Cable HD not so high-def, say subscribers

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

April 21, 2008, 3:45 PM

Some cable providers, most notably Comcast, are receiving even more flak over the quality of their high-def programming. The problem has been getting HD signals to fit in the given bandwidth, and now it may be taking a toll on quality.

While it may not be noticeable to the average television viewer's eye, some home theater enthusiasts are saying that Comcast's picture quality is not up to par. Now, recent tests by enthusiasts are backing up those observations with hard evidence.

In a post to the AV Science Forum, Ken Fowler ("bfdtv") found that bitrates for HD channels provided by Comcast were as much as 38% lower than that of Verizon FiOS.

FiOS is generally used as a benchmark as its HD signals are not compressed by Verizon before being sent to customers. The tests were conducted at Fowler's home in Northern Virginia.

"This is an absolute shame. I used to not mind paying Comcast's high prices because their HD quality was so good," Forum member Joseph McKinney wrote in response to Fowler's post. "I have also noticed a significant degradation in HD quality. I will immediately jump ship when FiOS comes to metro Detroit."

While some channels are not as bad -- HBO HD only differed by 0.7% (8.87 to 8.81 Mbps) from Verizon to Comcast, and Food Network by 4.3% (14.32 to 13.73 Mbps), it gets worse from there.

Some of the worst offenders here are the Discovery Network channels: Discovery HD by 35.8%, and HD Theater by 38.5%. Other networks are as equally bad: A&E HD by 28.9%, and Starz HD by 22.2%.

Much of the problem here could be Comcast's need to add more channels to its high definition lineup. It recently began to use new technologies which compress the signal of three HD channels into the same bandwidth of one analog station.

Comcast would not disclose which channels are seeing the new compression technologies, although it said it was constantly working to make sure it was "invisible" to its customers.

Last June, Comcast revealed its goal would be to offer more than 800 digital HD channels by the end of 2008. Analysts at that time were wondering how Comcast would be able to achieve a sudden doubling of its programming slate, speculating that it would provide perhaps only a few shows from some services but count them as complete channels.

The HD enthusiasts' cause was taken up this morning by Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, which has already been nagging Comcast over its practice of throttling P2P users' bandwidth.

Add a Comment (29 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By EINNA

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 2:06 AM

I AM NOT SURE WHAT ALL THESE ABREVIATIONS STAND FOR, 'BFFTV', 'MPBS'. BUT ONE THING FOR SURE, I AM HAVING RECEPTION PROBLEMS AND HAVE BEEN SINCE I UPGRADED TO COMCAST SERVICE LAST YEAR AFTER WE PURCHASE OUR HIGH DEF TV.

FOR THE LAST WEEK I LOSE THE SIGNAL ON CHANNEL 707 (ABC) (FROM SOMETIME IN THE MORNING, NOT SURE BECAUASE I AM AT WORK)UNTIL 7 PM. AND GUESS WHAT, MY FAVORITE SOAP OPERA IS ON 707 AT 2PM! SO I GET HOME AND NO SOAP OPERA! I HAVE RECEPTION IN THE MORNING AND AGAIN IN THE EVENING JUST IN TIME TO WATCH WHEEL OF FORTUNE (WHO CARES)

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY I LOSE RECEPTION ONLY ON THAT CHANNEL AND ONLY FOR PART OF THE DAY? THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS AND WHEN I CALL COMCAST THEY TELL ME TO FILM MY SOAP OPERA ON THE NON HIGH DEF CHANNEL 'JUST IN CASE'! JUST WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 1:35 PM

I personally don't care about HD that much, SD is just fine with me. *yawn*... Someone wake me up when ultra-HD costs as much as SD does today.

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 4:19 PM

cut back on other expensises :-) you can do it!

Score: 0

By Danno

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 1:32 PM

People who subscribe to cable are surprised at this?
They limit the bandwith.. comeon think about that. Your going to get better HD content via sat. Read into these things.

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 1:32 PM

Really there should be way of identifying true HD and compressed HD. As they are selling compressed they should not be able to advertise as HD. In Chicago we just went all antenna (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, WB and so on). It's flawless over all. We then do the Netflix/blockbuster for movies and tv shows on HBO and showtime. So we spend 20 a month for everything, and our HD is perfect.

Score: 0

By Jahmekan

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 12:40 PM

Near HD is good, if Timewarner can get rid of the artifacts and break up in my transmission. I still have yet to find someone to complain to about the crappy service. I am not willing to switch to dish, because it's not that big a deal, but it does pisses me off when I am watching something and have sound or picture drop out. Ok, back to playing WoW.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 9:47 AM

This is why I went DirecTV, Comcast HD was more like highly compressed ED. You can only squeeze so much through an RG6 cable.

Score: 0

By kirilenko

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 6:28 AM

Current HD quality is even worse than SD quality from the '90s lol.

Score: 0

By mdotwills

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 3:45 AM

Lets just say the HD and compression don't mix.

All you flamers, I don't want to hear it. Deal with it.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 12:52 PM

I would re-word that as HD and MPEG-2 compression don't mix, which is what comcast is still using. HD is perfectly fine in VC-1 or AVC H.264. MPEG-2 sux donkey balls for HD.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 12:26 AM

Optimum online's free HD channels (all of them) are great...

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

edited Apr 21, 2008 - 9:59 PM

I gave Time Warner THREE chances to impress. They didn't.

DirecTVs newest gen HD boxes and signals are amazing looking. I am so glad to finally be able to watch HD on virtually every station I watch and with awesome quality.

I watch on a 100" HD DLP projection too, so all flaws are instantly visible.

I even dig their version of OnDemand, sure it's not *quite* OnDemand, but damn close and nice to have. Plus they have way more HD PPV channels...man DTV rocks. (I'm such a wh***)

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 7:40 PM

I know a guy who worked on upscaling for the cable box. It's the same bandwidth they always transmitted just puffed up in your set top box to fill your HD screen.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 7:26 PM

Didn't we get this story last week or so?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 21, 2008 - 11:38 PM

The lead into the story is absolutely correct, but what is more amazing is that this is not already common knowledge.

In addition to a lack of a coherent definition for "HD", other than its not SDTV, the story becomes more amorphous.

The fact is that TV quality was NOT the driver behind HD formats. Audio has driven the HTheater 'revolution' and folks were happy with DVDs prior to the government becoming involved in the forced march to digital television.

Without that externally driven migration the vast majority would have been ecstatic to simply upgrade to a wide aspect TV when their existing TV bit the dust.

Add to that, the fact that most folks who have purchased a new HD set still do not have the capability to display 1080p.

So yes, while all HD is not HD (a definition that is still undefined) - except for a small minority, most are satisfied with simple upconverted DVD formats - even if they are not 1080p!

Bottomline, who cares if you can see Jerry Springer, Oprah and Maury Povich in HD? And who cares if you can see if an NFL running back has shaved or not in the ever present closeup view (despite still never seeing the full field view!)?

A much larger issue is the lack of ala carte programming selections so that one need not pay $!00plus a month for 250 channels of which I only want 5.

The irony is that for those who are whining, it is easier and cheaper to simply get off their butts, become an active consumer, and watch economically priced upscaled DVDs as an alternative to both SD and to absurdly priced BR disks.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 8:58 PM

Too true - in Australia, our free-to-air networks are still undecided about what 'HD' means. One commercial channel believes 576p is HD - ie, just making the signal progressive, not interlaced. The two independent/public stations use 720p as their HD signal. And the last two commericial stations actually use 1080p - although one is at a significantly higher bitrate than the other (typically 20Mb/s).

And pay TV? They don't even have decent HD at all yet. Trust me guys - you ain't got it that bad in the US when it comes to TV. :p

Score: 0

By ir0nw0lf

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 6:23 PM

This issue has been a hot topic for a long time, just with different companies. Dish Network for example has been accused many times of using lower bitrates or using quasi-HD resolutions that don't technically conform to any standard resolution. I guess it was a matter of time before the cable companies would also get railed on over this.

For many HD people, it's *quality* not *quantity* that they want, as well as good content. What good are 100 HD channels if they all look like crap? Would rather have 10 good quality channels with good content.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:19 PM

I've been saying this for about 6 years now. Even before HD the quality on cable systems was horrid.

Score: 0

By shicaca

edited Apr 21, 2008 - 5:11 PM

"Last June, Comcast revealed its goal would be to offer more than 800 digital HD channels by the end of 2008. Analysts at that time were wondering how Comcast would be able to achieve a sudden doubling of its programming slate, speculating that it would provide perhaps only a few shows from some services but count them as complete channels."

Wait. 800 channels?! What?! What the HELL would ANYBODY need 800 channels? Get off your asses and go for a damned run!

I, personally, have used my parents DirecTV and am amazed at all the s*** they have put on there. While there's a channel for each person, ethnicity, etc. that doesn't mean *I* want these channels. I can guarantee 99% of the channels they have are junk and not worthy of 99% of the population to watch. That being said, I can only imagine what CRAP we have in store for us with the $150/mon "HD".

*takes a deep breath* ANYWAYS... what I guess I'm trying to say is, "We don't CARE about 800 channels. What we DO care about is if you can give us the channels we have NOW in HD. You can expand after that's done, k? K."

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 8:28 PM

Like the song goes; "57 channels and nothing on...."

Score: 0

By GhoS

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 6:22 PM

I totally agree. Who cares about 800 channels? There is far too much choice and still not much good on to watch. I get high def channels with my basic cable, sure its only the local channels but still seems hardly worth it to spend so much more money for little return.
They think we are made of money. I can remember when we didn't need cable, but over the air signals are terrible for most people. Even so if I could do without it I would. TV just isn't worth that kind of money.

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:57 PM

I agree with you. I think all providers (cable, sat and FiOS should let you pay for the channels you want. You should get the basic channels, and then you can pick X amount of channels that come with the package you want. For instance if you get the middle end you get 200 channels, if you don't want the shopping networks you can replace them with something you do want. If you don't want the sports channels you can replace them. So instead of saying with this package you get everything with addition of this, it should be you get so many channels, and you get to go online or on your set-top box and pick the ones you want.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:21 PM

Just got back from my run. Now what do I do with myself?

Score: 0

By comeoffit

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:41 PM

Take a shower please.

Score: 0

By Lawrence01

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 4:33 PM

Avoid Comcast at all costs if you can. I have seen and experienced everything here in addition to the throttling of bandwidth if you have the cable modem. They care less and less of their customer experience, and only care for the bottom line, regardless if it makes it inconvenient for the customer.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:43 PM

I think I'm one of the few that had no issues with Comcast when I had them a few months ago in Va. I spent the first few weeks making them get my cable to put through optimal signal - after that it was cake. On-Demand was simply the bomb. HBO/Starz/Cinemax/TMC on demand is honestly like having a blockbuster store in your living room. Granted, they get 'new releases' a few months later than stores, but still, there was never a night we were 'bored'. Back here in FL, sigh...I miss comcast. Not only for fast internet or on-demand, but because here you can barely watch TV when there's heavy rain, sometimes even not heavy, just super cloudy skies and def. no tv when there's a storm, and ironically these tend to be the times you want to sit in and watch some TV.

Ah well. Noone wins until FiOS becomes mainstream I guess.

Score: 0

By yourcat

posted Apr 22, 2008 - 1:42 PM

...And hooray for FiOS.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

edited Apr 21, 2008 - 4:47 PM

Based on purchases of premium brand products (usually followed by surprise about Made in China stamps; followed by... why bother...) over the last 6 months, with over 50% DoA resulting in hassle and additional expense it doesn't sound like Comcast is standing out of the crowd.

Score: 0

By limbeaux

posted Apr 21, 2008 - 5:37 PM

i absolutley hate my comcast experience. unfortunatley there is no other cable competition in my area and am not sure if i can get satellite in my apt complex. I hope to have a better option soon. I just moved to my area and i have to say that comcast is about $40 a month more than what i had in my previous residential location
If you can avoid comcast, please do!! high price low quality picture, poor hardware. about 1 time a week i have to unplug my cablebox to reset it. i called customer service 3 times for the same issue and got 3 different answers.

Score: 0