Why am I stuck with one cable provider in 2006?

[gparris]

Quote:
"I won't make a large investment, until the future of HDTV is assured. I'm mostly only interested in the technical aspects of the technologies that are involved and not an avid television viewer"

Ok then, you have a good time sampling this new-fangled technology, okay?

You might want to examine a thing called DVD, I hear it is pretty cool, too. :wave:

[waterhead]

tencom:
You seem very negative towards HDTV (as it sounds from your last message to me) and reading other forums, those that don't have can be pessimistic.

I disagree, tencom was only stating the facts. It is your perception of the these facts that seems to be negative.

It is a fact, HDTV is not mandated by the FCC. It is purely an option of the broadcaster. There is no guarantee that it will be around in the future.

As an example, let me offer my personal experience:
In the 1970's I puchased an AM/FM Quadraphonic receiver (4-channel). It was GREAT! It decoded 4-channel records and FM broadcasts that were encoded. There were one or two local FM stations broadcasting an encoded signal. Anyone know what happened to it?

The other factor is the enormous cost of HD monitors. At a price of $2000 to $4000 for a decent size screen, it is out of range for most peoples' budgets. And no, I don't have a HD monitor. I believe that you need a screen size of 42" or bigger. The cost of these screens is in the $2000-$4000 range. Way too expensive to justify. When the cost of a 42" screen comes down to the $1000 level, then I'll buy. Until then I'll enjoy the DTV content.

[gparris]

And yet, another gentleman's polite (and ill-informed) response who does not have a HDTV set.
Your cost of HDTVs is ridiculous.
Many in our forum enjoy 34" (or less sized) HDTVs, not 42", but that is YOUR opinion.
As far as cost goes, shop around (please do) and you will find sets 42" and higher under a thousand.
I was just in my local CC and found an CRT RPTV 42" for $609 - floor model.
This more than enough to get started.

HDTV is here to stay and like colour TV, it is an upgrade just like 12" LPs went to CDs and so on.

 HDTV is not a hobby or a fad, it is a part of digital TV.  

I am sorry to hear that your Quadraphonic receiver did not last popularity.
You don't have to take it out on HDTV, however.

Ever hear of Dolby Digital? It has been around for many, many years as a discrete 6-channel surround sound...it is not going away, either.
Recently, it was just enhanced into discrete 7.1 for those with such systems (Dolby TRUE HD) along with DTSHD, etc...enhancements on the same product platform.

[AndrewP]

It is a fact, HDTV is not mandated by the FCC. It is purely an option of the broadcaster. There is no guarantee that it will be around in the future.

 :eek:
Wake up :rofl:

[waterhead]

I am sorry to hear that your Quadraphonic receiver did not last popularity.
You don't have to take it out on HDTV, however.

If tencom's statement (of HDTV having only 4% saturation) is true, it doesn't look like HD is very popular either.

I'm only looking at Plasma screens, I understand that they have the best picture . And yes, I have priced them. I don't just spout off anything that comes to mind!

[AndrewP]

If tencom's statement (of HDTV having only 4% saturation) is true, it doesn't look like HD is very popular either.

HD is very popular on this forum.

I'm only looking at Plasma screens, I understand that they have the best picture .

It is not true. It depends what answer you want to hear and whom you ask. Just don't ask salespersons at BB or CC.
In my opinion the best picture in both size and quality of signal you get from an HD projector. I have Panasonic 500 720p projector (paid $1700 last year) and HD on 106" screen with DD sound is just fantastic. Especialy football HD broadcasts.

[Bluto]

If tencom's statement (of HDTV having only 4% saturation) is true, it doesn't look like HD is very popular either.

Well, it's at least 4% + 1 now, since I'm new to HDTV since January of 2005.  And I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

[tencom]

I just like to add further to this discussion  that in my view the conqress jumped the gun on on mandating DTV they should have waited until the technoligies further advanced and did but won't  be implemended because current standards are now set in stone.
One big advancement came in video compression it is now possible to compress  HDTV  to about  half the data rate as cuirrently used and maintain the same picture quality. this would  allow broadcasters,  to  use the left over  data rate for  several additional SDTV channels by using the MPEG 4 with the H264 codec instead of the MPEG 2 standard that is now used  I believe thit would make everybody happy the Broadcasters could have used this extra bandwidth  for additional revenue and we would still have our HDTV.

[bradsmainsite]

You have to start somewhere, and you have to have deadlines or NOTHING will ever happen!

[TPK]

This year (2006), according to the Consumer Electronics Association, HDTV sales will surpass sales of standard, analog television sets...

... I think the future of HDTV is secure

[kjnorman]

I agree with you regarding electric and gas service.  However, you are wrong regarding telephone service.  I have numerous choices for telephone service.  I don't understand why cable can't be offered in a form similar to telephone service.  I'm guessing that it would require competing cable companies to compensate TWC for use of their hardware.  It just doesn't make sense that we're subject to a monopoly on these services.  It has clearly affected the actions of TWC and their complete dis-incentive to add additional offerings.  I just wish satellite would improve their offerings, as this seems to be the only competition for the cable companies.

I disagree with the electric and gas.  I'm from the UK originally, and gas and electric were deregulated and broken up in the 90's.  I could have a choice if electric or gas companies and yes, the costs came down.  I still had the same pipes and lines coming into the house, everything was the same apart from the cost which was lower.  The theory is, and I guess it works, is that your provide rents or buys time on the pipe or wire coming into your house from the company the owns the infrastructure but they are able to provide savings through efficiencies in administration and purchasing power.  I don't quite know how it all works but it does.

I fail to see why something similar can not happen with Cable.  TWC opens up their cable internet to Earthlink and others (though this has not seen much improvement in cost) so it could also be done with the TV service.

Just my 2 cents worth...

[Gregg Lengling]

I disagree with the electric and gas.  I'm from the UK originally, and gas and electric were deregulated and broken up in the 90's.  I could have a choice if electric or gas companies and yes, the costs came down.  I still had the same pipes and lines coming into the house, everything was the same apart from the cost which was lower.  The theory is, and I guess it works, is that your provide rents or buys time on the pipe or wire coming into your house from the company the owns the infrastructure but they are able to provide savings through efficiencies in administration and purchasing power.  I don't quite know how it all works but it does.

I fail to see why something similar can not happen with Cable.  TWC opens up their cable internet to Earthlink and others (though this has not seen much improvement in cost) so it could also be done with the TV service.

Just my 2 cents worth...

We are getting near that here with Electricity.....the main distribution in Wisconsin is provided by ATC which supplies bulk feeds to all Utility substations and then go to the individual entities local grid.  I'm sure in the future you'll start seeing this type of transport available in all utilities (except for municipally controlled ones). We've had it for years with Telecom, very many different providers being able to supply you with telecom via the local (SBC) wires.

[tencom]

TELCOs SBC  included in most cases installs far more cable pairs then  is necessay to   serve any given, area sometimes more then double then is required  which they can offer to other TELCOs. The trouble with the argument that TWC cable should open there lines to others would not be as easy because with cable has only one pipeline and it's  already near capacity with analogue video channel taking up 6 megahertz of bandwidth with analogue channel line-up running from 54 to 550 megahertz of total
bandwidth  to 750 megahertz with only 33 channels available for digital services and
with HDTV which requires one channel per  2 HDTV streams plus the other video channels that they offer and internet data services it would be diffucult to lease bandwidth to other cable providers without reducing video services like HDTV or cut data rates that would effect video quality. Satellite services  provide them with plenty of competition the latest figures show that the cable pentration rate has fallen 3% in the last 2 years,  in the Milwaukee area eventually cable will learn  to keep there rates in line perhaps not! because cable is much more expensive technolgy then satellite  services.