# Tivo can't record mpeg4 until software upgrade is realeased in April or May 2013?



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've read in other forums that some cable providers are starting to broadcast some channels in mpeg4 @ 1GHz. Apparently the latest Tivos can't record them without a software update and the update won't be rolling out until April or May of next year. Older S3 Tivos can't record them at all due to hardware incompatibilities.

I know that some FIOS channels are being broadcast in mpeg4, but apparently they're still compaible with current Tivo hardware and software. Cox Cable is reportedly broadcasting in the offensive format and I was curious if anyone heard of any other systems planning to do the same.

In any case, I'd be more than a little pissed to learn that my new Tivo would be usesless for recording certain channels for another 7 or 8 months.

Here's the thread I was talking about. It starts off talking about the Ceton InfiniTV4 cablecard tuner and then migrates into a Tivo discussion.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've read in other forums that some cable providers are starting to broadcast some channels in mpeg4 @ 1GHz. Apparently the latest Tivos can't record them without a software update and the update won't be rolling out until April or May of next year. Older S3 Tivos can't record them at all due to hardware incompatibilities.
> 
> I know that some FIOS channels are being broadcast in mpeg4, but apparently they're still compaible with current Tivo hardware and software. Cox Cable is reportedly broadcasting in the offensive format and I was curious if anyone heard of any other systems planning to do the same.
> 
> ...


Your link does not work; but hard to believe that TP will stop working on any mpeg4 channels if cable co start using mpeg4, I would think the cable cos would do what they did with analog, use both systems until most equipment was compatible.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

The earlier posts in that thread were referring to this year's May update, which resolved the Cox/MPEG4 issue on Premieres. Post 32 from an Elite owner acknowledges the spring update fixed the problem and he can see the channels fine. Unless there's something new I'm missing, it's been fixed.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I fixed the link so it now works. Glad to hear the problem was fixed for Tivo owners. I must have misread the date for the software release. I know Tivo can be a little slow on the uptake but that just seemed to far fetched to be real.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Yes, I never had any problem recording the FiOS MPEG4 channels with my Premieres. FiOS had a free viewing of the Baseball channels which included three using MPEG4.

I just wish FiOS would switch some of their programming to MPEG4 to free up space. Currently they have only used it with a few new channels that are only subscribed to by a small amount of subscribers.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

The only reason I can see why FIOS would do it on more channels is if they plan to add more HD channels or they're going to bump up their current internet packages to proviode even wider bandwidth. I have a feeling they're just experimenting with the current mpeg4 channels to see what their options are down the road.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

The TiVoHD is SOL for MP4, right? Fortunately Cox isn't broadcasting any channels I care about in MP4. If they switch Speed to MP4 (gotta have my F1 fix), though, there's gonna be a reckoning.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

The TiVo Premiere, May 2012 SW update FIXED the issue with the Cox MPEG4 Plus Package channels. All MPEG4 channels work and record fine now, and I subscribe to most all of them.

From Margret:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=487165
Changes in the TiVo Premiere 20.2.1.1 update
Other changes
---------------------------------------------
*1. Cox customers that had difficulty receiving "Plus Pak" channels should find that issue resolved.*

The link in the OP's first post is regarding the Intel Core i3/5/7 Intel Integrated GPU HD 2000/3000 Graphics Drivers, not being able to display copy protected MPEG4 content. That was also the issue with TiVo Premiere until the May 2012 SW update.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

CoxInPHX said:


> The TiVo Premiere, May 2012 SW update FIXED the issue with the Cox MPEG4 Plus Package channels. All MPEG4 channels work and record fine now, and I subscribe to most all of them.
> 
> From Margret:
> 
> ...


so can, and will, TiVo fix the TiVo HD to be able to record the new h.264 channels that cable companies are converting to? What part of "Lifetime" don't I understand? hehe


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tvmaster2 said:


> so can, and will, TiVo fix the TiVo HD to be able to record the new h.264 channels that cable companies are converting to? What part of "Lifetime" don't I understand? hehe


No, it is doubtful. TiVo HD development has been dead for a long time. The only update they would ever do on the TiVo HD platform is to fix something catastrophic.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

rainwater said:


> No, it is doubtful. TiVo HD development has been dead for a long time. The only update they would ever do on the TiVo HD platform is to fix something catastrophic.


guess it's time to start liquidating TiVo units....hello Sagetv


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

tvmaster2 said:


> guess it's time to start liquidating TiVo units....hello Sagetv


You think Tivo isnt being updated...SageTV went out of business this spring when Google bought it. Maybe you could migrate to the Windows Media Center and the new Ceton media extenders?


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Davelnlr_ said:


> You think Tivo isnt being updated...SageTV went out of business this spring when Google bought it. Maybe you could migrate to the Windows Media Center and the new Ceton media extenders?


Still using SageTV - just thinking of expanding it to rooms where Tivo currently is. Sage has been out of business for 18 months, and it still lets me do more than Tivo does...what a joke


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

tvmaster2 said:


> so can, and will, TiVo fix the TiVo HD to be able to record the new h.264 channels that cable companies are converting to? What part of "Lifetime" don't I understand? hehe


No, Margret already lied to Lynnl999 here on the last page:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=9397856#post9397856

"@lynnl999 Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Only Premiere supports MPEG4."

This is not true the TiVoHD can support H.264 it just need the software.

@rainwater, I think not supporting H.264 is catastrophic and should be fix.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

tvmaster2 said:


> guess it's time to start liquidating TiVo units....hello Sagetv


Who going to buy a TiVoHD that can no longer receive HD if all changes to H.264?  Lifetime of the box is "lifetime" till TiVo kill it.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Johncv said:


> No, Margret already lied


Nothing of what Margret said is untrue. She did not say that the TiVo HD cannot support H.264, only that is does not.

"Lifetime of the box is "lifetime" till TiVo kill it." TiVo isn't making cable companies change to H.264. Don't like it, complain to your cable company.


----------



## hctub (Mar 1, 2009)

is this for real


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Johncv said:


> Who going to buy a TiVoHD that can no longer receive HD if all changes to H.264?


It's probably going to be at least 5 - 10 years before any CATV company converts most of its lineup to h.264, and any that have already implemented SDV are somewhat unlikely to convert at all.



Johncv said:


> Lifetime of the box is "lifetime" till TiVo kill it.


That's a fatuous statement. It isn't TiVo that is taking action which impacts the DVRs, not to mention the TVs, already sold.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

rainwater said:


> No, it is doubtful. TiVo HD development has been dead for a long time. The only update they would ever do on the TiVo HD platform is to fix something catastrophic.


I wonder about this. Because they already sell units in New Zealand that support H.264 recording and use the same platform as the S3, so they probably have all the code they need to make this work if they wanted to. However I could see them holding it back as a way to force customers to migrate to the newer platform. Then again the number of people this currently affects in relatively small, so I'm not sure if that strategy would really result in many upgrades.

I'm going to agree and say that it's unlikely we'll see a S3/HD update to allow H.264 recording. Mostly because it does effect so few users and by the time is is a problem the S3/HD platform will likely be completely obsolete. (the S3 is pretty much already due to it's 2 card requirement)

Dan


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

SullyND said:


> Nothing of what Margret said is untrue. She did not say that the TiVo HD cannot support H.264, only that is does not.
> 
> "Lifetime of the box is "lifetime" till TiVo kill it." TiVo isn't making cable companies change to H.264. Don't like it, complain to your cable company.


Margret is not telling the truth, this info was posted by CoxInPHX, it show that all TiVo need to do to the TiVoHD is a software update.

According to the specs I find, The TiVo HD has

MicroTuner MT2131 1GHz Tuners
http://www.zoran.com/IMG/pdf/PB-00069.pdf

and the Broadcom BCM7401 chipset supports AVC (H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10).

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cable/High-Definition-Audio-Video-Graphics-System-Processors/BCM7401










This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 653x804.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They definitely support H.264. They already use it for Netflix and Amazon shows. Plus you can do a push via pyTiVo and play an H.264 recording on an S3/HD. So the hardware supports it. It's definitely just software. However updating the software may not be that easy, and they may decide it's not worth it to support an obsolete platform.

Dan


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Margret is not telling the truth


Again, nothing Margaret said is untrue. I think your reading comprehension is just flawed.

There is a difference between does not and cannot.

She never said the hardware cannot.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> It's probably going to be at least 5 - 10 years before any CATV company converts most of its lineup to h.264, and any that have already implemented SDV are somewhat unlikely to convert at all.
> 
> That's a fatuous statement. It isn't TiVo that is taking action which impacts the DVRs, not to mention the TVs, already sold.


Does the CATV encode the video or does it come already encoded from the programmer (HBO for example)?

A CATV company may be more likely to convert important stations to h.264 if the work is done for them.

I think the answer is related to how many of the companies deployed STBs can decode MP4 and how many have to be replaced.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

SullyND said:


> Nothing of what Margret said is untrue. She did not say that the TiVo HD cannot support H.264, only that is does not.
> 
> "Lifetime of the box is "lifetime" till TiVo kill it." TiVo isn't making cable companies change to H.264. Don't like it, complain to your cable company.


and after you call, your cable company will send you a teddy bear and a hug. geez...the cable companies goal is to eliminate as many Tivo units as possible, using whatever loopholes in FCC law that exist to them. They want the rental revenue from their "whole-home" solutions, which magically don't have any flags on premium channels as well (unlike when using a Tivo, where all the premiums are red-flagged so as not to allow multi-room transfer).
Your response may have truth to it, but it doesn't address the problem: Tivo is in a business whereby they must counter what the cable companies do. Simply making you throw out three-year-old 'Lifetime' subscriptions is a business model that WON'T help Tivo


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lew said:


> Does the CATV encode the video or does it come already encoded from the programmer (HBO for example)?
> 
> A CATV company may be more likely to convert important stations to h.264 if the work is done for them.
> 
> I think the answer is related to how many of the companies deployed STBs can decode MP4 and how many have to be replaced.


A lot of broadcasters use H.264 for their national feeds and the local broadcaster or cable company recodes them to MPEG-2. The biggest hurdle to switching to H.264 is the boxes that are already in the field. If they don't support H.264 then it's unlikely the company will switch to H.264 unless they are severely bandwidth constrained because the cost of upgrading all those boxes would be huge.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tvmaster2 said:


> They want the rental revenue from their "whole-home" solutions, which magically don't have any flags on premium channels as well (unlike when using a Tivo, where all the premiums are red-flagged so as not to allow multi-room transfer).


That's actually not true. The way the cable company "whole home" solutions, and the TiVo Premieres, get around the red flag is by streaming the video rather then copying it. The flag is called a "copy once" flag, which means that the video can not be copied again (the source file on the DVR counts as a copy) and is why MRV and TiVoToGo are blocked. However there is nothing preventing then from streaming to another room as long as the copy remains on the original TiVo.

Dan


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> That's actually not true. The way the cable company "whole home" solutions, and the TiVo Premieres, get around the red flag is by streaming the video rather then copying it. The flag is called a "copy once" flag, which means that the video can not be copied again (the source file on the DVR counts as a copy) and is why MRV and TiVoToGo are blocked. However there is nothing preventing then from streaming to another room as long as the copy remains on the original TiVo.
> 
> Dan


interesting - so the Cox Whole Home boxes DON'T allow physically transferring a recording from one box to another?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Tivo can only keep a lifetime subscription on the books for 5 and 1/2 years, so I think many of the lifetime Series3s aren't counted as subscriptions anymore and many more of the lifetime HDs and Series3s will start to roll off the books in the next couple of years. It doesn't make much sense to update the software for the remaining monthly subscriptions. Plus the update could break something else that was working. Maybe they could offer a reduced lifetime rate to the monthly users to use as an OTA DVR.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tvmaster2 said:


> interesting - so the Cox Whole Home boxes DON'T allow physically transferring a recording from one box to another?


No. In fact the Cox one is just a single 2 tuner DVR with extenders that stream the show around the house. It says you can network multiple devices to get more tuners, but they have to use streaming too because the MSO boxes are required to adhere to the same copy restriction flags as CableCARD devices. (they actually have CableCARDs inside them)

Dan


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

That, plus it only buys them between a 50% to 100% increase in bandwidth at most. For about the same cost, SDV offers more than a 100-fold increase in effective bandwidth, with no theoretical ceiling.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But SDV really only works for rarely watched channels. With popular channels it provides no bandwidth savings at all. And as more popular channels switch to HD bandwidth is going to become more of an issue. With MPEG2-2 encoding an HD channel requires about the same bandwidth as 3 SD channels. However with H.264 they can squeeze an HD channel into the same bandwidth as 1 current SD channel, and squeeze 2-3 SD channels into that same bandwidth. Which means that by switching everything to H.264 they could upgrade virtually every channel to HD without changing their current bandwidth allocations at all or impacting the user experience by allocating too many channels to SDV.

Dan


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Which means that by switching everything to H.264 they could upgrade virtually every channel to HD without changing their current bandwidth allocations at all or impacting the user experience by allocating too many channels to SDV.


Switching to H.264 just as H.265/HEVC starts to appear. 

Smart MSOs who can bide their time with full digital conversion, frequency increases, and/or SDV may skip ahead right to HEVC. That would future proof them for more 3D, 4K, and even 8K content. HEVC is starting to show up in chip samples now and it offers an improvement over H.264 similar to what H.264 offered over MPEG-2. We'll probably see initial adoption driven by mobile devices and Internet streaming services - higher quality while using less bandwidth. The same thing that drove H.264 adoption.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

megazone said:


> Switching to H.264 just as H.265/HEVC starts to appear.


So is that how we are going to get to 4K? Any chance OTA broadcast will go to it (or even H.264)?

Sounds like a good way to sell lots of new hardware in a few years.

Hope all my stuff lasts until it settles out.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

megazone said:


> Switching to H.264 just as H.265/HEVC starts to appear.
> 
> Smart MSOs who can bide their time with full digital conversion, frequency increases, and/or SDV may skip ahead right to HEVC. That would future proof them for more 3D, 4K, and even 8K content. HEVC is starting to show up in chip samples now and it offers an improvement over H.264 similar to what H.264 offered over MPEG-2. We'll probably see initial adoption driven by mobile devices and Internet streaming services - higher quality while using less bandwidth. The same thing that drove H.264 adoption.


I don't know about that. The broadcasting industry isn't really cutting edge. A big percentage of them still don't even use H.264 yet, and it's been available for nearly a decade. I don't think they're going to just jump to some unproven new standard just because of bandwidth savings. I don't know much about the specifics of H.265, but broadcasters don't even use H.264 to it's full extent yet. They have to worry about things like entry points for tuning and commerical insertion which limits some of the advantages that H.264 provides. (i.e. long GOPs and large number of reference frames) So unless H.265 provides a way to offer more compression without resorting to super long GOPs or an excessive number of B frames, it's not going to be much use to them anyway.

Dan


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> But SDV really only works for rarely watched channels. With popular channels it provides no bandwidth savings at all.


That depends on what you eman by "popular". A typical QAM modulator in use by a majority of MSOs produces 8 QAMs, which can serve 16 HD channels. Three of these units will deliver 48 HD channels on 24 QAM carriers, using up 144 MHz, and leaving 556 or more MHz available for other content. Those 48 channels will easily cover considerably more than 99.5% of viewer selections at any given moment. Anything else is very well served by SDV. The total residual bandwidth available across an entire fairly large city with, say, 3000 nodes would be 1,668,000 MHz, or 556,000 simultaneous unique HD streams. Of course, in the real world, nowhere nearly that much content coud be handled by any CATV system at this time, and not every node is going to have a completely unique mix of content, but the potential is vast. What's more, even with a greatly attenuated nuimber of actually unique streams, with SDV , the CATV system can offer a great deal many more individual channels than they will have to deliver at any one time, making the number of available channels potentially infinite.

(Think about it. If every one of the top 48 channels had precisely the same penetration, then at the very most all of the remaining channels put together could only represent at the very most 2.04% of the number of tuners in use. The reality is #5 - #48 share at most 20% of the number of tuners in use, meaning #49+ all put together share at most 0.47% of the tuners in use.)



Dan203 said:


> And as more popular channels switch to HD bandwidth is going to become more of an issue.


First of all, all the popular channels are already HD. Secondly, the more channels involved in the mix, the better SDV handles it. Any time a particular channel is not in use on at least 1 node somewhere in the city, SDV makes the delivery of that channel more efficient. If a particular channel stands a significant chance of not being in use for some fraction of the day on a significant fraction of the nodes in town ( typically about #25 or lower in the ratings), then it will save a significant amount of bandwidth if it is deployed over SDV. The existence of "popular" channels makes SDV all that more effective, rather than posing a problem for it.



Dan203 said:


> With MPEG2-2 encoding an HD channel requires about the same bandwidth as 3 SD channels.


It's much closer to 6. The most common MPEG-II rate shaping in the industry is:

1 QAM = 12 SD, or
1 QAM = 1 HD + 6 SD, or
1 QAM = 2 HD + 1 SD

Some push it further, but tend to get complaints when they do.



Dan203 said:


> However with H.264 they can squeeze an HD channel into the same bandwidth as 1 current SD channel


Not with anything like acceptable PQ. Four per QAM will be pushing it. Three per QAM should be fine. You know very well the issues involved with excessive compression, especially in real time.



Dan203 said:


> and squeeze 2-3 SD channels into that same bandwidth.


And with SDV they can potentially squeeze several thousand channels into that same bandwidth.



Dan203 said:


> Which means that by switching everything to H.264 they could upgrade virtually every channel to HD without changing their current bandwidth allocations at all or impacting the user experience by allocating too many channels to SDV.


SDV does not impact the user experience in any significant way, certainly not as much as over-compressing the data stream, whether h.264 or MPEG-II. It would, however, critically impact every single subscriber who owns a DCR TV or a current generation DVR.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Perhaps my understanding of how SDV works is flawed. I thought that they took a pool of channels (lets say 16) and assigned them a pool of frequencies less then the number of channels (lets say 8). When a customer tunes one of those channels it is assigned to a free frequency in the pool and their box is told to tune that frequency, if another customer tunes the same channel then they are just directed to that same frequency, but if a customer tunes a different channel in the pool then it has to use another of frequencies. However if all available frequencies in the pool are actively being used then the user is presented with an error that the channel is not available.

Is that not right? If it is right then my comment about the customer experience comes from the possibility that a channel may not be available to a customer when they want it. For a pool of rarely watched channels the chances of this happening is very low, but for a pool of popular channels the chances are much higher.

Now if it worked like U-Verse where the connection to the customer was completely digital and the tuning actually happened at the head end then I could see it being virtually limitless. But I don't think that's how it works with cable.

Dan


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Perhaps my understanding of how SDV works is flawed. I thought that they took a pool of channels (lets say 16) and assigned them a pool of frequencies less then the number of channels (lets say 8). When a customer tunes one of those channels it is assigned to a free frequency in the pool and their box is told to tune that frequency, if another customer tunes the same channel then they are just directed to that same frequency, but if a customer tunes a different channel in the pool then it has to use another of frequencies. However if all available frequencies in the pool are actively being used then the user is presented with an error that the channel is not available.
> ........


I believe you have the right concept but that a practical number for the number of channels (or bandwidth) in a pool is *much* greater than 16, more on the order of hundreds, i.e., mulitple QAM modulators devoted to SDV.

From the Wikipedia article on Switched Digital Video:


> In current HFC [hybrid fiber-cable] systems, a fiber optic network extending from the operator's head end carries all video channels out to a fiber optic node which services any number of homes ranging from 1 to 2000. From this point, all channels are sent via coaxial cable to each of the homes. Note that only a percentage of these homes are actively watching channels at a given time. Rarely are all channels being accessed by the homes in the service group.


My TWC system has bandwidth blocks devoted to three types of video delivery (in addition to DOCSIS internet bandwidth for cable modem):
1. Analog channels (simulcast versions of basic cable channels)
2. Fixed (non-switched) digital channels, presumably the most popular ones.
3. Switched digital (SDV) channels
It carries both SD and HD versions of many digital channels and uses SDV for some channels of both types.

I rarely get the "Channel not availiable" message. It's not quite so rare to lose *all* SDV channels and have to reboot the TiVo and TA to get them back, but that's just a malfunction of the combined TiVo-CableCARD-TA-CATV system -- not an implicit limitation of SDV.

I don't know the actual numbers for my system but it seems reasonable to guess they may assign three 144 MHz QAM modulaor units, with a capacity of around 144 HD channels, to SDV. With one QAM unit of fixed frequencies adding another 48 "popular" channels, the total capacity is 192 HD channels. Thus (ignoring SD channels just for discussion), if the number of subscribers per node was only 192 (or less), an unbounded (i.e., "infinite") number of channels could be available to every subscriber with no one ever getting the "channel not available" sitiuation. In other words if the channel bandwidth capacity is greater than, or equal to, the number of subscribers per node, an unbounded number of channels can be handled without any denials. I assume that in reality this condition doesn't apply, so there is some small chance of denials. (In a non-switched system the bandwidth must support the total number of channels offered.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If that's the case I wonder what the holdup is in my area? They switched us to SDV like 2 years ago and yet we still have 30+ channels that are analog only and only 29 HD channels. I asked UMatter2Charter about getting more HD and they responded that even with SDV there is some limitation in my area which prevents them from adding more HD channels. They didn't go into more details so I have no idea what that limitation might be. Seems like if they just got rid of the stupid analog channels they'd have plent pf bandwidth for adding more HD even if there is some sort of frequency limiation. 

Dan


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If that's the case I wonder what the holdup is in my area? They switched us to SDV like 2 years ago and yet we still have 30+ channels that are analog only and only 29 HD channels. I asked UMatter2Charter about getting more HD and they responded that even with SDV there is some limitation in my area which prevents them from adding more HD channels. They didn't go into more details so I have no idea what that limitation might be. Seems like if they just got rid of the stupid analog channels they'd have plent pf bandwidth for adding more HD even if there is some sort of frequency limiation.


Do you know what frequency Charter is at in your area? They've been known to run at 550MHz, 650MHz, 750MHz, 860MHz, and 1GHz. If they're digital I think it is probably at least 750MHz.

They probably still have analog channels due to legacy users. Charter in my area still has a number of analog channels too - but they're all ADS since they work in my Premiere Elite. But there are still a lot of old cable boxes and users without boxes tuning the basic channels. Charter has been really pushing them to go digital for a few years now, taking channels away, introducing new channels digital only, etc., but they haven't cut them off completely yet.

Still, we have a lot more HD channels in our area and they keep adding more. Nearly all of them, and most of the SD digital channels, are SDV. I know because when I have TA issues most of my channels go away.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Our analog channels are not simulcast, so I can't tune them on my Elite and had to keep my regular Premiere just to record them. 

That plus the lack of HD channels makes me think they have something seriously wrong in my area. In fact they recently added HBO back as an old school scrambled analog channel. The kind where they have to install a special filter in your box to decode it. They haven't had analog premium channels here for like 6-7 years. They seem to be moving backwards. 

Dan


----------

