rise

I'm unclear about the advantages and disadvantages of Cable vs Satellite TV, any help would be appreciated

Cable (comcast)-

pros:
on-demand
changing channels is quick(er than sat?)
cost seems to be lower
house is already prewired from outside

cons:
lack of HD-channels?
lack of international channels



Satellite (directv)-

pros:
a better HD DVR?
more HD content (is this true?)
better DVR functionality than the comcast DVR
international channels (occasionally I want to be able to order Chinese TV for my parents)

cons:
seems to be higher cost
from what I remember, changing channels may take longer
weather can impact service
I heard the HD signals may not be "true" HD; lower res than the comcast
Sat installation

Anyone care to share their opinion and feelings about this? Please correct me if I have any misconceptions about this. I plan on mainly watching HD content, which is why I also care about having an HD DVR.

csmeance

WHat i would do is for the HD AMerican Prgraming get the comcast and just get the chinese disk for the parents. That is what I have done, but I have a Time Warner/Brighthouse/Cox dela that gives me phone, HD DVR and High speed for 180 a month and then 55 for Indian channels from dish networks.

gatrhumpy

iTrader: (1)

Go with Cable!

IlliNorge

Boo!

I have DirecTV with the H20 HD DVR. The channel delay is something you forget about in a week. The weather issue is way overrated. The signal only drops during heavy storms and then for only a few minutes at most. If your house is wired for cable, it is ready for dish on the interior. Comcast in Illinois is brutal for service. The channel lineup for US programs is about the same for a slightly cheaper price if you have cable. UNLESS you watch the NFL, NCAA, or MLB, in which you need the dish to get all the games.

Install is usually free, you need a clear view of the SW sky to mount the dish.

SD programming is compressed on DirecTV, HD is true HD, your TV will determine the resolution you see. The only completely uncompressed HD signal is over the air with an antenna.

AMGala

iTrader: (4)

x2

We have Comcast for our cable and Dish Network for our South Asian programming.

2001AudiS4

Keep in mind that you have to have a satellite box for every tv. With cable you can hook up as many tv's as you'd like (as long as your signal is high enough) without the need of a box.

Lister00169

Hmm, I thought you need a box for every TV if you have digital cable. What you said is true for standard, to extended basic channels. If you want High Def, or premium channels, then they give you a digital cable box for each TV.

Dish Network offers boxes that have 2 tuners in them, so you can hook up two TVs to one box.

rise

Since my house is already pre-wired for Cable, all that needs to be done is have a line going from the dish to my main splitter, right?

RE: DirecTV not being true HD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directv...ion_.28HDTV.29
I'm considering doing both cable and satellite (for the international); but it's pretty damn pricey! I didn't see an option to do ONLY the international channels - it seems I would HAVE to have a standard package, family package $30 + jadetv (chinese) $36 = $66 a month, pretty pricey!

doopstr

FIOS FTW

bent09

iTrader: (1)

Direct TV is alright.

The NFL package is the only reason why I have it.

65 Fury Convert

I agree the weather issue is way overrated. When I had Dish Network my line of site was pretty narrow through 2 trees and it only went out for 5 minutes once during a monsoon of a rainstorm. Also, satellite is cheaper than cable - sure was when I had it.

This is true but not a big enough concern to make a buying decision off of.

BS - and as a side note, cable TV is fiber from their head end to an area closer to your home. From there it is a coax trunk and feeder system using analog signals. Good system but comparible to SATV.

Correct - you get all the analog channels. But the satellite companies counter this by offering packages with multiple receivers for free.,

The best you can get - but not available to everyone

SiGGy

Cable is going to be VERY outdated soon unless they make some major changes quickly.

DirecTV is in the mists of launching new satellites (some already launched) which will give them capacity for 1200+ HD channels.

Just be sure you buy a new generation MPEG-4 receiver for DirecTV don't buy old hardware it's going to be useless when they shutoff the old satellites in the next few years. Plus you will not get any of the new HD channels as DirecTV adds them.

SiGGy

TRUE! They do drop the resolution and bitrate, the reply above me by "65 Fury Convert" is incorrect.

DirecTV for years has reduced the resolution of HD material to fit in the bandwidth they have alloted. It has continued to get worse as they add more HD channels. Timewarner and Comcast do not reduce the resolution as DirecTV has.

1080i video 1920x1080 gets reduced to 1280x1080i.

Checkout some shots of how it has gotten worse over time as they continue to lower the bitrates on the channels to squeeze more in...
http://www.widemovies.com/directvcomp.html

If you're a geek here's a bitrate chart to show you how shitty it is...
http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html



Now, will this go away with their new MPEG-4 satellites and boxes? ... unknown at this time

Tuetatesu

what he said ^

I think Direct TV is the way to go. Cable is going to have capacity issues which leads to image quality though compression and decompression of video.

Also fyi...

Future HD channels offered by DirecTV by end of 2007.

A&E
Animal Planet
Bravo
Big Ten Network
Cartoon Network
Chiller
CNBC
CNN
Discovery Channel simulcast
ESPNews HD
Food Network
FX
HGTV
MTV
National Geographic HD (Only available for a SNEAK Peak; NGCH is not available 24/7)
NFL Network
Nickelodeon/Nick At Nite/Nick Jr
Sci Fi Channel
Speed Channel
Starz Comedy
Starz E/W feeds
Starz Edge
Starz Kids & Family
TBS
The History Channel
The Movie Channel
The Science Channel
The Tennis Channel
The Weather Channel
TLC
USA Network
Versus HD

Scrib

Link?

Tuetatesu

Here are several links...

Direct TV...
DIRECTV To Offer 100 National HD Channels in 2007

DIRECTV Adds New HD Channels for Fall

And even Wikipedia...

See "High-definition television (HDTV)" Section for added channels in 2007

Keep in mind to get these you need the new HD receiver such as the H20 and a 5-LNB Ka/Ku dish.

SiGGy

Nope...

While cable is still using the old MPEG-2 video codec, it has a few tricks up it's sleeve you'll be seeing soon.



1st ALL analog channels on cable *WILL* go away in the next 2-3 years, giving them a CRAP load of bandwidth

2nd Switched Digital Video (SDV) gives the cable companies a TON more bandwidth on top of the analog channels going away
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/05...eir-markets-i/

And in the future cable will switch to an MPEG-4 codec like DirecTV is moving too or an IPTV system. Which will make Satellite look like a toy.

AT&T is just now launching their IPTV system called U-verse. While it's very new and has some growing pains. It will be an excellent service once they get all the kinks out...

Ohh, and umm IPTV systems have no limit of the # of HD channels they can have... And you can record as many shows as you have bandwidth for. Currently with U-verse you can record 4 SDTV shows at the same time.

So Satellite TV will have an advantage for maybe 9-18 months depending on where you live and how long it takes your cable company to upgrade. But after that AT&T or Timewarner will be the the way to go...

Oh and don't think Comcast is asleep at the wheel either... they have similar plans.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/13...-800-the-next/


Summary:

Satellite has a few good rounds but Cable wins in the final round by a knockout.

IlliNorge

Unless you need service (Comcast sucks) or you like sports.

That's a good find about DTV's HD bitrate slowdown. I have noticed that their HD movie channels were a bit subpar, but I attributed it to the original programming being old. Guess not. I will point out though that the local channels they offer in HD are from the newly launched satellites, so if you have a MPEG-4 receiver those channels are glorious

SiGGy

ya, where we live we have a choice between...

Comcast
Time Warner
Everest
AT&T U-verse

We have Timewarner now with huge discounts because it's a high competition area. I'd never recommend Comcast... their billing/customer service is horrible.

thanks, I've posted it before. DirecTVs HD is just subpar to what cable offers. Hopefully it will get better with their new MPEG4 boxes and satellites.

phipark

So, if you go satellite, it's best to BUY the boxes instead of lease? Where do you buy them? I'm moving into a new place next week and will need some sort of programming. We only have one cable company, Charter, and they suck. The government is working to pass some laws to allow more cable companies for good competition, which is good for the consumer.

So, I need to go with Direct TV now, buy these boxes and then switch to cable in about 2 years?

BTW, when I mean Charter sucks, they only offer about 5 HD channels. Two local channels they don't show (I think ABC and Fox) because of contract disputes.

SiGGy

I don't know if you can lease satellite boxes. Usually you can find very cheap deals on installation/boxes/dish making leasing them pointless over 2 years.

I know nothing about Charter cable. They may never try and compete with AT&T, Comcast and Warner for all I know. This would make satellite the best choice even in 2 years.

Just make sure you get the newest generation satellite boxes & dish. Do your homework! Call them and ask what is the latest and greatest if you are not sure. Lots of shady satellite guys/dealers out there.

Tuetatesu

Very much of your information I agree with. Your odiously very knowledgeable.

To say Nope... then say that for now Direct TV is ahead of the game is odd. My suggestion is based on the now and how far along the providers are. We have no idea now long it will take cable companies to get there and as you said they are working though some challenges.

It's my understanding that for IPTV to have adequate bandwidth they really need to use a fiber optic infrastructure. Your correct that when everything goes digital that this will free bandwidth, but only to a point. IPTV will still be encoded in MPEG4. Even a single MPEG4 HD movie downloading over cable is a challenge. Also note that IPTV is nothing more then using internet technology to "broadcast” video and has nothing to do with video compression or video quality.

The current cable infrastructure gets bogged down with the volume of users. That's going to be a problem when you have internet users on the same cable as people using IPTV. Talk about potential lag/stutter issues.

I'm sure they will work things out, but I firmly believe that they really need to move to a fiber optic infrastructure if they want to trump Satellite broadcast bandwidth. IPTV will rock, when they get the kinks worked out.

Ashburner

I have digital cable now from a small provider and it sucks ass. I'm waiting for Direct TV to upgrade their stuff before I switch to them.

What do I do if I have 5 TV's I want hooked up? Do I lease or buy the recievers. It seems like the website says they give you a free $500 HD DVR but then still charge you a monthly rate for it... I dunno

SiGGy

I think your a little confused. Why do I think this?
Cable systems are not using IPTV nor do they have plans to that I'm aware of, SDV is not IPTV. Only AT&T's U-verse service is using IPTV currently.


I don't think you understand SDV or how the cable system works fully. Video *IS* delivered via fiber to a local node near you (within 1000's of feet of your house). Then it goes coax to your house. With SDV they can reuse bandwidth over the fiber to the node near your house giving them room for basically an unlimited number of HD channels. Your cable box requests a channel and the node near your house signs up for the multicast. Timewarner will have 50% of their markets done by the end of the year and all of them will be done by end of next year.

Here's another way to look at that cable coax running into your house. Each cable channel is 6 Mhtz wide. A 6Mhtz channel can carry either one analog channel or 7 to 12 SDTV digital channels. The 6 mhtz channel running at 256QAM delivers 38Mb of bandwidth. Current cable systems can deliver approximately 60 of these 6 mhtz channels to your house.

38Mbit (each 6mhtz channel) x 60 (total channels) = 2280Mbit
So current cable systems ARE delivering 2.2Gbit of bandwidth to your house every second of the day.

There is NO need to run fiber to everyones house. Coax has WAY more than enough bandwidth.

Speaking of IPTV...

An 1080i H.264 (mpeg4) IPTV stream takes 8Mbit of bandwidth. I could watch that now on my cable modem live if I wanted too. So if cable prodivders switched to a IPTV system it would be be easy. As they can deliver 80+mbit to the house if they switched to an all IP based system.


Lets do some simple math, lets look at AT&T's U-verse service they do FTTN (fiber to the node). Then deliver the service to your house via VDSL (yes over twisted pair!).

Currently AT&T delivers about 25Mbit to the house.

6Mbit is assigned for internet
17Mbit is for video (you have no access to this bandwidth for anything but IPTV)

8Mbit for an 1080i H.264 IPTV stream
2-4Mbit for SDTV H.264 IPTV STREAM

So with 17Mbit available for IPTV service you can record 4 SDTV channels or watch/record one HD channel.

AT&T is going to be upgrading everyone to 55Mbit service with VDSL2 later this year. It's just a firmware upgrade and users will double their video bandwidth.

This will allow 2-3 HD streams or 12 SDTV streams.

Enough about bandwidth and AT&T

You keep talking about downloading...


With AT&T's IPTV you ARE NOT downloading video over your internet connection. The video network and bandwidth is TOTALLY separate from the internet bandwidth. In fact you have no access to that 17Mbit but for IPTV. Also, you are not downloading the video, it's being broadcasted to you. When you "tune" to a channel you are joining a multicast. A multicast is a one to many *BROADCAST*, it is NOT downloading.

...

I think you need to read up on switched digital video some more.... then you'll see there is NO need to run fiber to the premise... and SDV is not IPTV. While it shares similar traits in it's multicast they are different from one another.

Read this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video

IlliNorge

If you get the H20 HD DVR from DirecTV you have to lease it. It's $5/month.

IlliNorge

With 5 TV's you might want to stick with cable. I know DirecTV will do an install for 4 rooms free, but each leased receiver has a monthly charge. Then again, you'll need 5 cable boxes and I don't know if there are multiple charges there.

I've got 2 receivers, only 1 is HD. I pay $48/month for the programming, $10/month for HD, $5/month for the leased HD receiver, $6/month for the DVR subscription. They fixed me up with the regular receiver basically for free, and they've thrown me some free programming and deals along the way.

SiGGy

wow, that sucks. Does that include the DVR charges?

phipark

No, apparently, it's $10 for HD and $6 for DVR per month.

I was shopping on their site last night.

Ashburner

That's my whole point! How the hell do they tell you they are giving you a $500 HD DVR for free and then charge you $16 or whatever a month???

h2o-pr00f

My folks bitched @ directv until they let them purchase a DVR.. this is over a year ago, so it was the tivo brand hd dvr

But still, as far as I know they OWN all the equipment

Ashburner

So why the hell do they charge you for it??????????????????????????

Here is my quote...



Startup Costs
1 DIRECTV Plus® DVR
$99.00
2 DIRECTV® HD Receiver
$198.00
1 DIRECTV® HD DVR
$299.00
Instant Online Rebate -$100.00
1 Handling and Delivery Fee
$0.00
1 Standard Professional Installation
$0.00
Total Startup Costs: $496.00

Ok, I just paid nearly $500... that should cover the cheap ass boxes they give me... NOPE

Your First Month's Bill
PLUS HD DVR
$69.99
HBO®
$13.00
SHOWTIME UNLIMITED®
$11.00
CINEMAX
$10.00
HD Access
$0.00
DIRECTV DVR Service
$0.00
DIRECTV Protection Plan
$0.00

WTF? Why am I leasing something I just bought???

3 Lease Fee
$14.97



$34/mo. Credit for HBO, Cinemax and SHOWTIME for 3 months. -$34.00
First Month's Total: $84.96
Mail-In Redemption -$10.00
Final Monthly Total:* $74.96

SiGGy

I think that is there way of charging a per box fee. Kinda a shady way to word it IMO. I bet everone pays those fees. I know I did when I was on DirecTV.

Scrib

DTV has gone to an all lease model. I have DTV and own everything, including my HD Tivo. The issue I'm running into is I want to get another HD box for the TV in the basement. So I'd either go with their standard HD STB or get the new HD DVR. But while I'm at it, I might as well replace the HD Tivo and move the family room TV over to mpeg 4 and get the new mpeg4 dish.

Seems like an awful lot of work and $$$ given my current setup. I'm inclined to let my DTV contract run (August timeframe) and either negotiate with DTV or move to comcast.

The whole HD channel thing with DTV has been talked about for years. They've yet to deliver on it. So I'm skeptical of the links posted... I'm sure it's coming, but shit... I gotta wait for them to deliver, spend a shitpot of money in the mean time and oh ya... Not own the equipment. Weak. Sure, comcast leases their stuff too, but you don't have to shell out major bucks to get the non-owned equipment.

IlliNorge

This is the key. They are very good at negotiating especially if you give them a reasonable reason to go to cable. They swapped out my old 3-LNB dish for the 5-LNB dish and upgraded the DVR for free. Yeah, I still pay the $5 lease per month, but I don't see the upside to owning a receiver that won't work without a subscription and will be obsolete in a couple years anyway.

rise

I'm still confused.

Mpeg 2 HD receiver - low HD res

Mpeg 4 HD receiver - true HD res?

I would probably get the HR20 and I read (avsforum) that my local area channels recently started offering mpeg4 signals...

right now my main concern is getting a true HD picture, I don't want to be paying for HD but actually getting an upscaled picture.

Tuetatesu

Thing is one satellite LNB can receive more data then VDSL. The only thing the dish companies have to do is shoot up another satellite and add an LNB and your done. They don't need permits to from every city to dig and hire people to labor and install optic in every town.


Downloading is a the wrong term your correct. Trying to keep it simple. My comments were directed in that it will be challenging to have several HD channels being delivered to your home at the same time.

Quote from site... An introduction to IPTV
"Simultaneous delivery of channels is necessary to keep IPTV competitive with cable. Obviously, multiple streams are needed to support picture-in-picture, but they're also needed by DVRs, which can record one show while a user is watching another. For IPTV to become a viable whole-house solution, it will also need to support enough simultaneous channels to allow televisions in different rooms to display different content, and juggling resulting bandwidth issues is one of the trickiest parts of implementing an IPTV network that will be attractive to consumers."

I've seen that mentioned more then once. It seems to be a serious technology hurdel they are trying to overcome.


But as you said you still need fiber to your local node. I understand that it does not need to go to your home, but if you look at AT&T's plans to implement fiber to nodes it will take a long time.

Quote from wiki page... IPTV, From Wikipedia
"AT&T has chosen to bring its next generation of services via both fiber-to-the-node (FTTN), in which it plans to run fiber to within 3,000 feet on average of customers’ homes and existing copper lines the remainder of the way; and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP), in which it runs fiber all the way to the home. "

This will take time and lots of money. If you read about project lightspeed chances are the fiber won't be ready in your area in time for the digital switch.

Quote from the wiki page... IPTV, From Wikipedia
"In May 2007, AT&T announced that they would only be able to offer U-verse to 18 million homes by the end of 2008 in the original 13 state region that SBC served."

Remind you of the days when you were waiting for cable to be installed in your neighborhood?


Really to sum it all were in the midst of big changes and the providers are scrambling. The infrustructure is not complete and will be changing over the next sever years. Right now it would appear Direct TV is ahead of the game implementing techology and launching satellites. They will remain ahead until they can get fiber to the neighborhood nodes and implement IPTV.

Tuetatesu

No difference really. The issue is they are moving to MPEG4 mainly because the compression of data is better (smaller package). Therefore they can send more channels though and use up less bandwidth OR burn more video using up less DVD space.

If you get an HR20 make sure you get a 5 LNB dish as well or you won't get the new HD channels. The added LNB's are linking to the new satellites with the HD content and the HR20 receiver is decoding the MPEG4 signal.

See Moving Picture Experts Group, from Wiki for a break down of what the MPEG versions do for you. Again its really to just fit more content in a smaller data print.

Quality wise your will see an HD quality picture either way. MPEG2 just takes up more data space.

SiGGy

Your kidding right?

The fiber is already there, cable companies currently use fiber to the node (I think I've said this 3 times now). The last leg is coax. And there's LOTs of dark fiber to be had in most cities cheap... (perhaps you should wikipedia "dark fiber")

Add a LNB? It's not quite that simple and it costs many BILLIONS to launch a new satellite and takes months to get it running. Note DirecTV has been working on their 3 new satellites for 2-3 years now. Oh and EVERYONE has to switch to the new generation of receivers & dishes to get video from these new satellites as they switched from MPEG-2 to a MPEG-4 varient...

Perhaps you didn't ready my previous post? I hate repeating myself but I will. The current 25Mbit AT&T system you can watch video/record 4 things at the same time. Once they do the firmware upgrade this year it will be 12 channels simultaneously. So you can run 12 cable boxes at once, or record 12 channels all at the same time.

Again, I repeat cable isn't using IPTV. Only AT&T U-verse is...

Verizons FIOS will be in the same boat as AT&T once they go full IPTV. Right now the Verizon system is a bit of a hybrid.

This is AT&T your talking about. Comcast and Timewarner already do fiber to the node and deliver the last leg via coax! Which as I showed you already delivers 2.2Gb of bandwidth to your house already.

This thread is about cable vs. satellite ... not cable, satellite and IPTV

Kinda, but not really. 18 million homes in less than 2 years is VERY impressive. AT&T is using twisted pair for it's last leg. They really don't have to do much but install their equipment (VRAD) next to the phone box for the neighborhood...


Again you just totally left out SDV that Timewarner and Comcast will be using by the end of this year and have completed by the end of next year... taking away any advantage DirecTV would have.

HUH? get fiber into the neighborhoods? Cable is already fiber to the node then coax to the premise. They just need to setup SDV which they are already doing...

DirecTV will only be slightly "ahead" in terms of location. A lot of timewarner and comcast customers will have SDV by the end of the year. And all of the markets will have it by end of 2008.

DirecTV will not have all of their eggs lined up until the end of this year anyway...

Oh and you can get a 10Mbit internet pipe through your cable system, on-demand video, on demand PPV, digital phone service... and much more. This is stuff satellite cannot offer as it's a one-way service and has limited bandwidth. Even with their spot beaming technology.

I know they have a planned "download your movie" thing. But it will not be a true on-demand system.

Once AT&T upgrades everyone to the 55Mbit VDSL2 system via firmware the only people that will have issues is anyone with more than 2 HDTVs in their home...

SiGGy

Do you read the posts and understand them? I'm really beginning to wonder about you...

I posted a VERY detailed post on how DirecTV is broadcasting subpar (reduced quality) HDTV via MPEG-2 right now. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again to you... perhaps go back to page one and read my posts on it. I even linked to a site that shows pictures and bitrate mappings of the degradation over time as they added more HD channels.

So yes, there better be a quality difference between the MPEG-2 system and the MPEG-4. DirecTV cut corners in the HDTV video quality to squeeze their current lineup in.

One would hope they will not skimp on HDTV with their new MPEG-4 system as they did with the MPEG-2.

SiGGy

Rise you got it right...

However it is unknown if the new system will suffer the same fate as the older MPEG-2. Time will tell as DirecTV starts to use it. I'd assume they won't cheap out on resolution and bit rate this time around as they should have plenty of bandwidth.

I'd just ignore this guys posts, he is really misinformed. But he is good at using wikipedia... now he just needs to learn how to read a bit better.