SDV Issues Today - Multiople Channels

[Danno321]

SDV doesn't have a set amount of bandwidth it frees up.  If Every SDV channel is being watched by someone in your neighborhood/node, then it's using a lot.  But, if only a handful of unique SDV channels are being watched in your neighborhood, then there is plenty of bandwidth.

SDV in my mind is more of a band aid to the bandwidth issues cable has currently.  Eliminating analog channels will free up a lot more space, and we won't have to worry about random channels not working from time to time.

When SDV is enabled the channels below 100 are still not switched?  Why is that?  All TWC subscribers should be required to have SDV STB's by now.  How does Uverse do it?

[kevbeck122]

Most channels below 100 are still analog, so they can't be switched.  TWC needs to support analog TVs until at least 2012.  The Wisconsin division as well as many others have chosen to keep the analog channels rather than provide people with boxes and switch everything to digital.

Uverse is a completely different broadcast method.  You have a dedicated data stream that can hold up to 4 channels.  Only the channels you are watching are being sent to you, whereas TWC broadcasts almost all of the channels to your home.  I'd say only 25% of the channels on TWC are SDV.

[Danno321]

I know Uverse is switched to the home node.  But they are pushing massive data over those POTS lines (plain old 'copper' telephone system lines).  I thought the TWC idea was to blast channels over fiber optic to neighborhood node and then have the STB box pull the channel from the caching server over the SDV protocol.  So even if they still needed to blast 1-99 from the neighborhood node, there should be bandwidth for the SDV boxes watching > 100 and mostly HD channels as TWC would not be blasting channels > 100 on the common bus.  I still think TWC has a lot of work to do because the implementation is troublesome.  Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

[nick3092]

I know Uverse is switched to the home node.  But they are pushing massive data over those POTS lines (plain old 'copper' telephone system lines).  I thought the TWC idea was to blast channels over fiber optic to neighborhood node and then have the STB box pull the channel from the caching server over the SDV protocol.  So even if they still needed to blast 1-99 from the neighborhood node, there should be bandwidth for the SDV boxes watching > 100 and mostly HD channels as TWC would not be blasting channels > 100 on the common bus.  I still think TWC has a lot of work to do because the implementation is troublesome.  Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Channels above 100 are being blasted as well.  Only 15 or so of the HD channels are on SDV.  Well, and technically the on demand stuff in a way is switched too.

[JeffreyC2007]

A couple of Comcast markets around the country have decided to go all digital and issue their customers converter boxes...And while they are freeing up bandwidth in preparation for more HD services and DOSCIS 3.0, they are incurring huge losses by doing this....And while sdv is by no means cheap it is the cheaper route vs going all digital.

With the economy the way it is now I think they are afraid to take risks....Will going all digital lure customers back to TWC? maybe...Will the advertising of 150 hd channels tempt customers to come back to TWC? maybe... But I honestly don't think the main problem with TWC is quantity or technology issues...its customer service and costs in comparison to other companies (verizon/directv/uverse/dish)...and twc knows this.  I don't think we are at the point where the majority of the nation values more hd and 50mb internet over superior customer service and lower bills.

...TWC going all digital is still a ways off.