh...
By murphyslabrat on 2/19/2009 5:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
In my area with Road-Runner, you can get 7Mbps down/1Mbps up for $45/mo without telephone service. It just depends on where you are, as that 1.5Mbps would cost about $20/mo around here.


RE: Uh...
By webdawg77 on 2/19/2009 4:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
The 6 Mbps is $42 with phone service and $47 without before taxes of course.

3 Mbps, 1.5 Mbps, and "lite" 512 kbps are also available for lower prices. I mainly chose the 6 Mbps for the "faster" upload speed of 512 kbps while playing games.


RE: Uh...
By invidious on 2/19/2009 3:31:34 PM , Rating: 4
I have optimum cable/internet sense I'm in New England and yes I thank my lucky stars. They do not cary NFL Network but if two local teams are playing they will usually show that one game's worth of the NFL network on one of their optimum bundled channels. I am sure they have to pay NFL network to do this but it is sure to cheaper than having it all the time.

The game they showed was the Jets V Pats game which clearly everyone in new england wanted to see. Personally I would like to see them all because there is no other football on TV on these nights, and I would pay the extra couple bucks a month. But I agree that having the channel 24/7 is worthless to 99% of the market, even I wouldnt watch it if there wasnt a live game on.

btw optimum's baseline internet is 15mbit down 2mbit up and their baseline cable included about 80 HD channels, most of which are 1080.


RE: Uh...
By ianken on 2/19/2009 3:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Where I live Comcast does not re-compress local HD content so the network look as god as boradcast.

You cannot say the same for DirecTV. The downscale and overcompress everything.

That said, other HD stuff can be pretty bad on Comcast.

FiOS is a few months away. Then WOOT.


RE: Uh...
By threepac3 on 2/19/2009 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 4
Verizon FIOS is the way to go if you can get it.


RE: Uh...
By Integral9 on 2/23/2009 1:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you could have 'just switched' and you don't have your local stations in HD. DirecTV has been shipping their HD DirecTV+ receivers for over two years. These receivers along w/ the HD service will give you your local stations in HD. You didn't think you'd get your HD local stations over the satellite for free did you?


RE: Uh...
By tastyratz on 2/19/2009 2:20:13 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately I am unlucky enough to have no choice of alternative service in my apartment. It's Comcast or the highway for me. Ever since they decided to pack 3 hd channels in 2 qam's service is so degraded.

The moment a competitor like fios tv opens up service to me I look forward to telling Comcast to QAM it where the sun don't shine.


RE: Uh...
By SpaceRanger on 2/19/2009 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hallelujah tastyratz, and can I get an AMEN!


RE: Uh...
By MozeeToby on 2/19/2009 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think that the first cable company that let's you pay a flat rate for each individual channel you want is going to make a lot of money. I would rather have 10 channels I actually watch than 100 channels and not get half the ones I want.

It isn't capitalism if I'm forced to take a bunch of crap I don't want in order to get the one thing I do. It's like Toy's R Us bundling 10 shovelware titles with their Wiis and selling them for $1000. If I want the NFL network, I shouldn't have to buy a sports bundle at $20 a month to get it.


RE: Uh...
By BansheeX on 2/19/2009 3:22:29 PM , Rating: 1
If you're a producer of a product and you only sell the bundle, or you provide the bundle version to distributors at a significant discount to them, then only the bundle will exist. There's nothing really uncapitalist about it, but I agree it kind of sucks for those of us who only watch a few channels. I mean, another example would be "why can't I get an LCD without paying for the stock stand?" or "why can't I get a 360 without paying for the ethernet chip?" If there was more profit in not doing it, there would be separate versions, or someone else would. Things like sports leagues and operating systems generally gravitate towards monopoly, because the idea of those products are to have everyone under the same network with the same rules. The whole benefit behind Windows is that everyone else uses it, right? How fun would it be if you went to school and the OS it used was completely different from the one at home, didn't recognize your file formats, etc?


RE: Uh...
By Alexstarfire on 2/19/2009 6:53:49 PM , Rating: 3
That's not the same thing at all. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I really can't think of one at the moment. You can't compare it to removing hardware from devices, it's just not the same. It costs money to make several different variations of a product, like cars and the xBox 360. With things like different cable packages there is nothing to add or remove, physically anyways. Nothing other than some software code/parameters change when you "upgrade" your service. Can't even say bandwidth increases since you can only watch 1 or 2 stations at a time. In effect it costs them nothing. Course, I could be wrong about the bandwidth and if I am then it only costs them bandwidth. Of course with Comcast we all know that they don't have the bandwidth for anything since they decide that upgrading their infrastructure is a waste of time and money.

Only reason I see for these "packages" is to force people to pay for stuff they don't need, or even want. We've got quite a few Spanish stations, and other international language stations, that will never be watched but we have to have them to get other stations that we watch fairly regularly.


RE: Uh...
By BansheeX on 2/21/2009 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only reason I see for these "packages" is to force people to pay for stuff they don't need, or even want.


You're not forced to a buy a package any more than you are forced to buy the individual product. I am "forced" to buy every lego in a lego set because the producer has deemed it less profitable to offer them all individually. Chances are, if a hamburger could only be purchased as an expensive combo with 100 other items, no one would buy them and the producer would go out of business. It's possible that this is just capitalist stupidity, maybe it IS more profitable to offer the package separately. It's more likely, though, that the other channels generate so little revenue, that their elimination would not significantly reduce your price. What if the NFL part is 90% of the cost of the bundle? You're thinking that it's an even split is probably wishful thinking. 1/7 the channels for 1/7 the price? Doubtful.


RE: Uh...
By knightspawn1138 on 2/19/2009 4:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that brother. I'm in the process of moving to an apartment where I can't get satellite anymore, and I don't want Time Warner Cable, either. I ran the numbers, and since there are only about 10-15 shows a year that I want to watch (3-5 are anime, 2-4 are SHO/HBO types, and the rest are in HD as local stations), I don't see a reason to pay ~$100/month for TV. If I were to rent or buy these shows in DVD/Blu-Ray season packs, I would only be spending $500-700 per year instead of $1200+ on cable or satellite.

I will sorely miss my DVR when trying to watch shows like Heroes or House, but I'm not going to pay monthly fees for 2000 channels of crap when I want 5-10 channels of just what I'm looking for.

However, I have found that Dish Network makes a dual-tuner DVR for over the air SD/HDTV. It basically works like the VIP622 (my favorite PVR ever!), except without monthly fees, and using rabbit ears instead of a dish. It's called the DTVPAL DVR. Since this thing functions so similar to the VIP622 I already have, I have hope that Dish will eventually expand it's features to include backing up recordings to USB hard drives.


RE: Uh...
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/20/2009 1:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine your savings with the 9.99 netflix plan. You can get endless seasons/movies, net streaming, all for way less than your "renting" figure. ~$120 for the year. even less if you get the 1 disc at a time service.


RE: Uh...
By JPForums on 2/20/2009 7:39:34 AM , Rating: 3
Funny, cable companies used to sell each channel at a flat rate just as you describe. It was the government that forced them to package channels. They claimed it wasn't fair to charge customers a fee for every channel. They claimed that it would lower the cost per channel. They also claimed that it wasn't fair to networks to let consumers choose which channel they want up front. After all, how can you decide whether you like the programming if you haven't seen it yet.

I wonder why it was that people gave up their control without making a stink about it. After all, it's bound to cost more for a package of 12 channels (even discounted) than it costs for the one in the package that you actually want. Perhaps people actually did make a stink about it, but that got covered up. Now people are forced to give money to networks they may not necessarily want to support. For example, just to get basic service, I have to support CNN. What if I thought CNN lied too much and shouldn't be trusted, much less broadcasted? Tough luck, I either give up TV all together, or I help make sure the content that I consider detrimental to anyone who hears it is made available to everyone.

(CNN is just used for this example. Insert your least favorite network that you inadvertently support in its place. Alternately, for those of you with a lack of respect, or even a deep seeded hatred for CNN, leave it.)


RE: Uh...
By xmichaelx on 2/20/2009 5:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm - I've had cable since it was introduced to the Philadelphia area in 1982, and I've never been able to choose individual channels (except HBO, etc.) -- it's ALWAYS been packages or nothing, for me. I'm also unable to locate any government regulation that "forced them to package channels".

More information, please -- what city are you in? What regulations are you referring to?


RE: Uh...
By Spivonious on 2/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/19/2009 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
You must have seen HD on a Best Buy setup where they connected through the SVHS connection and tried selling someone a calibration service.

Satellite 1080P over their newer compression looks awesome. I doubt most could tell the difference between a blu-ray and Direct TV's HD.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 4:20:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Satellite 1080P over their newer compression looks awesome. I doubt most could tell the difference between a blu-ray and Direct TV's HD.
There is no such thing as broadcast 1080P(nor will there be anytime soon). I am pretty sure DirectTV only supports 1080p for movies and ondemand content and even then it is 1080p/24 not 1080p/30(24fps is not supported by many TV's). Chances are the signal received from the setup box is 1080i with timestamped frames so that the converter box can turn it into a 1080p/24 signal via Inverse Telecene.(similar to how HD-DVD players work) This is probably why 1080p/30 is not possible unless you then convert 1080p/24 to 1080p/30 and I really doubt the setupbox has the power to do that.

This aside, BD video alone has a higher bitrate than is possible via satellite (regardless of the techniques used), this tacked on with the fact that BD has uncompressed audio leaves BD leaps and bounds ahead of DirectTV not only in Video quality, but in audio quality. Perhaps you may not notice on a lower end TV, but for those with high end LCD's/Plasmas, the difference is definitely noticeable.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 4:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Little oversight here, 1080p/24 uses less bandwidth than 1080i/60 so out goes my theory of IVTC ;)

But..currently no broadcast material is 1080p, from anyone..
If 1080p is realized in the near future, it will be from the use of timecoded 1080i/60 video not 1080p/24 source material.

Keep in mind this leaves those without 1080p/24 support in the dark. (which is most TV's)


RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2009 8:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
1080 lines whether drawn interlaced or progressive is still 1080 lines of resolution. You are changing the argument to specs and not what one visually is seeing.

Your one of those people that because a spec says its better it must be better and the latter crap even though visually you couldn't distinguish the difference.

Quit falling for marketing BS.


RE: Uh...
By mcnabney on 2/20/2009 9:49:53 AM , Rating: 2
I use a HTPC forf my general computing/gaming needs and output to a 1080p HDTV. I can run at a variety of resolutions. There is most certainly a visible difference between 1080i and 1080p. Especially when the screen is displaying motion, something I hear is quite popular in TV, movies, and games now.


RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2009 10:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
I did the same its why I am calling shins on this whole BLU-RAY being far superior to Direct TV's HD. The way people are shouting out it its as if its like comparing DVD to BLU-RAY. Its not they are extremely close visually so much that I doubt 99% of the people could determine the difference. Its almost like Sony's PR department trying to drum up BLU-RAY excitement but suspect its fans who get a hard on over thier specs. Those who bought the equipment and claim superior but have never done a calibration to their actual components and Im not talking about the wimpy little BLU-RAY calibration disc.

I replaced my popcorn hour with an HTPC several months back. It may be the HDTV or the way the video card is producing the 1080i vs 1080P output. If your using the component video cables then definitely a difference between using the DVI or HDMI input/output especially in color fidelity and clarity.

I used Casino Royal from my friends PS3 on blu-ray and compared it to the broadcast on HBO and its extremely hard to find any visual difference even when setting it to 1080i on the Direct TV receiver versus the 1080P. You have to really look hard and I have a 65" HDTV.

The only time I can notice a difference and I must be looking very hard for it is when I am doing 60fps on sporting events.

Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison [updated]
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments...

There is another comparison out there with screenshots comparing BLU-RAY to Direct TV's HD with FIOS. I cant find it but the difference is slim to none. They really have to blow up the detail to find differences. Be sure they compare it to the MPEG4 Direct TV HD not the older MPEG2 compression.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/20/2009 12:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison [updated] http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments...
Buddy I can see the differences between the formats at 1:1 ratios. Are you trying to imply i won't be able to see the difference when I blow it up on a 50"+ display? Seriously you are kidding yourself here.


RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2009 1:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me can you also see through lead?


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/20/2009 1:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, but apparently you've had too much exposure to it..


RE: Uh...
By Spivonious on 2/23/2009 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
Good link. Now I know that blu-ray is a waste, since the improvement over upscaled DVD is minimal at best. It also puts a blue tint on everything.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/20/2009 10:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quit falling for marketing BS.
Any time your TV performs 3:2 pulldown, you are losing quality, it creates artifacts and blurring during fast motion scenes. This is what happens with pretty much all 1080i content.

Also the difference between watching 1080p/24 vs 1080i/60 content on a good TV like a Sony XBR is night and day.

The best proof of the weaknesses of 1080i is the fact that broadcasters prefer 720p broadcasts for sports over 1080i, this is done because a progressive source is much less likely to tear in fast moving scenes.

The only time I agree with you here is comparing BD content when comparing 1080i/60 to 1080p/30. The source material in this case is always 1080p/24 and the internal processor outputs to 1080i/60 (or 1080p/30 if you have a 1080p without 24hz support). Because the source is already 1080p, the processor is merely splitting the signal into half frames but without losing any of the original source. When the 1080i/60 signal is sent to your TV, the deinterlacing process can put the frames back to 1080p/30 without quality loss. This is where BD differs from broadcast television whose original source is 1080i, you can't get back what was never there. (Keep in mind 1080p/24 is still better than both these processes, as you are viewing the original source as it is meant to be seen without ever touching the signal)

This is not a marketing ploy either, so stop trying to validate whatever product you bought that doesn't support 24hz output or 1080p.


RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2009 10:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think you and I agree this is more to do with framerate 24/30/60 issue than the resolution and high motion scenes however there are new ways HDTV sets can compensate for that. Its and issue even the top HDTV's still haven't solved and it comes back to way the media is recorded. 60FPS in movies tends to add more home video camera look to things and 24fps which is what most movies are shot in cant handle high motion so they resort to camera tricks to compensate. Thats a catch 22 area because some prefer the 24 while some prefer the 60. Its also marketing hype. 30 is a 3:2 pulldown but not actually a loss of quality in HD sets its more of a loss in motion ability that they are trying to address with 96fps but even then some people don't like it. Its personal and a by product of the way the original is shot. 3:2 pulldown or even 60 changes the original format of the original way its shot. Some would say that BLU-RAY 60 changes the way the director intended it to be seen.

But for anyone to say that BLU-RAY is somehow far superior in picture quality over Direct TV HD or FIOS is stretching the truth pretty far. Even the most technically savy sitting in front of an HDTV viewing either will not notice the very subtle differences that exist between the two. The way people fly off about this its as if they were talking its like VHS vs HDTV. Its not. Direct TV HD looks great. Watching the same movie on BLU-RAY isn't significantly better and I have to re-inforce most cant tell the difference. Its not like someone is going to say OMG that is so much better. They wont.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/20/2009 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But for anyone to say that BLU-RAY is somehow far superior in picture quality over Direct TV HD or FIOS is stretching the truth pretty far.
I am sorry, but you are wrong! Blueray's video bandwidth alone is higher than any way of broadcasting whether it be digital cable or sattelite. Motion jitter with 1080i aside,having twice the available bitrate is going to result in better video quality. (18 ATSC vs 36 BD). I have many BD movies that go far and beyond 18Mbps (for video alone) using the VC1 codec which in this case is also a form of mpeg4. (which is what DirectTV must use to have 1080p)

There are many real life examples of this too, Digital cable companies moving from 2 HD channels per 6mhz spot to 3 channels per 6mhz lowers the bitrate resulting in pictures with artifacts, which is a direct result of the bitrate being lowered.

Basically you are making it out as though 720p @ say 5Mbps will have the same quality video as 720p @ 2.5 Mbps. Just because both pictures are 720p does not make them equal.

Furthermore even with On demand movies, I am willing to make a wager that bitrates for directTV never come even close to utilizing the full 18Mbps.


RE: Uh...
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2009 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
The question is CAN YOU SEE IT and can you honestly say that Direct TV HD is horrible compared to BLU-RAY? Sure you may see a block but the same thing can happen when a speck of dust in on a BLU-RAY Disc.

Put all technical reasons aside why you think it should be superior and go with what your eyes tell you instead of what the back spec sheet of the book does? Because you keep rambling about specs and not what you see. There are plenty of people out there that believe upscaled DVD looks just as good as HD or BLU-RAY. Yet somehow you can see the difference between BLU-RAY and Direct TV's HD and its so obvious that Direct TV's HD is crap?

I wont argue that TECHNICALLY Direct TV's HD can be better but I will argue that its somehow crap next to BLU-RAY.

Im sorry that you think I am wrong but I think you believe you see it more than you actually do because you know the technical details behind it. Im sorry that you seem to feel Direct TV's HD unwatchable compared to BLU-RAY when they use different codec to accomplish the same task.

To your argument on 720P 5meg vs 720P 2.5 meg let me make this statement. I can ZIP a file or I can RAR it. Decompress them and its the SAME EXACT file bit for bit. Compressed one is smaller. One requires more CPU to decompress if it needed to be decompressed at a certain speed. Tell me agaon how a 5meg MPEG2 compression is superior to a 2.5meg MPEG4 Compression? Isnt that subjective to the codec providing the sample rate is enough to include all the data?

Your stuck on the specs as if it relates to quality somehow. Trust what your eyes say about what your seeing.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/20/2009 1:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question is CAN YOU SEE IT and can you honestly say that Direct TV HD is horrible compared to BLU-RAY? Sure you may see a block but the same thing can happen when a speck of dust in on a BLU-RAY Disc.
Yes I can see it, is Direct TV horrible compared to BD? Of course not. But for those that spend thousands of dollars on home theatre equipment, they expect the best, and as it stands BD is the best.
quote:
There are plenty of people out there that believe upscaled DVD looks just as good as HD or BLU-RAY. Yet somehow you can see the difference between BLU-RAY and Direct TV's HD and its so obvious that Direct TV's HD is crap?
These are the same people that don't spend thousands on their equipment. I also disagree that these people can't see the difference, they surely can see the difference between 480p and 1080p, they could just care less. That is personal opinion, if 480p is enough for someone, that is none of my business, but that does not make them equal.
quote:
Im sorry that you seem to feel Direct TV's HD unwatchable compared to BLU-RAY when they use different codec to accomplish the same task.
Once again I never said it was unwatchable, if I had to choose between anything else other than BD, DirectTV seems to be the best option. I have also already explained that VC-1 is a form of Mpeg4, there are no vast differences between VC-1 and whatever mpeg4 codec that Direct TV uses. If you took a video encoded with VC-1 and lowered the bitrate to the same rate as DirectTV, one would assume the video quality would be very close if not identical.

quote:
Tell me agaon how a 5meg MPEG2 compression is superior to a 2.5meg MPEG4 Compression? Isnt that subjective to the codec providing the sample rate is enough to include all the data?
VC-1 IS MPEG4! case closed!
Hardly any BD movies make use of mpeg2 encoding, personally I have one or two, and they were some of the original BD movies.
quote:
Your stuck on the specs as if it relates to quality somehow. Trust what your eyes say about what your seeing.
It seems you don't even know what the differences in the specs are, and I don't see how different specs does not equate to different quality. 5mpbs mpeg 4 is better quality than 2.5mpbs mpeg4, if you cannot realize this, then nothing I say is going to convince you. Its my guess that the codec in use by DirectTV is h264 based, which amazingly so is VC-1 and AVC, the two most used codecs for BD movies.


RE: Uh...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once the analog channels go away, Comcast will be able to send a less compressed digital channel down the tubes.
Keep on dreaming, yes technically you can fit 2-3 HD channels in that 6mhz spot that one analogue channel used to take up, but in no way or form does that mean that comcast will compress their digital channels less upon analogue shutdown. If anything it means they will just fill up the extra spots with more channels. In fact they are going to be pressed for space regardless if all channels ever make the switch to HD, which one would think is the natural evolution after removing analogue signals.

If you want the best HD you can get, OTA-HDTV is the best solution by far (and will continue to be).


RE: Uh...
By walk2k on 2/19/2009 5:10:32 PM , Rating: 3
Even though they are generally a rip-off, I have to side with Comcast on this issue. NFL is WAY overcharging for their channel. They have a MAX of 8 live games per year. Max, because if your local team is one of those playing, you'll get that game for free on regular networks anyway.

Though I have to say I got rid of Comcast because of their constant price gouging and recently, terrible picture quality. I now have DirecTV and I get the NFL channel (plus about a dozen more) for about about HALF the price I did before,


RE: Uh...
By wempa on 2/20/2009 1:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree. This reminds me of the crap that Cablevision tried to pull years back with their "Metro" channels. They started putting a handful of sports games on 1 of those channels. Then they tried to force other cable companies to take ALL 3 of those channels, which carried complete garbage 99% of them time. People with other cable companies were getting upset whenever a game was on one of those channels because they couldn't watch it. I think the NFL channel is going to try to do the same .... cover a few BIG games and the rest of the time it will be junk. Did you ever see the garbage they have on there ? It's terrible .... cheerleader competitions and crap like that.


RE: Uh...
By callmeroy on 2/20/2009 8:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have to admit, I used to try and come up with excuses for comcast "oh their service isn't THAT bad, oh well their Internet is prett reliable for me, oh well their HD offerings aren't too horrible, etc."......but you know what -- I'm building a gradual disdain for Comcast. They just don't quit, they keep raising costs on an annual basis on top of costs that are already expensive to begin with, they keep adding BS fees...last night I told them to remove Starz from my package, they told me "sure but that's an additional $2 removal fee as well"....Are you friggin' kidding me? equipment rental fees, tight packages (ie. you can't ala carte what premium channels you want/don't want), removal fees, $15/mo for a DVR, sub par HD signal quality on MOST channels, pixelation happening at least once or twice a week (and mind you I watch LESS than 15 hours of TV per WEEK, so that's pretty frequent...I prefer my DVD collection)....channel freeze ups, etc....its ridiculous....

And worse of all I'm stuck -- there is no choice for me, its Comcast or no premium HD channels at ALL, its Comcast or dial-up for Internet. DirectTV is out because my condo doesn't allow the satellite dishes to be installed.

I wish someone would ream Comcast a new one -- like they aren't a monopoly in some regions? Like they don't use their monopoly power to force Verizon out of some areas? Please....how naive do they think we are....


RE: Uh...
By phazers on 2/20/2009 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 3
Supposedly you can complain to your county gov't about poor service, excessive/ridiculous fees, etc. That's assuming they aren't in bed with Comcast however.

I have Comcast digital (no HD) here in the northern VA area, and have noticed some pixelization on some channels as well. But what really gripes me is the fact that I have had to go through Comcast's customer "service" twice now in order to get a bogus 2nd cablebox charge removed. Yes it's only $4 a month, but when you're paying nearly $100 a month for TV and Internet, it becomes a matter of principle. First I tried calling the local service number - big mistake. I believe those service reps are told to make it as difficult as possible to get bogus charges taken off your bill.

When I first got digital TV, the contract showed one free converter included with the service, not to mention receiving digital cable. Everything seemed fine the first couple of bills, so I forgot about it and set up an automatic bill payment. About 6 months later I noticed the $4 a month 2nd converter charge, and also a $15 a month "digital service" charge on top of the digital cable subscription, for the last 4 months. So I called the local number and the customer rep insisted that (1) there was no free converter included with the service, despite my asking her to check the damn invoice, and (2) digital cable service only meant the cable was capable of transmitting digital TV. If I actually wanted digital TV, there would be the extra $15 a month charge. Needless to say I was flabbergasted at her logic and outright lying, so I asked to speak to a supervisor. The rep then told me the supervisor was out to lunch (this at 2:30PM) and that she would have the supervisor call me back. Of course, that never happpened and when I called back later in the week, I had to start over from ground zero.

Eventually I found the customer service live chat option on Comcast.com, which is based maybe in India :), and they promptly refunded the bogus charges and promised me my bill would be correct for all of eternity, or until next month whichever came sooner :). I did check the next few months and everything was in order, so I promptly forgot about it again.

Then last fall the bogus converter fee showed up again, so last month I had to go back online and get 4 months of charges revoked. Again they assured me the bogus charge would be gone forever and ever. We'll see. :)

The local Comcast here refuses to send my credit union web billpay any e-bills, so I still get paper and have to manually enter the amount into the not-so-automatic billpay webpage, so it's my own fault for not turning the damn thing over and going over the charges line-by-line. So I really don't have much of a case to take to the county gov't, seeing as how I did get it resolved and it was partly my own fault. But I'm still peeved at the shabby local customer service - I can see why some woman in the newspaper took a hammer and went berserk at the local office before being arrested :).


Why make all pay...
By Marlin1975 on 2/19/2009 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 3
The NFL wants to much money for its single channel. Why make all pay when only some want.

NFL can either have more viewers and less pay or less viewers and more pay. They want it all while giving up little.

Glad I don;t pay any cable and just use FREE over the air digital. :)




RE: Why make all pay...
By ats on 2/19/2009 2:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
There is a solution to all this but the cable companies have been the biggest roadblocks to a la carte programming for years now.

Basically, with a la carte programming the cable companies would lose all their power. They would be effectively just a pipe provider and thus lose their bundling power to force you to pay for THEIR bad bundled networks. In addition, their channels would have more competition from other channels since if would be up to the user to decide what channels to pay for.


RE: Why make all pay...
By Spivonious on 2/19/2009 3:10:35 PM , Rating: 3
Do you honestly think the cable company wants bundled channels? They want to broadcast the one everyone watches, but the owner of the channel says "okay, but you have to bundle it with these other 10 channels filled with crap."

I'm sick of TV anyway; I dropped down to basic cable (20 channels, mostly to get clear pictures of my local networks) and could not be happier (not to mention I have an extra $35 in my pocket each month).


RE: Why make all pay...
By threepac3 on 2/19/2009 8:42:45 PM , Rating: 1
As long as that last anyway...


RE: Why make all pay...
By djc208 on 2/20/2009 7:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you honestly think the cable company wants bundled channels? They want to broadcast the one everyone watches, but the owner of the channel says "okay, but you have to bundle it with these other 10 channels filled with crap."


No, the cable companies bundle the channels to make them profitable. For instance only certain people may want channel X, which charges a certain amount for it's programming. Others want channel Y which charges another amount to the cable company. The demand in any one market may not be enough for channel X or Y but if you bundle them then people paying for X help support Y and the reverse.

That's why the movie channels started adding all the other versions. One HBO showing a few original shows and the one or two new movies every month isn't worth the money, but with 4 or 5 of them for about the same price it starts to make more sense. It might only be the same crap on at different times but at least you have choices vice paying a monthly fee for a channel you can only watch a few hours per day and may only want to watch for less than that.


RE: Why make all pay...
By kkwst2 on 2/19/2009 2:55:50 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I don't like either one, but i agree that the NFL is the bigger a*hole here. They started putting some games exclusively on this network than for no other reason than to get people pissed off and demand the network. 90% of it is replaying old games that I couldn't care less about. The only reason people want it is because the NFL puts games on it that should be on network TV anyway and then tries to strong arm the cable companies into paying for them.

The fee for the sports package is pretty cheap, like $5 I think. If that many people really cared about it, they would pay the money. I would like to be able to see some of those games, but refuse to be extorted by the NFL, even if it is only for $5 per month.

I blame Comcast for a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.


RE: Why make all pay...
By pattycake0147 on 2/19/2009 3:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong, but as far as I know you have to have a higher plan to add the sports bundle to your bill. We have the basic cable, and I don't believe we can just add the sports bundle.


RE: Why make all pay...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, comcast actually moved them from being an normal addon, to being a premium addon. The NFL's gripe is not that comcast does not have the channel as a part of the basic package, but that they moved them from availability from the vast majority of comcast customers, even if they want the channel.


RE: Why make all pay...
By bighairycamel on 2/19/2009 4:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since Roger Goodell took over as commisioner the NFL has turned into just another corporate machine. He sells out the fans for bigger profit margins on an already milked cash cow, and it's not even a publically traded company.

Charging rediculous rates for a mediocre network is one, but he made thursday night games a weekly occurance just to stiff arm cable companies into picking up the network. He also started sending games overseas in hopes of increasing popularity throughout the world. I get why he would want to, but he sold out on the season ticket holders who paid the same price for one less game. I was fine with preseason games being played in other countries, but keep the regular season games for the dedicated local fans.


RE: Why make all pay...
By Suomynona on 2/19/2009 3:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's ludicrous that they charge so much for what's essentially 24 hours a year of worthwhile programming.

The only plus in the situation is that it seems like the NFL is losing the battle so far, seeing as the cable companies still refuse to put the NFL Network on basic cable. The NFL's stupid strategy of trying to create a grassroots uprising against the cable companies was a steaming pile of fail.


RE: Why make all pay...
By kilkennycat on 2/20/2009 2:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
Amen. I have been preparing for the recession for years :-):-). Over the air Digital/HD TV now locally up to about 20 channels. Excellent reception. Have two converter-boxes courtesy of the US government subsidy for the non-HD televisions in my house. Ordered my coupons on January 1, 2008.

Both Comcast and Verizon FIOS pass by my house. Never connected. Am on Verizon 3M/768K DSL+land-line phone. When the Verizon FIOS ISP/Phone bundle drops to less than $50 per month, I might have some incentive to switch. Zero interest in FIOS TV offerings. Receive FIOS and Comcast "offer-letters" every month or so - they join the rest of the snail-mail spam in the recycle bin.


RE: Why make all pay...
By callmeroy on 2/20/2009 8:12:51 AM , Rating: 3
Actually funny thing about this -- when Comcast offered the free sampling of the NFL channel a few years back I liked it a lot that I wanted to subscribe (this was after the trial period ended).....So I called Comcast to JUST get that channel and they couldn't do it -- they wanted me to pay like $16 or $18 something like that to get the package that included NFL Network....so I passed, about a year or so went by and i happened to watch the NFL network at a friends house who has it...he got the package apparently. So I was bored and wrote NFL Network actually kind of on the side of Comcast -- saying "Why do you make your channel so expensive for Comcast to offer cheaply?"......a few days later I got a reply from NFL Network they actually said to effect "That's not us. Our product (NFL Network) was offered to comcast as a single channel offering for less than $3 per month...comcast refused to accept it as a single channel offering".

That email was about 2 or 3 years ago now.

So I just thought that was interesting.


Why?
By bubbastrangelove on 2/19/2009 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
I like NFL games as much as the next guy but is there really a need for a 24/7 channel?

Is there really that much news that needs to be covered that I can't find on the internet at my convenience? Or watch games I already know who won?

I gave up my gold cable package a year and half go and never looked back. I now have the basic package which includes a total of 13 channels. Local ABC, NBC, PBS, FOX & CBS and some others I can't think of and never looked back. Costs me around $9 a month and I don't think I'll ever go back.

Netflix and High Speed Internet for the win baby!!!




RE: Why?
By Marlin1975 on 2/19/2009 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Get a HD tuner or a HD TV and get all those channels and some for free.

Thats what I did and get 20 or so channels.


RE: Why?
By The0ne on 2/19/2009 4:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
My apartment prevents from receiving anything resembling a clear picture over air. My only other choice is Time Warner or Satellite, which again I can't get because they can't face the dish in the right direction. I heard they've solve this problem and tried but their bundles are not that great. However, TWC is really horrible due to many aspects.

Both their boxes are have buggy firmware. I've tried several already with similar results. HD slows the crap out of browsing the tv guide and reduces the graphics to SD which is crappy on a large screen. However, on SD channel the menu resolution is crisp O.o and there is no lag. WTF is that about.

Cable signals sometimes get distorted or lose connection from box altogether. The later is the most annoying because it resets itself and you have to wait until the firmware reboots, which is quite long.


RE: Why?
By bubbastrangelove on 2/19/2009 4:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
I shall look into that, thx


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 4:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
FYI all LCD/Plasma TV's made after 2007 have a OTA DTV tuner.
Some TV's actually have a second coax input, some combine it with the normal coax cable input.


Auburn is not part of the NFL
By Cobra Commander on 2/19/2009 3:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Image is humorous but it's college FWIW.




RE: Auburn is not part of the NFL
By justsomeone on 2/19/2009 6:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
As an Alabama fan and alumnus the picture couldn't be any better!


RE: Auburn is not part of the NFL
By 1078feba on 2/19/2009 8:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Had to have been last year, one long season of the Keystone Kops. If you look in the background, you can see Coach Tubs, heh.

New streak starts next year Bama! Look out!

War Eagle!


By bohhad on 2/19/2009 2:06:58 PM , Rating: 4
of course comcast doesn't want the fcc involved, and would prefer to settle with the nfl themselves. comcast knows it's dirty.




NFL ripoff
By omgwtf8888 on 2/19/2009 4:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Sure the NFL wants 70 cents per subscriber, but most of those subscribers add the sports package during football season and drop it right after. Comcast has to bundle other sports to keep people from dropping. NFL can keep its 8 games. With what they charge for tickets and merchandise I hope the depression we are in bankrupts them all. Maybe a humbler less greedy NFL would care more about the fans and less about the egregious profits.




RE: NFL ripoff
By dvinnen on 2/19/2009 6:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
They are giving directTV a monopoly over it by letting them being the only ones to offer it.

Comcast has gone on record as saying they will put NFL network on the Digital or Standard tier if the NFL would allow them to sell it. It doesn't make since for the NFL to get angry of being regulated to the Sports tier when they won't allow them to sell ticket.


NFL?
By strikeback03 on 2/19/2009 3:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is Auburn in the NFL?




NFL is wrong here
By SanityInAz on 2/19/2009 11:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Comcast is intentionally "throttling" here. First of all the NFL network has little appeal,... and in the area they are talking about Versus is much better,.. .Versus carries a lot of pac-10 college games,.. even here in Arizona on DirecTV I watch Versus quite a bit and never touch the NFL network,...

So in Washington, where this is the focal point, the college pac-10 games will be shown more often than a handful of random NFL games,... this is more a power move by the NFL to get the national advertising, the extra revenue from Comcast without having to increase expenditures.

The NFL should look at providing more quality on their channel first of all,.. oh wait,... wasn't having their own channel a way to increase their revenue as well???




The NFL is the monopoly
By overlandpark4me on 2/20/2009 1:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
You can't even say the word Superbowl when you advertise, and they want to whine about Comcast not forcing the NFL on more customers? If I was Comcast, I would make the the network an Al La Carte only choice and charge the going rate. Let's see how many people pay 5 bucks a month to add them to their program guide. The Network will lose viewers without forcing their content in to a package, which is why they are crying. I think the network charges the cable companies about $.70 per subscriber/month, with CNN anbd fox half that. Also, at one point ESPN was near 20 percent of some cable companies rate outlay. Who is screwing who?

By the way Comcast, you suck too, but for different reasons.




blowcast
By rockNrolla247 on 2/20/2009 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
Comcast is absolute GARBAGE in every way, so very very happy I am able to have FiOS. They're customer service is also very d-bagish, not really suprised by this to be honest.




By greylica on 2/19/2009 7:46:36 PM , Rating: 1
I suffered from traffic shape, and finnaly when I got an attourney to solve bottlenecks from Net Virtua, they decided to turn off the traffic shape on my account. Nothing really works like was before, some of my work coleagues still don´t access the enterprise network with VPN. I Still don´t access part of the enterprise outside of Campinas, some of the e-mails dissapear, sometimes when DNS fail, we can´t use other DNSs because they put a firewall between them and Telefonica Internet Service, Embratel is involved in traffic shape too.

The most strange thing is that they call traffic shape with the codename " Profile "

Profile on = you are f***ed, with a thrashed connection, you pay for 4 MBPS and only get 512 KBPS or worst.

Corrupts - Is what they are, corrupts !




Wow
By RjBass on 2/19/09, Rating: 0
"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki