TWC comments on the local channels in HD

[tschinner]

After several tries I finally got a response from TWC.

"I have recently received your email to Time Warner Cable regarding your request for the local channels to be broadcasted in HDTV format.  Unfortunately, this decision is made by the channels themselves by sending Time Warner Cable the signal feed for HD format.  I have not heard any plans in the near future to broadcast these channels in HD format, but have taken your request and forwarded it to our Marketing Department for consideration.  Should you have any further questions or account concerns, please feel free to call our customer service team 24 hours a day at 1-800-627-2288 or you may also write to us via the Time Warner Website.

Thank you for using Time Warner Cable!

Customer Service Lead
Metro Division "

[Tom Snyder]

This raises an intersteing point.

Back when Time Warner was RVS Cablevsion, they had antennae on the roof of the building on HWY 100. They picked up the over the air signal of the local channels and broadcast that over their cable. I'd be curoious to know how they get their signal source now... directly via a cable feed or over the air. It wouldn't suprise me either way, as the picture quality of the locals on Time Warner makes it seem like I'm looking through wax paper. I'm looking at West Wing right now, and it's just awful.

So the question is this: Can Time Warner pick up an OTA digital signal and use that feed for their cable output, or do they really need a direct feed?



[This message has been edited by Tom Snyder (edited 08-14-2002).]

[Kevin Arnold]

Ahhhh for the days of Richard V Stephens, originator of RVS. He was a real technophile who had multiple OTA antennas mounted on Hwy 100 and high up on the tower out in Brookfield on I-94. I haven't looked closely lately but if those antennas are still there they could put Madison or Chicago digitals on the system. I seem to remember that at first they had WGN on the system from a OTA antenna. The issue is probably band width more than anything. DTV takes up too much and would mean they would have to dump one of the many shopping channels or even (gasp) one of the little watched sleepy old movie channels. They probably read Cuprisin and assume there are only a dozen or so of us out here with $20,000 media centers. Even when there is substantial public pressure to do something they move at a glacial pace. After all, what will people do-change to the other cable system? (Never mind satellite) Oh well....

[gparris]

My question would be to the mgrs of channels that carry HD OTA already: NBC digital and CBS digital. We hear replies from them on this website so...why can't they tell us if TWC is telling the truth: Are the affliates of CBS (channel 58) and NBC (channel 4) refusing to give TWC their digital signal? Is there a "carriage request" proceedure that is denied from them. DIRECTV had to get agreements to carry their signals and it took awhile, but not as long as this! Does TWC just aim an antenna at the affiates's towers for analog and send it thru their cable systems for free without permission? I feel TWC is incorrect in saying the currently-transmitting stations are not allowing their HD signals into their cable streams so we can get them. I think it is a deception so they don't have to carry them-yet. Do we really have to have the FCC come down on them and make it a "carry one, carry all" for TWC and other cable systems? Who is telling us stories? The HD affiliates or TWC? I know that TWC's locals are crappy so I use DIRECTV and the difference is like "cleaning the window" vs. the "wax paper". If TWC offered all the DTV broadcast stations on cable, even if it cost more, I would part with DIRECTV tomorrow. When I visit Houston, I can get 5 local HD stations and they come in clearer than DIRECTV - on TWC cable! They also have 2 HBO and 2 Showtime HD channels for a total of 9 HD channels. What happened in Houston that is NOT happening here? Did Houston's local affilates pay TWC for carriage? Did TWC pay have to pay them? Who has an answer? What the heck is going on in Milwaukee? Doesn't TWC want my DIRECTV money?

[oflaherty]

(I should first point out that I'm certainly NOT the manager of WTMJ, I just work in the newsroom and have a long time interest in DTV.)

The FCC digital TV rules are different than the analog TV rules.

Time Warner Cable can not carry WTMJ's digital signal without our permission. But there is also no way for WTMJ to force Time Warner to carry our digital channel.

Congress has given analog stations much more power. Analog stations have a choice:
1) Must Carry – Which forces your local cable company to carry your station, even if the cable system doesn't want to.
2) Retransmission Consent – If the cable system wants to carry your station, you negotiate an agreement. The cable system gets your programming, the station gets money, and/or promotional spots, and/or a favorable channel on the cable system.

Most major stations have negotiated Retransmission Consent agreements for their analog channel. We have done that with Time Warner.  We provide Time Warner with an analog feed directly from our master control switcher. It goes out to Time Warner on a Time Warner Telecom fiber optic cable.

Broadcasters tried to get the same rules for DTV, but the FCC turned us down.  There is no "Must Carry" rule for DTV. So during the transition to DTV there is only one choice for a commercial station's digital channel: Retransmission Consent.

I've heard rumors that there have been some local discussions. But there seems to be a hang up: signal quality... how much more compression should the cable system do to our 19.4 mbps bit stream?

According to the FCC rules for DTV,  "...a cable operator would not necessarily be materially degrading a digital television signal if it carries less than the full 19.4 mbps transmitted by a broadcaster. "

Exactly how much the cable system could lower that bit rate is rather vague. "The (FCC) Report and Order finds that a cable operator may not carry a digital television signal in a lesser format or lower resolution than that afforded to a non-broadcast digital programmer carried on the cable system."

See: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/digital.html  and http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.pdf

The National Association of Broadcasters is not happy with those rules. An NAB press release says, "Broadcasters told the FCC that its application of this requirement to DTV carriage will indeed allow substantial degradation of the digital signal and must be changed on reconsideration."

See: http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/pressrel/releases/3401.htm

I suspect the problem of reaching a definition of how much compression is "materially degrading" to DTV is holding up local progress.  

-----
Sean at TMJ

[gparris]

Thank you for your answer and I know that you are not the station manager. However, you clarify that the Federal Government, in all its glory ( again ) at the FCC, is NOT leveling the playing field for DTV. It wants the tuners but is doing cable and the broadcasters another disfavor. If the analog rules do NOT apply to digital and analog is being turned off soon, what is the reasoning? Digital signals are better and require no degredation or at least to a scientifically-prescribed level, so the FCC should also mandate. Half-baked rulings like this are so typical of govt. thinking...but if digital is to rule by 2006 or 2007 that is not far enough to have such awkward rules.Thank you for answering the question. I forgot how the govt. does things. But as for Houston TWC, I might do some calling around and see why it worked there with all 5 local HD stations in the TWC system  working together so well and NOT Milwaukee....!!

[borghe]

That leads me to wonder exactly what bitrate TWC is passing through for it's existing HDTV channels? Is it passing through 194.Mbps on Sho and HBO?

As for government mandates, yes it would be wonderful for the governemnt to mandate no compressions and must carry laws for digital. Heck it would be wonderful if they mandated consumers to all have to go out and buy STBs and complete the transition by Jan 1 2003.   Unfortunately as much as I "love" TWC, it may not be fair to mandate non-recompression and/or must-carry at this point. If TWC was forced to carry a 19.4 channel for every local, it would be equivalent to tens of digital channels. Consider that each digital channel on TWC is equal to about 3-5Mbps. This means just adding 4, 58, and 10 would be similar to adding 18 digital channels. Being forced to also add 6, 18, 24, 36, and 12 would be equivalent to a total of 48 new digital channels (rough numbers here people..). This is on top of still being forced to carry the analog locals.

Personally I think this is one area the government should step out of. I feel the government has it perfectly right with this. Mandate the digital tuners, then, and here comes the tricky part, inform people. Let them know, "Hey, all of these channels are out here and your cable company isn't going to be carrying them anytime soon. Go grab some rabbit ears and start watching." (or maybe a little more tactful than that.) In the meantime let cable and broadcasters come to an agreement for the people who HAVE to have locals over cable.

This is just rough and I'm on my way out to work, but take hope in that the cutoff for DTV is 85%. With the tuner mandate that number is going to come around a lot quicker now, though quicker than what I don't know. Anyway, when 85% hits, whether cable has negotiated or not, bye bye analog.

[kjnorman]

The whole issue of locals over cable in DTV would be moot if cable providers provided STBs with integrated OTA recievers, or like satelite, allowed third party manufacturers to sell digital cable ready STB (or even better integrated into the TV) that contained OTA ATSC tuners.  

The problem here I think, is that supplying a cable box with OTA capability goes against the core of TWC's mentallity.  That being that they provide you everything that you may ever want to watch.  As for third party boxes, well that all revolves around a digital cable open standard, something that we are suppose to have, but which that cable companies can not conveniently agree upon, allowing them to continue to collect that extra $8 per month for each STB their deliever.

Kerry

[borghe]

Cable does not want you to own your equipment nor get signals from any other source but the coax. Always has been, always will be. The box makes up between 10-15% of your total monthly bill and they make money on broadcasting locals.

The only win-win situation is a dish. The current STBs let you grab OTA (analog and digital), combine them into a single guide. While you pay for the equipment out right, in the long run it ends up being cheaper (eventually) from lower monthly cost. DBS satellite seems to recognize that it may very well be only one broadcast source in your house and has always made some attempt to make it easier to coexist with others. Cable has never done this.

[wxndave]

Originally posted by Tom Snyder:
This raises an intersteing point.

Back when Time Warner was RVS Cablevsion, they had antennae on the roof of the building on HWY 100. They picked up the over the air signal of the local channels and broadcast that over their cable. I'd be curoious to know how they get their signal source now... directly via a cable feed or over the air.


TWC uses the RVS site as one of it head ends.  The other site which is located in Greenfield seems to be the Digital OTA site.  TWC doesn't want to carry anyone that is local unless they have to.  It took CH41 almost 2 years to finally get on cable and they only got a digital assignment.  At this point I think only channel 4 has a fiber connection to TWC for their SD.  Channel 10 & 36 have a fiber connection for their CH 8 and 35. All others are OTA.  

Dave