Comcast swaps HD quality for quantity

By Jacqueline Emigh, BetaNews

April 2, 2008, 4:13 PM

To carve out room for more HD channels, Comcast has now made the decision to sacrifice on the side of quality. But will customers, already hesistant to pay extra for HD content packages, accept sub-standard HD?

As described in detail in a blog on the AV Forum's Web site, Comcast recently started to recompress and degrade HD video on some of its systems, with the process going into affect in most Comcast areas by early April.

Satellite-enabled competitors DirecTV and Dish Network have been following a similar procedure, but on their MPEG-2 channels.

More specifically, Comcast is now squeezing three channels instead of two into its 38.8 Mbps QAM.

To give people a better idea of the quality impact of Comcast's video recompression, an AV Forum blogger named "bfdtv" recently reported numeric bitrates obtained on Comcast vs. Verizon's FiOS, also showing the resulting video frames side-by-side for visual comparison.

All of the bitrates turned up lower for Comcast, with deficiencies ranging from 0.7 percent for Comcast's supposed HD delivery of HBO, to 38.5 percent for Discovery Theater.

If Comcast is offering 1080i video to subscribers, but the video is compressed so much that artifacts are produced, this seems to raise the question of whether customers are really getting HD at all.

Meanwhile, as recently reported in BetaNews, 41 percent of TV owners in the US now possess a high definition television, yet only 56 percent of those owners subscribe to an HD programming package, according to a survey by ABI Research.

Add a Comment (32 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 ghammer

posted Apr 24, 2008 - 6:34 PM

Throttle the Internet.
Turn excellent quality video to dreck.
Raise prices.

Yet millions of people still pay each month.

I'll stick with my OTA and DSL thanks.

Score: 0

By JameyZ

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:19 PM

I'll say it once more. Hi-Definition will never take ground because it's way too expensive compared to what the benefits are.

Score: 0

By apexracer

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 10:04 AM

HD is all I watch. You just can't do it on standard cable, they don't have the offereing.

I switched to DirecTV last month. Pretty much every channel I care about has an HD version on DirecTV (not to mention their non-HD streams look almost as good as TW's HD)

and the icing on the cake, my monthly is $30 less than what I was paying with TW.

Once you get hooked on HD, there is no going back.

Score: 0

By lilchina

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 10:46 PM

well thats's better than time warner they have no quantity and have less quality. I would switch to satellite if it wasn't for the tree was blocking my southern view

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 3:07 PM

To carve out room for more HD channels, Comcast has now made the decision to sacrifice on the side of quality.

One would think that possibly considering dropping even 1/10th of the lowest viewed channels might open up some room for more HD channels.

Seriously.

How many channels does ESPN, HBO and Showtime need??

Score: 0

By midfingr

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 12:16 PM

Par for the course as we always knew HD was botched from the beginning by cable companies. So much bandwidth used for ads, infomercials, and so on, it's a wonder the signal is anywhere near high definition.

Score: 0

By scrumbus

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:58 AM

I'll agree that the HD currently from Comcast is marginal at best - and when they do their downgrade of the quality, that will put me over the line and I'd likely drop my HD service.

Too bad anyone can claim it's HD when in fact it's simply a HD signal with any amount of compression they decide they want to impose.

Score: 0

By Lawrence01

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:40 AM

I don't see the point of getting high definition channels from Comcast when they are degraded. A standard DVD puts out alot better quality than this. Just another reason to AVOID Comcast if you can. I'm despising Comcast more and more since they have come to Houston. First they screw with our cable modem and call it a feature with the speed boost, which is just a means to throttle your connection, and now with the television, they degrade your signal.

Score: 0

By forgie

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:15 AM

"Satellite-enabled competitors DirecTV and Dish Network have been following a similar procedure, but on their MPEG-2 channels."

What exactly does this mean? If I ditch Comcast (which I had already been thinking about for other reasons) and go to Dish Network, what are these MPEG-2 channels they speak of?

Score: 0

By apexracer

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 10:09 AM

it will mean nothing to you. It's just the format they use to get the signal to the DirecTV / Dish device.

And I thought DirecTV is using MPEG-4 now?

(btw, I just recently switched and am kicking myself for not doing this a long time ago. Tons of HD, much better DVD box (90 minute live buffer, 50hrs of HD) and unlike years ago, my DirecTV bill is actually $30 less than my TW bill was.)

Score: 0

By seascape

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 10:04 AM

I rarely post on forums, but this one really ticked me off big time and I do not even use comcast [thankfully -- and now completely justified why to avoid crappy decision making providers like comcast]. Someone there needs to get a clue as this has got to be a money making bad choice. Consumers will run screaming complaints to comcast with aweful quality results as demonstrated here after paying for 'High Definition' .. there is nothing high-def about that crappy compression. I'm not opposed to compression [in a perfect world it would not be compressed though and would be my preference not to compress] but I am in the video editing/compression field and know what I'm talking about. You can compress video [even high-def] while making very little visual video and/or audio degradings. I'll give you a good example on the audio side.. we all love MP3's right? That is nothing more than a highly efficient audio compression (and highly compressed too even). Ever played an MP3 at MAX compression? It sounds like crap [like playing it underwater in a noisy room] roughly around 64 bit rate.. now take the same audio and only compress it to 128 bit rate and its on par or better sounding than magnetic cassette tapes.. reduce compression to 192 bit rate and your getting close to CD quality [keep in mind the data size it getting larger too, but not by huge margins].. reduce to 256 bit rate and your into better than CD quality audio but at a somewhat large data size, gets worse on data size from here. My point here is that there is a 'sweet spot' to compression versus quality which is between 128 and 192 bit rates there quality and data size are in good proportion [easy on storage/transmission & sounds very acceptably good]. This is also true of video too [though video impacts data size a lot more than audio]. They just need to: (1) get a better compression algorithm (yes there are good & bad ones out there), and (2) loosen up on the compression ratio as its obviously being overly compressed.

I'll end this post with I will never pay a provider for sub-standard quality. Honestly, with the examples shown here and the marketing of HD 'quality'.. sure looks like a basis for a class action lawsuit too. I would highly recommend comcast to re-evaluate that obviously aweful decision REALLY quick before customers grab their torches & pitch-forks and hunt them down chanting 'give us what we're paying for...'

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:39 AM

Consumers will run screaming complaints to comcast with aweful quality results as demonstrated here after paying for 'High Definition'

The market for true HD is relatively small. Most folks probably won't notice a thing.

This point was brought up in the article linked by the "41%" bit above. (Though I strongly doubt the number itself)

I wouldn't expect the Spanish Inquisition regarding this. (cue MP fans)

I'll end this post with I will never pay a provider for sub-standard quality.

ComCast is betting you are by far in the minority, and I would tend to agree. The average consumer will take whatever you want to sell them without so much as a whimper.

Sad but true...

I would highly recommend comcast to re-evaluate that obviously aweful decision REALLY quick before customers grab their torches & pitch-forks and hunt them down chanting 'give us what we're paying for...'

Someone's seen Shrek a few too many times. :P

Score: 0

By Yarlen

edited Apr 3, 2008 - 10:01 AM

I've started to notice the decrease in HD quality recently in my area. All the HD channels went from looking pretty good to great, to looking okay. You can definitely see artifacts pop-up all over during sporting events and every HD channel is more grainy looking with visible digital crap. God Comcast pisses me off. I'd rather have less at higher quality than more with crap quality. This totally defeats the purpose of HD.

Score: 0

By tscar13

edited Apr 3, 2008 - 1:16 PM

On this it is simple economics. The more customers Comcast adds that sign up at their high charge for HD the more money they make. I can attest to the poor quality of their HD programming as I had bought a true HD and was disappointed in not seeing any difference in the picture quality. This is why I dropped HD from Comcast and I would suggest that everyone and everyone you know drop HD programming from Comcast. the lost in revenue will cause them to change their way of acting.

Score: 0

By Owilliams

edited Apr 3, 2008 - 9:38 AM

For my part, I have little real choice but to keep Comcast Digital Classic service at this point. Comcast is the ONLY broadband access available to me besides satellite, which is unacceptable for gaming. This means I have to at least pay for basic cable, or pay a much higher price for broadband access and watch ONLY OTA on my HDTV.
What it boils down to, for now, is that I am better off to pay $10 per month to keep the HD content and maintain an open eye for real alternatives from competitors.
I have fired off my complaints to Comcast... for all the good it may do.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 9:12 AM

Heh...They're going to 50Mb in my area today.

Fun stuff.

Score: 0

By flake

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 11:26 AM

Yea, great for web browsing... but enjoy the nasty neighborhood of all those comcast IP addys. Pretty usless for running a server. Not that FIOS is much better in this regard.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 3, 2008 - 11:34 AM

???

I don't run a server, as that would violate the ToS of damn near *any* consumer ISP, so why the Hell should I care about that?

Score: 0

By Owilliams

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 6:24 AM

Comcast is compressing as of April '08?
They have been compressing the HD signal here in southwest Michigan for far longer than that.
Even the local "Big 3" network feeds are compressed. (ABC, NBC, CBS)
Watching studio shows like American Idol is aggravating, with the screen image turning into "block-wars" whenever the cameras pan across an audience of clapping people under flashing lights, or when strobes start flashing rapidly on-stage. It looks horrible... as bad as, and even much worse, than the images at AV-Forums.

Score: 0

By mmatheny

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 11:19 AM

Yeah, I notice that in Houston also - I thought it was the PVR doing the compressing - so, is it this way with a direct feed off the cable (bypassing the PVR)?

Score: 0

By Doom316

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 12:57 AM

I swear Comcast never ceases to piss me off.

I for one cannot wait until FiOS is available in my neighborhood. TV, phone and internet...I am there. See ya later Comcast...nice knowing ya you monopolistic pie eaters!

We have an HDTV for VIDEO QUALITY. With 57 inches at our disposal WE WILL NOTICE THE DROP IN QUALITY. Get rid of those crap channels like TV One, Hallmark, Soapnet, Encore 10, Encore 12, Encore 20 (get my point), get rid of the stuff that doesn't get many ratings.

Crap, to be fair get rid of some of those Discovery Channel channels. I think they're taking up enough bandwidth to feed a third world TV nation.

In reality Comcast is just taking the easy road of cutting down quality instead of giving every subscriber a digital converter box at no cost so they they can go 100% digital. That move would really free up some bandwidth but they don't want to cut into their profit margin. Oh no, that would be terrible!

They may very well just have to and by that time I will already be a Verizon customer.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 10:18 PM

Comcast isn't the only one guilty of this. Time Warner Cable is also. When I got my HD box 2 years ago in Houston, I was underwhelmed by the massive artifacting that was going on because they were running HD at such a highly compressed rate that analog tv looked better sometimes, especially on shows that show ocean or lakes...

Score: 0

By melkor

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 9:49 PM

Great, I can hear the DirectTV commercials in my head already.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 9:01 PM

Isn't the point of HD quality? what possible motive would they have for doing this, given the competition?

Are people really clamoring for thousands of channels versus say 100 very nice quality ones?

Score: 0

By rseiler

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 6:21 PM

That 41% number is going to turn out to be false. Perhaps if you lump in all flat-screen TVs of any stripe (and even then it's a stretch), but it's impossible that 41% of households in the U.S. have a true HD-capable set.

Score: 0

By comeoffit

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 5:59 PM

Lame. I'm glad I got FiOS.

Score: 0

By i2k

posted Apr 3, 2008 - 1:56 PM

yes sir. second that comment.

Score: 0

By GhoS

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 5:31 PM

The problem for cable is bandwidth. They are trying to cram so much into that little cable that they just have reached their limit.
I admit it isn't a good thing to be degrading HD though. Personally I think there are far too many channels people don't watch taking up space but for some reason they stay on there. If they could trim the number of channels that would be better than lowering the quality.
Some might object to that, but I think that is a better equation for consumers.
I certainly would go for quality over quantity, I don't watch enough TV to warrant paying more especially if the quality isn't worth it.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Apr 2, 2008 - 5:09 PM

That totally just pissed me off. I've been noticing this recently. And wondering why the quality isn't as good as it was less than a month ago. This explains it. I HATE YOU COMCAST.

Score: 0

By mmatheny

edited Apr 2, 2008 - 4:47 PM

What a D-Head Comcast is! Why would they expect someone to pay extra for HD that ISN'T HD?? Are they smoking crack, or just total idiots?? I wish TimeWarner had never left the Houston area.

Score: 0

By TheNewGuy

edited Apr 2, 2008 - 4:50 PM

mmatheny,

Are they smoking crack, or just total idiots??

It can't be both?

Score: 0

By mmatheny

posted Apr 4, 2008 - 11:15 AM

Sure they can!

Score: 0