518 on TWC???? Yeah Right!

[gparris]

This MPEG-4 technology is amazing. I thought about how new technology would defeat cable at its very best place - HD locals!:)

The fact that some DVRs would be all satellite and no OTA using MPEG-4 for HD locals is really cool.

My hope is that the all the DVRs come out as one unit, HD and SD together, unless these are really cheaper units like the current standard sat boxes are when you get them free with contract.

I sorta figured that with everything, technology improves to where one competitor beats out the other, just as cable now thinks it is the big kid on the block with rental HD DVRs and (for now this minute) more HD channel offerings.

I look forward to Directv offering the Bravo HD+ channel with its possible reconfiguring as a Sci-Fi/USA/Bravo HD+ all-in-one channel, as some news would have us think.
The cable channels of these 3 are really lousy, and if this makes cable add this channel, too, for competitive reasons, I see greater value in the this HD channel in a new configuration.

Then add the Cinemax HD and Starz! HD channels on Directv and see if TWC adds them, too.

My thoughts on this one are they will, at least for some of their regional TWC locations, as these ones have 2 HBO HD and 2 Showtime HD channels (like Directv has now 2 locations) that easily convert to the other 2 HD channels.

TWC should not have to negotiate with them like Directv has because TWC has all the Cinemax and Starz! SD offerings, anyway, just if it WANTS to add them, again to remain competitive.

Heres are the keywords for TWC, just like the Sinclair and Disney problems:
It  takes two (meaning Sinclair and Disney each with TWC) to WANT to negotiate and DON'T it as in they DON'T care.  
If they DON'T care, we won't get Bravo HD+ and/or the Cinemax HD/Starz!HD  channels.

I am waiting, watching my HD channel area of the guide to see if something else appears...after Directv adds the HD channels.:cool:

[gparris]

Now that it appears that Directv is getting its subscribers the Bravo HD+ channel (borghe), maybe TWC will add it to their lineup for the HD package subscribers as it seems to offer something different from the analogue Bravo channel.

If the whole Sinclair mess with TWC holds up for the entire WB and UPN season, at least matching what Directv offers in HD fare would at least quiet the likes of me and maybe a few other HD subscribers out there!;)

Now it is wait and watch the 500's listing on the TV screen and read the Tim C.column which notifies us faster than our forum buddy, mhz40(no offence!):cool:

[warzo]

I sent a note to TWC about adding channel 18's HD feed and got this response:

Thank you for writing to Time Warner Cable regarding your request for WVTV Channel 18 in HDTV format. WVTV Channel 18 has not yet made this programming available to our Time Warner Cable subscribers in Southeastern Wisconsin. We are still working to acquire this channel to our HDTV line up for the near future. Thank you for your suggestion as we continue to provide the best in home entertainment.

Consumer Contact Department
Time Warner Cable

I won't be holding my breath waiting for channel 18 HD but it appears TWC at least knows it's available.

[gparris]

warzo, thank you for writing them and giving us their canned response.

Here is the wording - the depressing wording- they gave you:

"WVTV Channel 18 has not yet made this programming available to our Time Warner Cable subscribers in Southeastern Wisconsin. We are still working to acquire this channel to our HDTV line up for the near future."

This means, despite the efforts by the government to convert everyone to the digital signals, Sinclair is demanding TWC pays for them, even though the cable company, too, had its own equipment outlays to do to make it possible on their end.
Even though signal is now digital and is OTA, it is DOA on the cable system because Sinclair thinks it can get away with what amounts to a "payoff". as I understand it.
Like thugs waiting for a handout-or else. Maybe I can see it from the cable company's perspective, but it doesn't make me feel any better.

Why should the cable company pay for HD and not the analogue signals we DO get?   I am certain this not what the government wanted when they handed companies like Sinclair free spectrum in order to get back the analogue ones.:mad:

[John L]

I'm not sure what makes Sinclair Broadcasting think it is superior, that cable companies should pay the TV station that carries their HD signal.   If they started doing that, then NBC (WTMJ-DT), ABC (WISN-DT), Fox 6 (WITI-DT) and WMVT-DT will feel they also should be paid as well.

It boils down to this, if you pay one station for carrying their HD broadcasts, then you have to pay the others as well.

Its only fair game.

-John L.

[borghe]

again you have to understand that this isn't channel 18 and 24 telling Time Warner Milwaukee to pay up. This is Sinclair Broadcasting Group telling Time Warner Cable in New York that they want ALL of their locations to pay for all of their affiliates.

As to why, well, it's quite simple really. Sinclair is the largest television station owner in the country. Their stations include all of the networks scattered across various markets including dozens(?) of stations in the top 30 DMAs.

Time Warner Cable is the second largest cable provider in the country. It goes to reason that Sinclair will have dozens of high demand stations in market where TWC is the cable provider (usually sole cable provider thanks to deregulation).

HDTV doesn't fall under must carry yet. This means a cable operator can choose to carry whatever local HD channels it decides to and also means a channel can withhold carriage from the cable company. Also before must carry can go into effect I imagine the STAs will have to expire and the stations will have to be at full operating capacity.

So yes, it is definitely easy to point the finger at Sinclair and ask why are they asking for money for carriage. But just to play devil's advocate it could be argued that Sinclair is in fact upgrading many stations that are NOT big four networks in markets that are NOT in the top 30 DMAs with no immediate return on that investment (and most would argue no long term return either). So remember that Sinclair is giving Milwaukee HD Smallville and Enterprise and would like to do that with at least SOME return on profit.

This isn't taking Sinclair's side, just offering another point of view. The bottom line is that BOTH companies need to get it figured out, because arguably TWC is doing it's customers just as much a disservice by not carrying those channels as Sinclair is by making it more difficult for cable perators to get them. I mean what if Sinclair was simply asking 15¢ per HD viewer (not facts, just a wild number from you know where)? Would you think it was so unreasonable of them to ask that?

Two sides to every story and BOTH sides are responsible for you TWC guys possibly not getting Smallville right away.

[gparris]

Quote from borghe:
"Two sides to every story and BOTH sides are responsible for you TWC guys possibly not getting Smallville right away"

Possibly as in think ESPN-HD...like never.:mad:

I will try to wait for reruns (that won't be reruns for me if these are new and in HD for the first time)
for WB and UPN shows on the reconfigured Bravo HD+(when we get it)  or HDNET, even TNT-HD.
I am watching some really beautiful witches on Charmed and a defunct Angel series like it is for the first time, in HD on TNT-HD.
So I can watch crappy TWC analogue awhile longer knowing SBG
screwed, what is it now...23,000 HD cable box customers (?) and didn't care at all. Good for you OTA guys out there.
I wonder by the time Directv does its MPEG-4 thing with the different HD DVRs it will come out with in our 33rd market area, if SBG will still be demanding its dough for HD from Directv.

[AndrewP]

Maybe Sinclair wants to be paid because they know that TWC charges customers for OTA HD, even if it is available free with OTA antenna.

Andrew

[gb4fan92]

Originally posted by AndrewP
Maybe Sinclair wants to be paid because they know that TWC charges customers for OTA HD, even if it is available free with OTA antenna.

Andrew

Actually they do not charge extra for the local stations or Discovery HD. The only extra is for HD tier consisting of INHD 1&2 and HDNET & HDNET MOVIES

[AndrewP]

When I say they charge for local HD I ment:
1. You need some package from TWC in order to get local HD.
2. There is charge for HD box. Standalone HD box will not work with TWC local HD.
3. There is even charge for remote.
4. There are taxes and fees.

So, you can not get local OTA HD from TWC for the minimal price $0.00 available with standalone HD receiver.


Andrew

[borghe]

local channels are not free on cable. This is a common misconception perpetuated since the birth of true cable channels. The thought that cable has created is that you are paying for the cable channels and getting the local channels for free.. But the truth is there is NO way you can get the locals without having to pay cable money.

and AndrewP is 100% correct. I should be able to use my unencrypted QAM tuner to pull in HD channels from my cable modem line, but I can't because they are encrypted.

Locals and HD locals especially are most definitely not free from cable. There is just no way to remove them from the bill like you can with DirecTV or Dish. If they are free, then I would like to get my free locals over cable please.

Not to pick nits, but this is an argument I have enjoyed participating in since cable was running those ads in the early days "We don't charge for locals," or "Our locals are free." Yeah, free with minimum $12 service package. :rolleyes:

[gparris]

borghe and AndrewP :
Yes you are correct that to get locals, the basic service (very basic) charge is around $12 (slightly less where I am at) but you DO get some local access channels you don't get with satellite. also.Some may look down (maybe not you two)  at community access channels, but others, like me, enjoy the local channels (Kenosha ones).

The point here is, outside of an HD box rental and that remote you mentioned at 35 cents, which anyone can get to receive  more than the just the 5 local HD channels (probably the premiums or Digipic 1000), you do NOT pay EXTRA for these 5 HD local channels, so why does Sinclair think I have to pay more if TWC gets charged for them? Its channels aren't so special, IMO.

 As you both know, naturally and eventually, that these extra ransom fees for HD for WB and UPN HD will be somehow become an increase on my billing.

Maybe the FCC should put a decoder fee on your OTA boxes and make you pay for OTA and give that little extra to Sinclair...or haven't they thought about it yet?

[borghe]

we have ended up on two different paths here.

1) local channels from cable are not free

2) is it right for Sinclair to charge for their channel to TWC.

the answer to 1 is an unavoidable yes, no questions asked.

number 2 is a grey area. technically at this point it is within there right to ask for money, just as it's within TWC;s right to not accept that agreement. Eventually it will all be covered under must carry and this topic will be moot.

I am not saying they are right and not trying to rub anything in. This just ended up going on two different paths and I wanted to state my thoughts.

btw. as for public access.. big fan.. it is a shame DirecTV can't carry it, but not enough of a shame to go back to TWC.

[gparris]

The public access channels are in the awful analogue realm, so you are not missing anything as in a decent picture, but I would not expect it to be.

The point is that the HD locals you get at no EXTRA charge so why should I have to (eventually) pay for them because I have subscription to cable service if I want the digital versions of WB and UPN networks?

If I had a cable box and basic cable service and did not have a HD set, I would pay the same amount as if I did have one and get the 5 HD locals I get now; yes I pay for cable, but not any more than before these HD locals were added.
If SBG wants to have my cable company pay for their HD/digital channel, then I my basic service fees would probably go up somewhere along the line and that is not going to happen with TWC.

[AndrewP]

gparris,

It is a very simple math (basic arithmetics skills required).
Supposed someone wants only local channels in HD. What proveder can offer it with minimal price?

Answer: standalone HD receiver - $0.00
              TWC - price is > $0.00.

All these stuff, like they are free with something else means that they are not free. Period.

Andrew