Comcast finally adding more HD channels

[houstonray]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that on October 23rd, Comcast will change its lineup and add 9 new channels, 8 of them HD.

Natl Geographic HD

USA HD

A&E HD

History Channel HD

HGTV HD

Food Network HD

CNN HD

TBS HD

and

FOX Business Network (non HD)

It's about time....

[Jeebus]

TBS HD went online with the start of the MLS Playoffs. It's been nice to say the least.

[stolitx]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that on October 23rd, Comcast will change its lineup and add 9 new channels, 8 of them HD.

Natl Geographic HD

USA HD

A&E HD

History Channel HD

HGTV HD

Food Network HD

CNN HD

TBS HD

and

FOX Business Network (non HD)

It's about time....

It's the least they could do with the rate increase.

[Serrano]

yeah 8 more HD channels. I cant wait. The channel ive been waiting to go HD is National Geographic.

[stan the man]

The new HD numbers

National Geographic: 283

USA Network: 284

A&E: 285

History Channel: 286

HGTV: 287

Food Network: 288

CNN: 299

Also, some new Spanish-language channels

Cine Mexicano: 500

Once TV Mexico: 501

TeleFormula: 502

Latele Novela: 505

Canel 52MX: 507

SUR Mexico: 508

AYM Sports: 514

On another note, the expanded basic has been changed around. They moved...

...FX to 31 (no surprise given their top-shelf dramas and other shows)

...Golf Channel to 32 (some may be bored with watching 24/7 coverage of golf, but then again with the presence of SHO and especially all the golf aficionados in MonCo (The Woodlands and Conroe, if anyone is confused with my slang terms))

...ABC Family to 48 (no word if it has anything to do with Channel 13, given that last time a Disney network wanted to be moved around (circa 2000) we were left in the dark with no Marvin for a day or two, and sadly he is no longer with us)

...TBS to 51 (apparently with Time Warner out of the picture now, and the Atlanta station that started it all isn't even TBS anymore)

...Court TV to 67 (it will become Tru TV come New Year's)

...Spike TV to 68 (apparently Comcast is on the rocks with Sumner Redstone & Co. (he's the owner of Viacom and CBS))

...MSNBC carrying the rear at 80 (that is where TV Guide Channel was, so instead of an archaic channel guide, we now hear about the Worst Person in the World nightly)

Finally, to top this post off: I'm surprised Fox Business Network (Channel 234) didn't get a lower channel number (lower than 99 for instance), but I guarantee you if Rupert has his way...and his wish, it will eventually fall down to the lower-tier. Of course, with all the talk radio fans around town, Dan Patrick might as well petition for a lower number.

[memebag]

Finally, to top this post off: I'm surprised Fox Business Network (Channel 234) didn't get a lower channel number (lower than 99 for instance), but I guarantee you if Rupert has his way...and his wish, it will eventually fall down to the lower-tier. Of course, with all the talk radio fans around town, Dan Patrick might as well petition for a lower number.

I'm pretty sure 99 is the split between analog and digital. TW was trying to move all their channels to digital to free up bandwidth. I'm sure Comcast is doing the same thing.

Do folks think a lower number is a better number for some reason?

[stan the man]

I'm pretty sure 99 is the split between analog and digital. TW was trying to move all their channels to digital to free up bandwidth. I'm sure Comcast is doing the same thing.

Do folks think a lower number is a better number for some reason?

A lower number is not necessarily better, but you never know with some rabid Fox News fanatics who now want to argue that CNBC has a "liberal bias" and is more deserving of a higher channel number than Fox Business. We'll see when the ratings roll out, but as time goes by, all cable will go digital with the aim of warding off satellite competitors that claim to have a better picture than cable without boasting the fact that satellite drowns out in the rain.

[gwilson]

DirecTV recently made me very happy by adding 50+ HD channels last month and there are supposed to be 15 more this month with more than 100 by the end of the year.

The Smithsonian Channel HD is now one of my favs. The Discovery channels in HD are awesome as well. Build it Bigger is by far one of my favorite shows, and getting it in HD makes me very happy. It stresses me out a bit though. It can be stressful enough building big houses, and watching these guys build things like the Burj Dubai or a baseball field or a football stadium. It is exciting though.

[editor]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that on October 23rd, Comcast will change its lineup and add 9 new channels, 8 of them HD.Natl Geographic HDUSA HDA&E HDHistory Channel HDHGTV HDFood Network HDCNN HDTBS HDand FOX Business Network (non HD)It's about time....

We have FoodHD on Comcast here. It's nice because it shows different programs than the regular Food Channel. I especially enjoy Alton Brown's Good Eats. I used to find him annoying, but more and more I notice that he at least puts a lot of work into the production of his show. I think I read somewhere that he used to be a TV (news?) cameraman. and that's why his shows are so much more visually creative.

TBS HD is worthless. Nothing is actually in HD -- it's just the regular old prorgams stretched out.

I can't comment on any of the other channels you list because Comcast doesn't carry them here.

This is all Comcast gives me in HD:

ESPN HD

MOJO

Comcast SportsNet HDTV

TNT in HD

Discovery HD Theater

FoodHD

HGTVHD

For $14.95/month, which includes an HD DVR, but still I think I should get more than seven HD channels.

I'm pretty sure 99 is the split between analog and digital. TW was trying to move all their channels to digital to free up bandwidth. I'm sure Comcast is doing the same thing.Do folks think a lower number is a better number for some reason?

With all other factors being equal, channels with a lower number tend to get better ratings. This is true both with cable/satellite and with over-the-air broadcasts (above channel 3 -- 2 and 3 have their own problems). It's just something that happens.

Many stations will pay extra for a lower channel number on cable/satellite, or to have the same channel number on multiple cable systems across the country.

[memebag]

With all other factors being equal, channels with a lower number tend to get better ratings. This is true both with cable/satellite and with over-the-air broadcasts (above channel 3 -- 2 and 3 have their own problems). It's just something that happens.

I find that hard to believe. Do you know where one could find statistics on that?

On Comcast here, the low numbers are filled with wretched, analog local stuff. All of the HD is above 300.

And I have no idea of the number used for different channels I watch. I just flip through my favorites when looking at the schedule to set up recordings, and then watch stuff from the DVR. I couldn't tell you what number History Channel is on, for instance.

[editor]

I find that hard to believe. Do you know where one could find statistics on that?

It shows up in standard TV research.

On Comcast here, the low numbers are filled with wretched, analog local stuff. All of the HD is above 300.

Yeah, it's a cesspool on the low channels here, too. Our HD stuff is in the 190's. But loading crap into the lower tier is a standard Comcast tactic whether you're on analog or digital (strictly speaking, we have no analog cable on Comcast here. Comcast pulled the plug and went all digital back in July).

Federal regulations require cable companies to carry local TV channels on the same channel as their broadcast or as close as technically possible, if that's what the local channel wants. If it's not possible for technical reasons the local TV channel gets to choose where it wants to be. Usually it's within one or two channels of its broadcast location (11 might end up on 10), but sometimes the locals put in odd requests thinking they'll be more memorable for the viewers (I know a channel 2 that requested to be on 22). To make things even muddier, the regulations also give the local stations preferences of lower channel numbers on large cable systems, which is why you'll often see a gaggle of high number UHF Spanish-language and LPTV stations filling the gaps below 13.

Now, here's where it gets even messier.

Municipalities that have public access channels sometimes place regulations on the cable companies requiring them to carry the crappy public access channels on lower channel numbers so that people with old TVs and no cable box can see them (basic basic users).

But Comcast doesn't have a financial interest in people having the most basic cable package. But all the lower channels are filled with the broadcast TV stations (which still beat the ratings of cable stations by an order of magnitude or more) which is enough for most people. So they're content to pay very little a month for just the very basics. So Comcast loads up the lower channels where it can with garbage that nobody wants to see in order to encourage them to upgrade to the next tier of channels, thus extracting more money from the customer who would have been otherwise happy with paying less for the basics. Essentially, Comcast fills the lower end with as many annoying channels as it can in order to make the customer think he can improve the quality of programming (by adding USA, TBS, etc..) for just a few dollars more. The cable company gets more money, the cable channel gets more viewers (and thus more money) and everyone gets more money except the viewer who now has pretty much what he should have had before, but now is paying more for it.

That's one of the many reasons why cable companies are fighting a la carte cable selection laws.

Oh, and then there's this little tidbit: The cable companies get a kickback (5-10%) from every purchase made on a home shopping channel. Now you know why they get cherry placement and a crapload of ads and coupons in your cable bill.

Does it have to be this way? No. I've lived in a few places where the cable companies were smaller or independent and offered excellent channel lineups for great value. Typically these had the regular English broadcast networks, plus TBS, WGN, Weather Channel, E!, and a few others in channels 2-13 for about 20 bucks a month, including taxes. They then offered all the other stuff for people who felt like paying more, rather than annoying their customers into wanting more channels in order to drown out the drek.

Interestingly, these cable systems typically had HBO on channel 3. In fact, most cable companies did that in the early days because lower channel numbers on analog cable mean a better quality picture. The best thing that ever happened to cable companies was the switch to digital so they could put HBO and the other channels that customers will complain about if they're not perfect on whatever channel the cable company wants because the cable company knows that the people who are interested in these channels are not casual viewers and will hunt for them.

And I have no idea of the number used for different channels I watch. I just flip through my favorites when looking at the schedule to set up recordings, and then watch stuff from the DVR. I couldn't tell you what number History Channel is on, for instance.

That's good for you. You're what the industry calls a "leader." You're moving away from the channel number paradigm that the cable companies have hated for so long. They'd rather you flip and flip and flip because it builds the perception that the cable company is giving you more than you're actually getting.

What works against the cable companies are "trailers" who still associate NBC=2, ABC=13, etc... But the TV companies have the research and they know that psychologically it's easier to reach their audiences with a channel number than a name. That's why most TV stations have dropped their old branding for channel number-based branding (Local2, 11News, ABC13). To be fair, it was actually the radio stations that did the preliminary research on this and why the radio stations became Rock101, 700WLW, 92Q, Z100, etc... back in the 80's.

That association between channel number and brand is so strong in the viewers that the broadcasters made sure that HDTVs understand "virtual channel numbers" over the air. When you watch KHOU-DT your HDTV tells you you're watching channel 11-1. But you're not. You're actually watching 31-1. When your TV tells you you're watching 13-1, you're actually watching 32-1. KPRC-DT isn't channel 2, it's 35. KUHT-DT is 9, not 8. The TV companies have spent billions over the years getting you to associate "ABC shows"=13, or even better (in their eyes) "news"=13, "Matlock"=39, etc... They don't want to waste all that time, money, and effort and start over.

Sure, the minds of the next generation are going to see less difference between KTRK and HGTV, and your viewing patterns are evidence of that. But channel numbers are still very powerful. If not, then Time Warner wouldn't have put its 24-hour local news program in it flagship market on channel 1. Comcast wouldn't have put its massive revenue-making On Demand machine on channel 1. And I don't know if you have it down there, but Comcast up here reserves Channel 100 for its own purposes (the so-called CN100 channel).

I'm kind of inbetween. I know where my habitual channels are. For instance, when I wake up each day I like to turn on the Noon news, which I know is on channel 192. But if I want to see what's on Food Channel I have to scroll through the on-screen guide.

I think we'll all be long dead before channel numbers are.

[stan the man]

But Comcast doesn't have a financial interest in people having the most basic cable package. But all the lower channels are filled with the broadcast TV stations (which still beat the ratings of cable stations by an order of magnitude or more) which is enough for most people. So they're content to pay very little a month for just the very basics. So Comcast loads up the lower channels where it can with garbage that nobody wants to see in order to encourage them to upgrade to the next tier of channels, thus extracting more money from the customer who would have been otherwise happy with paying less for the basics. Essentially, Comcast fills the lower end with as many annoying channels as it can in order to make the customer think he can improve the quality of programming (by adding USA, TBS, etc..) for just a few dollars more. The cable company gets more money, the cable channel gets more viewers (and thus more money) and everyone gets more money except the viewer who now has pretty much what he should have had before, but now is paying more for it.

That's one of the many reasons why cable companies are fighting a la carte cable selection laws.

Oh, and then there's this little tidbit: The cable companies get a kickback (5-10%) from every purchase made on a home shopping channel. Now you know why they get cherry placement and a crapload of ads and coupons in your cable bill.

I always block these channels out. I guarantee you when a la carte comes, these shopping channels won't survive. But are cable companies also opposing cable choice because they don't want to risk losing popular channels because of pressure from programmers and cable networks?

Interestingly, these cable systems typically had HBO on channel 3. In fact, most cable companies did that in the early days because lower channel numbers on analog cable mean a better quality picture. The best thing that ever happened to cable companies was the switch to digital so they could put HBO and the other channels that customers will complain about if they're not perfect on whatever channel the cable company wants because the cable company knows that the people who are interested in these channels are not casual viewers and will hunt for them.

I do recall back in the early 90s, there were many premium channels in the lower numbers...in Sugar Land circa 1992, if I am not mistaken, Cinemax was on 1, The Movie Channel was 4, and HBO was probably 5 (I am not sure where Showtime was, probably either just before 11 and after 8 or after 13 and before the PPV channels). This was, of course when multiple cable providers shared the market then instead of one dominant provider (and a few smaller fringe competitors in newer neighborhoods and apartment complexes) nowadays. When the systems expanded a couple of years later as SL grew, the premium channels were moved up to higher numbers.

I also recall when Warner ran the show here, you often saw those blue screens with service information in English and Spanish with yellow Chyron text, and also when sporting events blacked out. I would have to assume their Chyron system dated back to the 70s when it was Warner Amex and the system was called QUBE, because I recently saw a couple of videos on YouTube previewing the original QUBE system in Columbus, Ohio, and the background was blue with yellow Chyron text.

In contrast, with TCI (which served SL and a couple of other suburban areas in the mid-to-late 90s), the screens were either black or gray with white Chyron. I would expect Comcast to have a different kind of blackout screen by now with a picture quality rivaling the local forecasts on the Weather Channel or at least pull off an ESPN during blackouts (i.e. inserting ESPNEWS in place of ESPN when the Astros are on both ESPN and FSN).

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if a cable TV history thread popped up somewhere on the Media section of this forum.

[editor]

I always block these channels out. I guarantee you when a la carte comes, these shopping channels won't survive. But are cable companies also opposing cable choice because they don't want to risk losing popular channels because of pressure from programmers and cable networks?

You're right -- the cable companies are under tremendous pressure from the cable stations and lots of deals have been made over the years that are not necessarily for the benefit of the customer. For example, if you hate paying for Disney children's channels that you don't watch, blame KTRK and Disney.

I'm not really sure how all that will shake out if we get to choose our channels. For the cable companies you'd think it would be easier for them to decide which channels to keep -- just the ones people want to pay for. And I wonder if a la carte becomes mandated by law if that will free the cable systems from the bundling deals they've worked out (willingly or not) over the years.

And then there's the problem of the cable companies also being content providers. Comcast is a perfect example of this. It owns a bunch of cable stations, including E!, AZN, Comcast SportsNet, Style, G4, the Golf Channel, and more. And it's in Comcast's interest for these channels to be in front of as many eyes as possible. So does Comcast offer them to customers for free? And if it does, will that violate some kind of policy since the other channels can't get on for free? Or maybe the cable companies will have to let everyone on who wants to be free. Then we're back to the home shopping mess we're in today.

[MidtownCoog]

Comcast is about the get the boot out of my house. It's time for U-Verse.

[stolitx]

Comcast is about the get the boot out of my house. It's time for U-Verse.

Me too once it's in my 'hood.

[editor]

Me too once it's in my 'hood.

It's supposed to be coming here, too. Does anyone have a link to channel lineups?

[ricco67]

U-Verse? That's a new one for me. I was thinking about getting ATT Cable.

On a side note: I just got my HD TIVO so I don't need no stinkin' Comcast box!

[gwilson]

if FiOS was available here, I'd give U-Verse a shot if they had the features I require.

I have multiple HD tvs all of which require DVRs with dual tuners.

There are four TVs in my house with a total of seven tuners (four of which are HD on DVRs, two are SD on a DVR and one is all by its lonesome).

Every other services DVRs could not record two HD programs at a time per TV. That simply won't do.

[jm1fd]

if FiOS was available here, I'd give U-Verse a shot if they had the features I require.

I have multiple HD tvs all of which require DVRs with dual tuners.

There are four TVs in my house with a total of seven tuners (four of which are HD on DVRs, two are SD on a DVR and one is all by its lonesome).

Every other services DVRs could not record two HD programs at a time per TV. That simply won't do.

Well...supposedly the next revision of UVerse will let you record 2 HD streams at once...it is also supposed to allow you to share all your recordings amongst all your boxes. Don't know when it will be out....haven't been keeping up with UVerse lately since it isn't available in my area yet.

[MidtownCoog]

U-Verse is a bit hard to figure out, but I am working on it. Their Web site does not help things much.

https://uverse1.att.com/un/launchAMSSNotAut...categoryId=WEB1

One thing, they might get set back by the courts in some states who see them as a cable company. That's bad, becuase then they'd have to provide service even in areas where they know they won't make a profit.

Channel Guide: https://uverse1.att.com/un/loadSelectOfferA...p;FORMAT=IFRAME

[MidtownCoog]

How timely:

AT&T's U-verse service hit with nationwide outage

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...se.15de5c6.html

[gwilson]

Well...supposedly the next revision of UVerse will let you record 2 HD streams at once...it is also supposed to allow you to share all your recordings amongst all your boxes. Don't know when it will be out....haven't been keeping up with UVerse lately since it isn't available in my area yet.

2 HD sources per TV or for the house total?

I have 4 HD sources, most of them recording through 7-10 monday-friday.

[editor]

It's my understanding that Uverse doesn't necessarily have to be fiber. It can run on the old copper lines. The difference is that instead of having all of the channels beamed into your home at once all the time on different frequencies like cable, you get a sort of virtual cable box at AT&T's head end so technically when you're pushing buttons on the remote in your living room, the channels are changing at AT&T so they only have to send the one or two channels you're actually watching at the time, which is how they're able to squeeze them into copper.

AT&T just won legislative approval to kick Comcast's butt provide Uverse service in Illinois, and I don't think they plan to run fiber to places where they already have copper. I could be all wrong about this, though. I haven't really looked into it because AT&T only just got the green light.

[SamHouston]

It's my understanding that Uverse doesn't necessarily have to be fiber. It can run on the old copper lines.

Yeah, IIRC, they're running fiber to neighborhood "nodes" and then copper the last quarter mile or so. I think you have to be within 3000' of one of the switches for now.

Wikipedia on it: link

[stan the man]

I should mention there was a bill in Congress last year that was introduced by Rep. Joe Barton of Ennis called the COPE Act which dealt with telecom reform. This bill's key Democrat backer, Bobby Rush of Chicago supported it and stated "why build out when you can build up" because of his constituents which pay a modest amount for too little programming, which won't really matter once cable choice rolls out courtesy of Democrats from penny-pinching districts like his and the Religious Right which claim that TV poisons their children. Even the queen of C-SPAN's House coverage (Sheila Jackson Lee) backed it because of provisions supporting cable franchises for women and minorities. This bill supposedly never made it out of a do-nothing GOP-led Congress that is now nothing compared to the one Nancy Pelosi leads now. (11% approval rating I'm told, soon to be 0%)

[sifuwong]

Screw Comcast, i'm switching to DirectTV. Cheaper and more HD stations!!!

[editor]

I should mention there was a bill in Congress last year that was introduced by Rep. Joe Barton of Ennis called the COPE Act which dealt with telecom reform. This bill's key Democrat backer, Bobby Rush of Chicago supported it and stated "why build out when you can build up" because of his constituents which pay a modest amount for too little programming, which won't really matter once cable choice rolls out courtesy of Democrats from penny-pinching districts like his and the Religious Right which claim that TV poisons their children. Even the queen of C-SPAN's House coverage (Sheila Jackson Lee) backed it because of provisions supporting cable franchises for women and minorities. This bill supposedly never made it out of a do-nothing GOP-led Congress that is now nothing compared to the one Nancy Pelosi leads now. (11% approval rating I'm told, soon to be 0%)

More facts. Less hyperbole.

Yeah, IIRC, they're running fiber to neighborhood "nodes" and then copper the last quarter mile or so. I think you have to be within 3000' of one of the switches for now.Wikipedia on it: link

Great link. And also very interesting that the residential gateways are those "2Wire" boxes. Every time I check my wifi connection no matter where I am I always see a brazillion 2Wire nodes. If these are all video-capable then Comcast has a lot to worry about since all those people will probably have to do is unplug the coax from their cable connection and plug it into the 2Wire box to make the switch.

My apartment is wired with eight pairs of independent phone lines. It would be cool if I could somehow hook them all up. Now if only I had eight TVs.

[memebag]

Screw Comcast, i'm switching to DirectTV. Cheaper and more HD stations!!!

It isn't cheaper if you want HD DVR. And their digital compression is much more aggressive.

[editor]

It isn't cheaper if you want HD DVR. And their digital compression is much more aggressive.

Hopefully not worse than Dish. I had that for a while. Compression levels were Suck (for movie channels), Suckier (for normal channels like HGTV and Discovery) and Suckiest (for local channels).

I found a channel lineup on the AT&T web site. This is for the ultimate package:

http://www.att.com/gen/sites/iptv?pid=8693

That includes about 320 TV channels plus high-speed internet for $114/month.

Other packages go down to $59/month.

Channels AT&T has that Comcast doesn't (in my market) that I care about: CNNi, ABC News Now, Fox Business, Sleuth, Biography, Military, Military History.

I can't believe AT&T only has FOUR shopping channels!

Looks like 37 HD channels for an additional $10/month. Better than the $14.95 I'm paying for 7.

For another $10/month you can watch 37 channels on your laptop wherever you are.

[editor]

Too bad AT&T's web site is so stupid. In order to "Check Availability" you have to already have the service and an account to log in to the web site. Duh!

And then you you click the links to E-mail support, all it does is show you a screen with a bunch of phone numbers. You can't e-mail support, even though AT&T states that's the best way to get help. Double duh.

So if you wanted to order AT&T Uverse service -- you can't. Because you have to already have an account in order to open an account.