# TiVo Crafts Embedded Switched Digital Video Tech



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

This is the first time I head about this, and some "know-it-all" on this forum made the statement that it could not be done. I for one will be the first in line if/when TiVo release a retail box.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

As I understand it, the problem was always cable company resistance, not technical difficulty.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Sounds like this uses the internet just like Comcast VOD. Unfortunately most cable companies actively try to deter CableCARD use so I doubt many of them will be rushing to add this functionality to their headend.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> As I understand it, the problem was always cable company resistance, not technical difficulty.


Exactly!


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> As I understand it, the problem was always cable company resistance, not technical difficulty.


From the article: *"TiVos technical team is already holding discussion with operators about a way to support SDV without a Tuning Adapter."*

I think the "cable companies" are starting to realize that they need to compete with someone or they will be declare a "common carrier" and not just for internet, but for everything.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Johncv said:


> From the article: *"TiVos technical team is already holding discussion with operators about a way to support SDV without a Tuning Adapter."*
> 
> I think the "cable companies" are starting to realize that they need to compete with someone or they will be declare a "common carrier" and not just for internet, but for everything.


I would imagine these "discussions" are with MSOs that already use TiVos. I'm not sure other cable operators are really their priorities for this initially. I hope I am wrong and this will work for the stand alone market but I am not holding my breath.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Margret talked about it in the summer release thread.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Johncv said:


> I think the "cable companies" are starting to realize that they need to compete with someone or they will be declare a "common carrier" and not just for internet, but for everything.


God, I wish.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

rainwater said:


> I would imagine these "discussions" are with MSOs that already use TiVos. I'm not sure other cable operators are really their priorities for this initially. I hope I am wrong and this will work for the stand alone market but I am not holding my breath.


Yeah, you're probably right. TWC goes out of it's way to be extremely hostile to TiVo users, and they are the big SDV user, so unless the Comcast-TWC merger goes through, they're not going to do anything about it.

If the merger does go through, then it remains to be seen if Comcast "Comcast-izes" the TWC systems and gets rid of SDV, or puts SDV on it's own systems or what. Comcast would be the only MSO that would actually do this, except that they don't use SDV.

The real answer is MPEG-4. An 860mhz plant can do 200 HDs and 300mbps internet if they use MPEG-4 for all the HDs.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, you're probably right. TWC goes out of it's way to be extremely hostile to TiVo users, and they are the big SDV user, so unless the Comcast-TWC merger goes through, they're not going to do anything about it.
> 
> If the merger does go through, then it remains to be seen if Comcast "Comcast-izes" the TWC systems and gets rid of SDV, or puts SDV on it's own systems or what. Comcast would be the only MSO that would actually do this, except that they don't use SDV.
> 
> The real answer is MPEG-4. An 860mhz plant can do 200 HDs and 300mbps internet if they use MPEG-4 for all the HDs.


That's it? Really? Only 200 HD channels with switch to H.264?


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

I think it's a lot more than 200.
860 Mhz / 6 Mhz per QAM 256 = 143 QAM 256 channels.
Each QAM can support total bit rate up to 38 Mbps. So let's assuming you are very generous and limit each QAM to 3 HD channels (12.67 Mbps each which is generous for H.264 encodings) then you can fit 143*3 = 429 HD channels. Of course you don't use full bandwidth for TV channels since there will be a lot of bandwidth dedicated to cable modem and other uses, but still back of napkin calculations give you an idea. Realistically, the cable companies would probably try to squeeze in 5 to 6 HD channels per QAM when using H.264 encoding - many already squeeze in 3 or more HD channels per QAM using mpeg2 encoding.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, you're probably right. TWC goes out of it's way to be extremely hostile to TiVo users, and they are the big SDV user, so unless the Comcast-TWC merger goes through, they're not going to do anything about it.
> 
> If the merger does go through, then it remains to be seen if Comcast "Comcast-izes" the TWC systems and gets rid of SDV, or puts SDV on it's own systems or what. Comcast would be the only MSO that would actually do this, except that they don't use SDV.
> 
> The real answer is MPEG-4. An 860mhz plant can do 200 HDs and 300mbps internet if they use MPEG-4 for all the HDs.


The main reason that TWC uses so much SDV is that they are still sending through analog channels in many markets. I still get about 60 analog channels coming through on my TWC system. If the Comcast merger does go through, Comcast will force TWC to phase out analog signals and that will free up a lot of bandwidth.

Eventually, cable systems will also stop sending through both SD and HD digital signals for the exact same channel, which will also free up some more bandwidth. Any new cable boxes capable of decoding MPEG-4 should also be able to down-convert HD signals to SD signals as needed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> That's it? Really? Only 200 HD channels with switch to H.264?


I don't think that there are more than about 200 HD channels in the first place. But I'll go through the exercise below anyways.



moyekj said:


> I think it's a lot more than 200.
> 860 Mhz / 6 Mhz per QAM 256 = 143 QAM 256 channels.
> Each QAM can support total bit rate up to 38 Mbps. So let's assuming you are very generous and limit each QAM to 3 HD channels (12.67 Mbps each which is generous for H.264 encodings) then you can fit 143*3 = 429 HD channels. Of course you don't use full bandwidth for TV channels since there will be a lot of bandwidth dedicated to cable modem and other uses, but still back of napkin calculations give you an idea. Realistically, the cable companies would probably try to squeeze in 5 to 6 HD channels per QAM when using H.264 encoding - many already squeeze in 3 or more HD channels per QAM using mpeg2 encoding.


That's pretty far off base. Let's start with a best-case scenario, Verizon FIOS, which has NO internet, NO phone, and NO VOD, and has an ~860mhz system. The downstream starts at ~50mhz, so that's 810mhz or 135 channels. They have something like 400 SDs and upwards of 200 HDs, and their system is absolutely, completely, jam packed full. Even if they're aggressive with the SDs running 10 per QAM, that's 40 QAMs. It's probably more like 50 QAMs, and I think they may actually have more than 400 SD channels. Now there's 95 QAMs left in a best case scenario. It's probably more like 85, which with a little bit of MPEG-4, and the rest MPEG-2 with some lesser-watched channels tri-muxed works out to close to 200 HDs on FIOS.

Now let's look at cable. Comcast runs around 130 HD's, mostly tri-muxed or bi-muxed with an SD or two on the QAM, plus around 300-350 SD's, internet, VOD, phone, and home security on an 860mhz system, although they aren't maxed out yet on those systems. On their totally maxed out 650mhz systems, they are running around 90 HDs, probably 250-300 SDs, and all the rest. You add two more QAMs for internet, 50 SD channels using 5 QAMs and around 14 QAMs for the additional HDs, and that's 21 QAMs, or 126mhz above a 650mhz system, or an approximately 770mhz that they are running on the 860mhz systems, leaving around 70-80mhz free.

So, back to my original post, which promised "200 HDs and 300mbps internet". Let's do the internet first. Comcast is currently running 8 QAMs on 860mhz systems, so they would need 8 more to do 300mbps internet like TWC is doing (16 downstream channels). So starting off with 78mhz free, we now have 30mhz free. Assuming that we do nothing to the SDs, let's move to MPEG-4 with 5 HD's per QAM. That 130 channels currently using say, 50 QAMs/300mhz is now crushed down to, say, 28 QAMs/168mhz, freeing up 22 QAMs/132mhz. In both I'm assuming a few channels don't get as squished as standard, as is the norm for Comcast now for a select few channels like ESPN and HBO. It's also not that clean, since they mix HDs and SDs, but the math still basically works.

Now, we have 30+132=162mhz or 27 QAM's free. That's 135 MPEG-4 HDs in addition to the 130 already there. So yes, you could probably push it to about 250-270 HDs before you are completely out of room on an 860mhz systems, assuming you are willing to go right to the top of the system.

If I were Comcast, I would do some additional pruning to free up space. I would preserve what the DTAs get as MPEG-2 SD, but take all other SD channels, and just get rid of the ones that are also broadcast in HD, and convert the remaining ones over to MPEG-4. This would require a little bit of additional hardware, but not much, as very few people subscribe to more than Digital Starter/Expanded Basic but don't have HD. That could potentially free up a little bit of additional space, although not a whole lot, something on the order of magnitude of 30-50mhz.



tarheelblue32 said:


> The main reason that TWC uses so much SDV is that they are still sending through analog channels in many markets. I still get about 60 analog channels coming through on my TWC system. If the Comcast merger does go through, Comcast will force TWC to phase out analog signals and that will free up a lot of bandwidth.
> 
> Eventually, cable systems will also stop sending through both SD and HD digital signals for the exact same channel, which will also free up some more bandwidth. Any new cable boxes capable of decoding MPEG-4 should also be able to down-convert HD signals to SD signals as needed.


Many of their markets, like NYC are all-digital and still require SDV. They have an epic crapload of HD channels and are still using MPEG-2.

That's going to be a LONG time for the Expanded Basic/Digital Starter channels, but will happen sooner for higher tier SD channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

U-Verse has just north of 200 HD "channels", so with the right system management (MPEG-4) and upgrades (860mhz), Comcast should be able to match their HD offering while blowing their internet totally out of the water, and offering as many tuners as people will pay for.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Many of their markets, like NYC are all-digital and still require SDV. They have an epic crapload of HD channels and are still using MPEG-2.


I understand that, but in my market where the analog channels are still taking up a ton of space, even very popular HD channels are on SDV, which means if my tuning adapter fails I am pretty screwed. Getting rid of the analog channels should at least allow them to have the 50 or so most commonly viewed HD channels as non-SDV channels. I am not against using SDV for the more niche HD channels that have limited appeal, that actually makes some sense, but having AMC HD or TNT HD or FX HD being SDV is very aggravating.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I understand that, but in my market where the analog channels are still taking up a ton of space, even very popular HD channels are on SDV, which means if my tuning adapter fails I am pretty screwed. Getting rid of the analog channels should at least allow them to have the 50 or so most commonly viewed HD channels as non-SDV channels. I am not against using SDV for the more niche HD channels that have limited appeal, that actually makes some sense, but having AMC HD or TNT HD or FX HD being SDV is very aggravating.


Even with a 1GHz network, my Cox market has all my favorite channels on SDV, while still supporting analog. Cox made the community a promise that analog cable would continue to work, after the OTA digital transition. I think they fear a major backlash if they cut analog service, after the media blitz campaign with that promise...

Still, once again, they are doubling our internet speeds, as they promise every year "for free". In 6-8 months, the bill will reflect the speed doubling, in the name of "due to increased operational costs, tariffs, and taxes...".

They get away with murder. I love the "Free HD", that we have to pay extra to get. Yet, they keep analog around... I guess they must have enough "low income" subscribers, who they figure they'll lose if those subscribers can't just connect and get channels 3-69, with some gaps in-between...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> U-Verse has just north of 200 HD "channels", so with the right system management (MPEG-4) and upgrades (860mhz), Comcast should be able to match their HD offering while blowing their internet totally out of the water, and offering as many tuners as people will pay for.


U-verse is pure IP. They only send a channel to your house when it's requested by one of your boxes. So the number of channels they actually offer is irrelevant. They could potentially offer every channel in existence if they wanted to. However they only have about 25-30Mbps total to use for both TV and internet, so the maximum number of simultaneous streams is limited to just 4 and that's with them using super compressed 5-6Mbps H.264 for the HD channels.

Typically H.264 only reduces video by about 30-40% compared to MPEG-2, so if we have 100 HD channels now converting to H.264 would only add the capacity for 40-50 more HD channels. To go beyond that they need SDV. SDV is essentially the same thing that U-verse does just at the node level instead of the individual home. If properly managed SDV can add a LOT more channels then a switch to H.264. Plus SDV is compatible with most existing equipment, whereas a switch to H.264 would require a major upgrade at the headend and the replacement of a large number of boxes in the field.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

I don't see SDV going away. Here in Orange County Cox upgraded to 1 GHz quite a long time ago now and still heavily employ SDV. The 860 Mhz-1GHz space they are currently partially using for H.264 channels since the newer set top boxes needed for 1 GHz tuning can decode H.264 anyway. Of course they still have all the analog channels as well, so can reclaim a lot of bandwidth eventually just by doing away with those. Even if they got rid of all analog channels and all H.264 I fully expect SDV to remain. They've already made the investment in SDV (including increasing number of nodes to make SDV more efficient) so doesn't make much sense to get rid of it at this point.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

moyekj said:


> I don't see SDV going away. Here in Orange County Cox upgraded to 1 GHz quite a long time ago now and still heavily employ SDV. The 860 Mhz-1GHz space they are currently partially using for H.264 channels since the newer set top boxes needed for 1 GHz tuning can decode H.264 anyway. Of course they still have all the analog channels as well, so can reclaim a lot of bandwidth eventually just by doing away with those. Even if they got rid of all analog channels and all H.264 I fully expect SDV to remain. They've already made the investment in SDV (including increasing number of nodes to make SDV more efficient) so doesn't make much sense to get rid of it at this point.


Cox Omaha already upgraded to 1GHz and just list past year might have been end of 2013 started using sdv So I guess with Cox at least SDV will be everywhere even in 1GHz areas.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

Johncv said:


> This is the first time I head about this, and some "know-it-all" on this forum made the statement that it could not be done. I for one will be the first in line if/when TiVo release a retail box.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-crafts-embedded-switched-digital-video-tech/376007


I posted the story link on Cox Communication's facebook page, so they know of it at least.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I understand that, but in my market where the analog channels are still taking up a ton of space, even very popular HD channels are on SDV, which means if my tuning adapter fails I am pretty screwed. Getting rid of the analog channels should at least allow them to have the 50 or so most commonly viewed HD channels as non-SDV channels. I am not against using SDV for the more niche HD channels that have limited appeal, that actually makes some sense, but having AMC HD or TNT HD or FX HD being SDV is very aggravating.


True, some markets haven't been upgraded. There is no good reason to use SDV at all given the number of channels, bandwidth demands, and the capacity of modern HFC systems. When you can run 200 HD's and 300mbps without SDV, why use SDV? It's just a kludgy crutch to avoid investing in the systems and/or equipment.



nooneuknow said:


> Even with a 1GHz network, my Cox market has all my favorite channels on SDV, while still supporting analog. Cox made the community a promise that analog cable would continue to work, after the OTA digital transition. I think they fear a major backlash if they cut analog service, after the media blitz campaign with that promise...
> 
> Still, once again, they are doubling our internet speeds, as they promise every year "for free". In 6-8 months, the bill will reflect the speed doubling, in the name of "due to increased operational costs, tariffs, and taxes...".
> 
> They get away with murder. I love the "Free HD", that we have to pay extra to get. Yet, they keep analog around... I guess they must have enough "low income" subscribers, who they figure they'll lose if those subscribers can't just connect and get channels 3-69, with some gaps in-between...


Yeah, Cox is pretty screwed up. 1ghz is great future-proofing, but there's no need to use anything above 860mhz for the forseeable future. What a boneheaded move to keep analog, Comcast finally got rid of it, years later than they should have, but they did. Analog is just a pure waste. They could just give out permanently free DTAs unlike Comcast did to support analog TVs.

The other big reason to go to digital is cable theft. They are still susceptible to cable theft unlike Comcast, which is locked down hard. I wish Comcast had kept basic in the clear for troubleshooting, but oh well.



Dan203 said:


> U-verse is pure IP. They only send a channel to your house when it's requested by one of your boxes. So the number of channels they actually offer is irrelevant. They could potentially offer every channel in existence if they wanted to. However they only have about 25-30Mbps total to use for both TV and internet, so the maximum number of simultaneous streams is limited to just 4 and that's with them using super compressed 5-6Mbps H.264 for the HD channels.


I am well aware of how U-Verse works. My point is that U-Verse offers about 200 "channels", and Comcast could match that without SDV on an 860mhz system if they used MPEG-4 for HD, and still be able to offer internet that's over 6x faster than U-Verse's fastest (and not widely available) tier.



> Typically H.264 only reduces video by about 30-40% compared to MPEG-2, so if we have 100 HD channels now converting to H.264 would only add the capacity for 40-50 more HD channels. To go beyond that they need SDV. SDV is essentially the same thing that U-verse does just at the node level instead of the individual home. If properly managed SDV can add a LOT more channels then a switch to H.264. Plus SDV is compatible with most existing equipment, whereas a switch to H.264 would require a major upgrade at the headend and the replacement of a large number of boxes in the field.


No. H.264 is about half the bandwidth. The nominal "full quality" standard for MPEG-2 is 2 HDs per QAM, so it would be 4 HDs per QAM for H.264, since Comcast gets away with tri-muxing, I figure they could significantly improve their quality but still fit way more channels on with 5 HD's per QAM using H.264. Using this ratio and accounting for higher video quality, you get 5/3 as many channels.

As I have shown, there is no need for SDV when you can get 200+ HDs and 300mbps internet on an 860mhz system. SDV, unlike H.264 and plant upgrades, offers an unlimited number of channels if you size the nodes to individually serve channels up to subscribers (although you will always have a lot of re-use with popular channels), however, there aren't more than about 200 HD's out there, so building a system with unlimited capacity seems sort of silly unless you're trying to engineer your way around not upgrading older systems, like 650mhz systems, which is a really crappy way of doing things. They should go and do the physical plant upgrades that need to be done, and do it the right way.

Most boxes out there today are MPEG-4 capable. The older DCT and DCH's are not, but they are way beyond needing to be replaced anyways. DCXs and newer all support MPEG-4.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, Cox is pretty screwed up. 1ghz is great future-proofing, but there's no need to use anything above 860mhz for the forseeable future. What a boneheaded move to keep analog, Comcast finally got rid of it, years later than they should have, but they did. Analog is just a pure waste. They could just give out permanently free DTAs unlike Comcast did to support analog TVs.
> 
> The other big reason to go to digital is cable theft. They are still susceptible to cable theft unlike Comcast, which is locked down hard. I wish Comcast had kept basic in the clear for troubleshooting, but oh well.


They put all their H.264 channels up above 860MHz, starting at 961MHz.

Their way of stopping TV service to internet subs is a trap, which is so easy to remove, a 10yr old could figure out how to remove the trap, even with the tamper shields. If the residence has no internet service, they used to just put the same trap in. If the trap disappears, they hack the cable end off, or pull the lateral out of the tube. I used to enjoy the perks of being in my garage at 2AM, when the Cox anti-theft engineer would come borrow my tools, lend me his, let RG-11 and RG-6 spools fall off the truck, along with bags of splitters and F-connectors, etc. He's gone, and so are the days of me being better-stocked than most Cox vans...  Interestingly, their way of identifying potential theft was checking for signal egress/ingress spikes on nodes (most thieves don't terminate properly), then rolling by and seeing which house was egressing, and checking to see if that house was a valid sub. I was told that they got a lot of false alarms due to people disconnecting things and leaving ports open (unterminated).

They do keep a channel 99 in the digital lineup, which is analog, and only there for testing, not any actual programming to watch on it. It shows up in my digital extended channel map (unchecked).

For the longest time, their leased boxes got digital 2-99, while cablecard got them in analog. The switch to letting cablecard users get digital programming only happened when the FCC huffed and puffed before the integration ban and mandates became effective.

I think the sheer number of "The Suites" (formerly Budget Suites), and similar roach-infested, black-mold overrun, craphole hotels here might be the biggest users of analog service. They often include a TV that is bolted down on a swivel, and TiVo has them in their channel lineups, if you use the right zip codes, or special Zip codes that don't exist, like the 00000/Tiny TiVo one I discovered by accident, while bored.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

ajwees41 said:


> I posted the story link on Cox Communication's facebook page, so they know of it at least.


Cox will just remove it from their Facebook page.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Johncv said:


> Cox will just remove it from their Facebook page.


No, they'll have their reputation management service do it for them.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

Bigg said:


> True, some markets haven't been upgraded. There is no good reason to use SDV at all given the number of channels, bandwidth demands, and the capacity of modern HFC systems. When you can run 200 HD's and 300mbps without SDV, why use SDV? It's just a kludgy crutch to avoid investing in the systems and/or equipment.
> 
> Yeah, Cox is pretty screwed up. 1ghz is great future-proofing, but there's no need to use anything above 860mhz for the forseeable future. What a boneheaded move to keep analog, Comcast finally got rid of it, years later than they should have, but they did. Analog is just a pure waste. They could just give out permanently free DTAs unlike Comcast did to support analog TVs.
> 
> ...


If I remember right Cox only said Analog for 2 years after the Analog to Digital switch and Cox is already looking at DTA's http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/cox-picks-dtas-cisco-evolution-digital/382904


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> No. H.264 is about half the bandwidth. The nominal "full quality" standard for MPEG-2 is 2 HDs per QAM, so it would be 4 HDs per QAM for H.264, since Comcast gets away with tri-muxing, I figure they could significantly improve their quality but still fit way more channels on with 5 HD's per QAM using H.264. Using this ratio and accounting for higher video quality, you get 5/3 as many channels.


While the claim of H.264 is 50% compression over MPEG-2, with realtime encoding it's more like 30%. Trust me this is my area of expertise. Services like Netflix can cram 1080p/24 into 6Mbps because they use multi-pass encoding of pristine source files. Cable companies are getting already compressed streams from the networks and converting them to H.264 in realtime. The compression just isn't as efficient. If they are already using a single QAM for 3 MPEG-2 channels then it's conceivable they could cram 5 H.264 channels into one, but the quality is not going to improve. In fact it'll probably look a little worse and you'll likely have more issues with navigation and pixelation at the start of programs. H.264 is not the holy grail you seem to think it is. Most of the extra compression the spec provides comes from complex features that aren't available when doing realtime encoding.

The cable industry will still likely switch to H.264 eventually, but they will also likely continue to expand SDV and upgrade systems to 1GHz as well. H.264 is not the answer to all their problems.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

nooneuknow said:


> Their way of stopping TV service to internet subs is a trap, which is so easy to remove, a 10yr old could figure out how to remove the trap, even with the tamper shields. If the residence has no internet service, they used to just put the same trap in. If the trap disappears, they hack the cable end off, or pull the lateral out of the tube.


OTOH, Comcast, by putting everything on encrypted QAM, can cut off a customer's TV service with a click of a button in their application. Somehow the cost savings that this presumably results in never get reflected in our bills.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> They put all their H.264 channels up above 860MHz, starting at 961MHz.
> 
> Their way of stopping TV service to internet subs is a trap, which is so easy to remove, a 10yr old could figure out how to remove the trap, even with the tamper shields. If the residence has no internet service, they used to just put the same trap in. If the trap disappears, they hack the cable end off, or pull the lateral out of the tube. I used to enjoy the perks of being in my garage at 2AM, when the Cox anti-theft engineer would come borrow my tools, lend me his, let RG-11 and RG-6 spools fall off the truck, along with bags of splitters and F-connectors, etc. He's gone, and so are the days of me being better-stocked than most Cox vans...  Interestingly, their way of identifying potential theft was checking for signal egress/ingress spikes on nodes (most thieves don't terminate properly), then rolling by and seeing which house was egressing, and checking to see if that house was a valid sub. I was told that they got a lot of false alarms due to people disconnecting things and leaving ports open (unterminated).
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's exactly the problem, it's easy to steal. Especially if you have internet-only service. The trap system was a mess, but it's all they had for decades. Now they have something better.

Those hotels could use bulk QAM-to-NTSC demodulation systems, which are used by hotels, schools, universities, and hospitals to create local NTSC cable systems from an all-digital system without boxes in every room...



ajwees41 said:


> If I remember right Cox only said Analog for 2 years after the Analog to Digital switch and Cox is already looking at DTA's http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/cox-picks-dtas-cisco-evolution-digital/382904


Interesting. That would make more sense than an indefinite promise. An indefinite promise to support them for free with DTAs would be a nice thing, if that was included in their marketing...



Dan203 said:


> While the claim of H.264 is 50% compression over MPEG-2, with realtime encoding it's more like 30%. Trust me this is my area of expertise. Services like Netflix can cram 1080p/24 into 6Mbps because they use multi-pass encoding of pristine source files. Cable companies are getting already compressed streams from the networks and converting them to H.264 in realtime. The compression just isn't as efficient. If they are already using a single QAM for 3 MPEG-2 channels then it's conceivable they could cram 5 H.264 channels into one, but the quality is not going to improve. In fact it'll probably look a little worse and you'll likely have more issues with navigation and pixelation at the start of programs. H.264 is not the holy grail you seem to think it is. Most of the extra compression the spec provides comes from complex features that aren't available when doing realtime encoding.
> 
> The cable industry will still likely switch to H.264 eventually, but they will also likely continue to expand SDV and upgrade systems to 1GHz as well. H.264 is not the answer to all their problems.


Then explain how U-Verse, with slightly worse picture quality than Comcast is around 6mbps, and Comcast is around 12mbps? DirecTV is a bit higher than 6mbps, but they have much better PQ. Their 8-9mbps is on par with the channels that aren't tri-muxed on FIOS, and are running at 16-18mbps...

An average of 7.6mbps with 5 channels to statistically multiplex sounds pretty reasonable, and a huge quality jump over U-Verse's ~6mbps, and probably a significant jump over today's ~11-12mbps MPEG-2 channels.

Comcast has many systems stuck at 650mhz, so I'm not sure when they are going to upgrade. Last I heard, they had no more plans to upgrade anything. The systems that got upgrades got them, and the ones that didn't... well, they didn't.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Then explain how U-Verse, with slightly worse picture quality than Comcast is around 6mbps, and Comcast is around 12mbps? DirecTV is a bit higher than 6mbps, but they have much better PQ. Their 8-9mbps is on par with the channels that aren't tri-muxed on FIOS, and are running at 16-18mbps...
> 
> An average of 7.6mbps with 5 channels to statistically multiplex sounds pretty reasonable, and a huge quality jump over U-Verse's ~6mbps, and probably a significant jump over today's ~11-12mbps MPEG-2 channels.
> 
> Comcast has many systems stuck at 650mhz, so I'm not sure when they are going to upgrade. Last I heard, they had no more plans to upgrade anything. The systems that got upgrades got them, and the ones that didn't... well, they didn't.


6Mbps is too low for realtime encoding and the U-verse picture quality suffers greatly because of it. Just look at their forums and you'll see a ton of complaints about picture quality. Ideally a realtime encoded 1080i H.264 stream should be 8-10Mbps and a realtime encoded MPEG-2 stream should be 14-19Mbps. These companies that are using 6-7Mbps for H.264 and 10-12Mbps for MPEG-2 are sacrificing quality in the name of cramming more channels into the pipe. Switching to H.264 is not going to improve picture quality on those systems at all, in fact it'll likely make it worse because an over compressed H.264 stream has different issues then MPEG-2. With MPEG-2 the most common artifact is a sudden burst of macroblocks when there is fast movement. (or water, confetti, etc...) With H.264 the problems tend to lean more toward smearing and softening of the picture, or an issue where the picture appears to get blurry over time and then suddenly snaps back into focus every 15-30 seconds when a new I frame comes along. You'll also notice jerkiness during pans as well as irregular macroblocking with fast motion.

Like it or not SDV is the cheapest solution for those system stuck with limited bandwidth. It's based on existing VOD architecture so it's relatively fast and easy to deploy. Whereas H.264 requires major upgrades to the encoders on the backend (costing tens of thousands each) as well as replacement of a large percentage of the equipment deployed in the field. SDV is just a better option, from the operators perspective, then switching to H.264.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> 6Mbps is too low for realtime encoding and the U-verse picture quality suffers greatly because of it. Just look at their forums and you'll see a ton of complaints about picture quality. Ideally a realtime encoded 1080i H.264 stream should be 8-10Mbps and a realtime encoded MPEG-2 stream should be 14-19Mbps. These companies that are using 6-7Mbps for H.264 and 10-12Mbps for MPEG-2 are sacrificing quality in the name of cramming more channels into the pipe. Switching to H.264 is not going to improve picture quality on those systems at all, in fact it'll likely make it worse because an over compressed H.264 stream has different issues then MPEG-2. With MPEG-2 the most common artifact is a sudden burst of macroblocks when there is fast movement. (or water, confetti, etc...) With H.264 the problems tend to lean more toward smearing and softening of the picture, or an issue where the picture appears to get blurry over time and then suddenly snaps back into focus every 15-30 seconds when a new I frame comes along. You'll also notice jerkiness during pans as well as irregular macroblocking with fast motion.
> 
> Like it or not SDV is the cheapest solution for those system stuck with limited bandwidth. It's based on existing VOD architecture so it's relatively fast and easy to deploy. Whereas H.264 requires major upgrades to the encoders on the backend (costing tens of thousands each) as well as replacement of a large percentage of the equipment deployed in the field. SDV is just a better option, from the operators perspective, then switching to H.264.


Yes, 6mbps is too low, but you'd get great results out of a 7.6mbps average statistical multiplex. Small changes in bandwidth cause large variations in quality.

SDV is a terrible kludge, at least the way it is implemented now. Once they are running 1ghz plants that have all-MPEG-4, and they're maxed out, and need more room for UHD, then they might have an argument. But until then, they shouldn't need SDV. SDV should be the last thing on the table, not the first. Upgrade systems, kill analog, switch to MPEG-4, and then and ONLY then get out SDV.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

For cable companies already with SDV deployed there's zero incentive to do away with it given the investments already done and the benefits it provides. It's here to stay.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Bigg said:


> Then explain how U-Verse, with slightly worse picture quality than Comcast is around 6mbps, and Comcast is around 12mbps? DirecTV is a bit higher than 6mbps, but they have much better PQ. Their 8-9mbps is on par with the channels that aren't tri-muxed on FIOS, and are running at 16-18mbps...
> 
> An average of 7.6mbps with 5 channels to statistically multiplex sounds pretty reasonable, and a huge quality jump over U-Verse's ~6mbps, and probably a significant jump over today's ~11-12mbps MPEG-2 channels.
> 
> Comcast has many systems stuck at 650mhz, so I'm not sure when they are going to upgrade. Last I heard, they had no more plans to upgrade anything. The systems that got upgrades got them, and the ones that didn't... well, they didn't.


Perhaps Turbo Coding both Dish and DirecTV use it, and other methods of increasing through-put. This can provide for pretty low birate, but no loss in PQ. Neither DBS needs to conform to any industry standard as the MSO's do, so DBS designs their systems with more future-proofing for increased through-put and employ other bands outside the DBS Ku to deliver services over several satellites and customers could be looking at as many as 3 or 4 or even 5 satellites for all their services. Also, other hardware in DBS set-top-boxes along with other software solutions that allow cramming at least 7 HD channels in about 32MHz of DBS bandwidth, and it is good HD PQ. Also, DirecTV uses the greater bandwidth Ka spectrum for its HD services over a constellation of satellites. Dish uses Ku DBS, but it too has constellations of satellites: one arc for the west and one arc for the east. Dish also uses Ku FSS to deliver its international programming. So, DBS have increased their total bandwidth to accommodate HD services without losing their SD services.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Yes, 6mbps is too low, but you'd get great results out of a 7.6mbps average statistical multiplex. Small changes in bandwidth cause large variations in quality.
> 
> SDV is a terrible kludge, at least the way it is implemented now. Once they are running 1ghz plants that have all-MPEG-4, and they're maxed out, and need more room for UHD, then they might have an argument. But until then, they shouldn't need SDV. SDV should be the last thing on the table, not the first. Upgrade systems, kill analog, switch to MPEG-4, and then and ONLY then get out SDV.


7.6Mbps is still not "great" for a realtime encode. It would probably acceptable, like the 12Mbps is acceptable for MPEG-2, but it's definitely not "great". Also you're basing that on a QAM having 38Mbps of bandwidth to divide up but there is overhead so if they really put 5 channels on a QAM it would actually be lower per channel. At 4 per QAM the quality would probably be "great", at 5 per QAM it would be marginal. Now if they split it up and did 4 HD and 2 SD then they might be able to get something good. (SD has 1/6 the resolution of 1080i so it can get away with like 1-2Mbps and look fine)

The reason SDV is the first choice of MSOs is because it's the cheapest. SDV is based on VOD technology, which every box and node already supports. It costs very little to get it up and running. Converting to 1GHz and/or H.264 both require huge investments on the backend and require the replacement of a large percentage of deployed equipment. Like most corporations their focus is on short term profits not long term benefits. We'll likely see the transition to H.264 happen slowly, as old equipment is retired and needs to be replaced anyway it'll be replaced with H.264 compatible equipment. 1GHz will likely be slower as it requires running of new coax in some areas which is a huge investment and would result in customer down time, which nobody wants. It's especially difficult in areas with underground wiring.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> For cable companies already with SDV deployed there's zero incentive to do away with it given the investments already done and the benefits it provides. It's here to stay.


Well, at least until they have the bandwidth so that they don't need it in the first place. The real question is what happens if TWC-Comcast goes through. TWC is a heavy user of SDV, Comcast doesn't use SDV. Do they "Comcast-ize" the TWC systems and get rid of SDV, or do they bring SDV over to the Comcast side so that they can avoid doing plant and MPEG-4 upgrades in order to offer 300mbps like TWC and UHD when that comes along?



Series3Sub said:


> Perhaps Turbo Coding both Dish and DirecTV use it, and other methods of increasing through-put. This can provide for pretty low birate, but no loss in PQ. Neither DBS needs to conform to any industry standard as the MSO's do, so DBS designs their systems with more future-proofing for increased through-put and employ other bands outside the DBS Ku to deliver services over several satellites and customers could be looking at as many as 3 or 4 or even 5 satellites for all their services. Also, other hardware in DBS set-top-boxes along with other software solutions that allow cramming at least 7 HD channels in about 32MHz of DBS bandwidth, and it is good HD PQ. Also, DirecTV uses the greater bandwidth Ka spectrum for its HD services over a constellation of satellites. Dish uses Ku DBS, but it too has constellations of satellites: one arc for the west and one arc for the east. Dish also uses Ku FSS to deliver its international programming. So, DBS have increased their total bandwidth to accommodate HD services without losing their SD services.


You can still compare bitrate to bitrate. DISH is somewhere in the 6mbps range, DirecTV is like 8-9mbps. The quality difference is apparent. DirecTV basically has two satellites, since all their mainstream HD is at 99c/103c, with SD at 101, and Spanish language and some SD locals at 119. But yes, they have added a ton of bandwidth, although DirecTV's HD lineup is still pretty lackluster compared to some cable and telco options, likely due to bandwidth limitations.



Dan203 said:


> 7.6Mbps is still not "great" for a realtime encode. It would probably acceptable, like the 12Mbps is acceptable for MPEG-2, but it's definitely not "great". Also you're basing that on a QAM having 38Mbps of bandwidth to divide up but there is overhead so if they really put 5 channels on a QAM it would actually be lower per channel. At 4 per QAM the quality would probably be "great", at 5 per QAM it would be marginal. Now if they split it up and did 4 HD and 2 SD then they might be able to get something good. (SD has 1/6 the resolution of 1080i so it can get away with like 1-2Mbps and look fine)
> 
> The reason SDV is the first choice of MSOs is because it's the cheapest. SDV is based on VOD technology, which every box and node already supports. It costs very little to get it up and running. Converting to 1GHz and/or H.264 both require huge investments on the backend and require the replacement of a large percentage of deployed equipment. Like most corporations their focus is on short term profits not long term benefits. We'll likely see the transition to H.264 happen slowly, as old equipment is retired and needs to be replaced anyway it'll be replaced with H.264 compatible equipment. 1GHz will likely be slower as it requires running of new coax in some areas which is a huge investment and would result in customer down time, which nobody wants. It's especially difficult in areas with underground wiring.


Yes, ideally they would go to 9mbps MPEG-4, to be on par with 19mbps MPEG-2 that is the golden standard of HD broadcasting. But 7.6mbps MPEG-4 would be a huge improvement over the 12mbps MPEG-2 that we have today...

They could also just compress the living crap out of SD channels that have HD versions, because they only people still watching them are watching them through coax from a DTA and apparently can't see the quality difference between anything and anything else anyways. But yes, that's another strategy, and one that I'm pretty sure they are using today, as there are some HDs on Comcast that are higher than 12mbps, but too high to be tri-muxed, so my guess is they're running something like a 14/14 split on the HDs and filling the rest with SDs.

That's the problem. Short term thinking. Just like the telcos not doing wide deployments of FTTH (other than FIOS, which they did ~60% of and then gave up). Why is coax limited by frequency? Isn't it only the electronics that are limited? Coax is just a piece of wire...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Why is coax limited by frequency? Isn't it only the electronics that are limited? Coax is just a piece of wire...


Shielding. Only high quality quad shielded RG6 can carry a 1GHz signal reliably. The quality of the connectors and splitters is also important.

And it's not just the coax to the home that's a problem, the coax inside people's homes is also a problem. A lot of older home still have cheap RG59 cables and 800Mhz splitters which will cause signal issues for 1GHz systems. And since most people pay the "wire maintenance fee" the MSO would be on the hook for fixing all that too.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Dan203 said:


> Shielding. Only high quality quad shielded RG6 can carry a 1GHz signal reliably. The quality of the connectors and splitters is also important.
> 
> And it's not just the coax to the home that's a problem, the coax inside people's homes is also a problem. A lot of older home still have cheap RG59 cables and 800Mhz splitters which will cause signal issues for 1GHz systems. And since most people pay the "wire maintenance fee" the MSO would be on the hook for fixing all that too.


This is why Cox has a fit if I use anything that isn't what they use, or a proven equivalent. They also nixed use of attenuators, as well as connector types that they used for years. Every time they come out, they cut the ends off the lateral (at minimum) and replace them. When I say "those were replaced two weeks ago", the tech will always say "I don't trust anybody's work but my own".

They'd rather cut and replace until the cable is too short, and then run new cable, than trust the tech that was out before them.

I used to use a Radio Shack adjustable cable modem attenuator to deal with being at the "end of the run" and them having faulty AGC, causing my signal to vary from day to night, and season to season. Every tech wanted that thing gone, and wanted to blame every problem on it. Taking it out made no difference, when I insisted they prove it was causing any problem.

Cox's response when I demand they fix the AGC stress condition: "You are at the end of the run, and the only customer connected to it. One customer is not enough to re-engineer the network, because your TiVos can't deal with it".

Upon escalating to the point the sent an engineer and a trainee out, I no more that uttered "TiVo", and the engineer said "We're done here!", disconnected without taking any readings, and almost slammed my hand in the truck door as a plead my case that they had to support their cablecards. "We don't support TiVo!!!", he yelled, and if not for quick reflexes, I'd have had a crushed hand.

I reported the incident, and suggested they were lucky I wasn't injured. Now, I'm apparently blacklisted. I say my name and PIN number, and the interactions are very minimal. Any attempts to escalate anything get thrown into a black hole, where they'll "call me back" and never do...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> Upon escalating to the point the sent an engineer and a trainee out, I no more that uttered "TiVo", and the engineer said "We're done here!", disconnected without taking any readings, and almost slammed my hand in the truck door as a plead my case that they had to support their cablecards. "We don't support TiVo!!!", he yelled, and if not for quick reflexes, I'd have had a crushed hand.
> 
> I reported the incident, and suggested they were lucky I wasn't injured. Now, I'm apparently blacklisted. I say my name and PIN number, and the interactions are very minimal. Any attempts to escalate anything get thrown into a black hole, where they'll "call me back" and never do...


If that had happened to me, I'd probably be filing a complaint with the FCC every single day until they came out and fixed the problem.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

nooneuknow said:


> This is why Cox has a fit if I use anything that isn't what they use, or a proven equivalent. They also nixed use of attenuators, as well as connector types that they used for years. Every time they come out, they cut the ends off the lateral (at minimum) and replace them. When I say "those were replaced two weeks ago", the tech will always say "I don't trust anybody's work but my own".


1GHz is right on the cusp of what coax, even good coax, can reliably support at distance. I'm sure they have a lot of problems with people who are on the edges of the network, like yourself, because you're really out of range and they're too cheap to install another node.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If that had happened to me, I'd probably be filing a complaint with the FCC every single day until they came out and fixed the problem.


It's a 4-port node at the end of the run. I have an RG11 and a RG6 lateral to the house (which they can't figure out how it got that way, but can't prove how it got that way). I used to be friends with a Cox engineer, and he couldn't justify running the dual lateral due to low signal before they went to 1GHz.

Since only one other tube runs into that interface box (all underground), only one other house can even connect (next door). So, I get to keep it that way.

Once the neighbors got the full internet/phone/TV package, the AGC stress improved. I don't know if it's the load of the other house, or due to Cox fixing something, because I finally wasn't the only house on that node.

They still read AGC stress when they come and test. But, the techs no longer always say that it's so bad it needs to go to engineering. That same engineer is still solely in charge of my neighborhood (the jerk, not the one that I was friends with), so every time a tech has said they pass it to engineering, into the black hole it goes.

I went to Cox corporate, and they said "they can't force their engineers to do anything they don't want to." It was implied that if I had pizzed-off the engineer for my area, I was screwed... Still like that now. I'm blacklisted.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Dan203 said:


> 1GHz is right on the cusp of what coax, even good coax, can reliably support at distance. I'm sure they have a lot of problems with people who are on the edges of the network, like yourself, because you're really out of range and they're too cheap to install another node.


Many techs have said pretty much the same as you just did. I posted again, before I saw your post, wrapping up the story, and where it stands now.

Whatever Cox has in their records, keeps most techs from even speaking to me or answering questions. Some are still honest, and nice enough, to tell me how many different ways I'm screwed, and how it's not my fault.

EDIT/ADD: My cable modem operates above 860MHz, and I have H.264 channels starting at 961MHz. When they add channels, or move them, it seems like they haphazardly look for an available QAM and use it, even if that means spotty operation.

TNT is one of my favorite channels, but they don't see it as popular, so they have placed it in bands where non-popular channels go, with the highest numbers of channels per QAM, and good luck on getting a single episode of anything, that isn't riddled with glitching...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> It's a 4-port node at the end of the run. I have an RG11 and a RG6 lateral to the house (which they can't figure out how it got that way, but can't prove how it got that way). I used to be friends with a Cox engineer, and he couldn't justify running the dual lateral due to low signal before they went to 1GHz.
> 
> Since only one other tube runs into that interface box (all underground), only one other house can even connect (next door). So, I get to keep it that way.
> 
> ...


But have you tried filing FCC complaints? If not, it doesn't hurt to try.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Have you tried filing FCC complaints? If not, it doesn't hurt to try.


The other people in my house don't want me to take it any further. They are mad at me over the way Cox now treats the account, and all those on the account. In this house, it's always something I must have done wrong, never any other party's fault.

Sometimes I long for times like the decade-plus I didn't watch TV, and if I had one, it wasn't connected to anything. That was in a different place, a different time, a different life, with a different climate, though... Triple digit temps make most of what I used to do instead of watching TV, near impossible, or totally impossible.

I actually miss snowmobiling (and not caring what was on TV).


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> The other people in my house don't want me to take it any further. They are mad at me over the way Cox now treats the account, and all those on the account. In this house, it's always something I must have done wrong, never any other party's fault.
> 
> Sometimes I long for times like the decade-plus I didn't watch TV, and if I had one, it wasn't connected to anything. That was in a different place, a different time, a different life, with a different climate, though... Triple digit temps make most of what I used to do instead of watching TV, near impossible, or totally impossible.
> 
> I actually miss snowmobiling (and not caring what was on TV).


My god, man. You sound like your spirit has been completely broken. You've got to stand up and keep fighting or else the terrorists will win.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> My god, man. You sound like your spirit has been completely broken. You've got to stand up and keep fighting or else the terrorists will win.


Have you watched CNN lately? It seems the terrorists are winning...

As far as my spirit goes... It's probably better off without me, wherever it went to. My shell will be around a while longer, giving advice on what splitters to use, helping with MoCA questions, and trying to stay current on technology, in-between the time I spend distracting myself from reality with TiVo. Every has-been, who wants to distract themselves from reality, really needs a TiVo.

I think that last sentence should be my new signature.

Enough about me, back to SDV!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

nooneuknow said:


> Have you watched CNN lately? It seems the terrorists are winning...
> 
> As far as my spirit goes... It's probably better off without me, wherever it went to. My shell will be around a while longer, giving advice on what splitters to use, helping with MoCA questions, and trying to stay current on technology, in-between the time I spend distracting myself from reality with TiVo. Every has-been, who wants to distract themselves from reality, really needs a TiVo.
> 
> ...


When I look at what we're paying just for analog cable, I'm convinced the terrorists have already won.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

nooneuknow said:


> I went to Cox corporate, and they said "they can't force their engineers to do anything they don't want to." It was implied that if I had pizzed-off the engineer for my area, I was screwed... Still like that now. I'm blacklisted.


Heh, judging from all the over-the-top OCD posts on this forum, I'm sure there's way more to the story than this.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Shielding. Only high quality quad shielded RG6 can carry a 1GHz signal reliably. The quality of the connectors and splitters is also important.
> 
> And it's not just the coax to the home that's a problem, the coax inside people's homes is also a problem. A lot of older home still have cheap RG59 cables and 800Mhz splitters which will cause signal issues for 1GHz systems. And since most people pay the "wire maintenance fee" the MSO would be on the hook for fixing all that too.


Wish my Dad was still here so I could quiz him.  He was the head field engineer for the local cable company before Adelphia bought them and then Comcast bought Adelphia and did the design for the last 2 build-out/upgrades of our local system.

I was the son that had a little electrical background so we would talk about the design work. From what I recall, as the bandwidth goes up, you not only need to replace the electronics to support it but generally the spacing between amplifiers gets shorter and the cable is generally larger in diameter due to greater loss at the higher frequencies (larger conductor and insulator).

Scott


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> I went to Cox corporate, and they said "they can't force their engineers to do anything they don't want to."


That's odd. I always thought a company's management set policy, not their subordinates.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> Wish my Dad was still here so I could quiz him.  He was the head field engineer for the local cable company before Adelphia bought them and then Comcast bought Adelphia and did the design for the last 2 build-out/upgrades of our local system.
> 
> I was the son that had a little electrical background so we would talk about the design work. From what I recall, as the bandwidth goes up, you not only need to replace the electronics to support it but generally the spacing between amplifiers gets shorter and the cable is generally larger in diameter due to greater loss at the higher frequencies (larger conductor and insulator).
> 
> Scott


Yep. Higher frequencies need better cable and shorter runs. MOCA operates above 1GHz and it's only good for like 300' max over RG6 quad shielded.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

slowbiscuit said:


> Heh, judging from all the over-the-top OCD posts on this forum, I'm sure there's way more to the story than this.


Congrats on living up to the stereotypes I have of you, with your stereotypes and assumptions about me. You've never interacted with me at an in-person capacity. So, you don't know jack about me, offline, in-person.

Nothing that directly applies to the interaction and related events (in any context or form) was left-out. I'm not going to dignify your snipe with a frame-by-frame recreation of the whole narrative with every detail. It's not worth my time/effort.

I will say that the engineer was questioned about the incident, and denied every bit of it (according to corporate). Of course he would deny it. I didn't think setting up a hidden camera, and having a mic in my pocket, would have been necessary. If I had done so, there's no way that engineer would still have his job.

Where I did go wrong, and the before/after supports, was implying to Cox that if a recording of what happened existed, I'd have a case without injury, and an even better case, if I hadn't moved my hand quickly. If I had never implied I was litigious (which I'm not), I have no doubts about just how different the "after" would be. I had even implied that there might be a recording of what had really happened. Big, big, big mistake(s), which I have no issue admitting/owning those mistakes.

I can't prove anything, the engineer can't, Cox can't, nor can you.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

randian said:


> That's odd. I always thought a company's management set policy, not their subordinates.


That was my impression, as well (based on general reality). There's what Cox says, and the truth (which will likely never be known).

However, every Cox tech, rep, contractor, and manager I had ever stuck-up a conversation with, says the engineers are in change of what they will do, or won't do, *when it's a matter of a customer ticket* being sent to engineering, no matter how it finds it's way there.

I get the impression that all engineering is willing to do, is the bare-minimum it takes to do things like the upgrade to 1GHz, insure yearly internet speed increases are possible, and bring the network back up, should it go down. This all originates from corporate, rather than from an escalated/forwarded customer ticket.

Unless it's a side-effect of a corporate mandated & originated order, engineering doesn't do any work they don't want to, to resolve customer issues. The engineer for my area feels one customer suffering from a Cox network issue doesn't merit their labor (or even bothering to come out). Add "TiVo" to that, and it's an automatic black hole ticket. If the whole neighborhood is having issues, leased STB/DVR and all, the labor is justified, going by what parts of the playbook I've been told about.

Cox's engineers don't do scheduled rolls (of the type where a customer can know when they'll be around), and try to insure they are done and gone, before the customer knows they are (were) even there. Customer interaction is not part of their job description, and they make every effort to make it be that way, and keep it that way. They do not come up and announce they are there. Just walking outside and finding them there, puts them in a bad mood. Trying to talk to them angers them. I've done my homework, and verified this to be "across the board", not just when I'm involved.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Shielding. Only high quality quad shielded RG6 can carry a 1GHz signal reliably. The quality of the connectors and splitters is also important.
> 
> And it's not just the coax to the home that's a problem, the coax inside people's homes is also a problem. A lot of older home still have cheap RG59 cables and 800Mhz splitters which will cause signal issues for 1GHz systems. And since most people pay the "wire maintenance fee" the MSO would be on the hook for fixing all that too.


Why is it an issue with cable but not satellite? They don't even recommend using quad shielded cable with Satellite installs any more. With Digital signals quad shielding supposedly is not needed.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> Why is it an issue with cable but not satellite? They don't even recommend using quad shielded cable with Satellite installs any more. With Digital signals quad shielding supposedly is not needed.


You know, I've wondered this myself, a great many times. One other difference I've noticed is that the core conductor of true satellite coax cable is SOLID copper, not just copper clad, like cable TV. The shielding is a layer of mylar/aluminum, one-ply, without the braided wire around it. Yet, It's rated for 3GHz.

There's probably a simple answer. But, it's things like this that make my skin crawl, when I see people advising use of satellite coax and splitters for cable TV applications, especially for MoCA (that whole misconception about MoCA needing higher GHz splitters).

I have been tempted to get solid copper w/cable TV shielding. The signal drop per foot is much less, than copper-clad core.


----------



## SteveD (Oct 22, 2002)

nooneuknow said:


> I have been tempted to get solid copper w/cable TV shielding. The signal drop per foot is much less, than copper-clad core.


You may want to check out this blog entry before spending the money on solid copper core coax cable.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Why is it an issue with cable but not satellite? They don't even recommend using quad shielded cable with Satellite installs any more. With Digital signals quad shielding supposedly is not needed.


Cable still carries analog signals. Maybe that's why they still recommend it?

Also could be something to do with the cable plant outside your home. Satellite signals don't have that baggage.

That's just me brainstorming though.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Why is it an issue with cable but not satellite? They don't even recommend using quad shielded cable with Satellite installs any more. With Digital signals quad shielding supposedly is not needed.


DSS only requires the coax inside your home, so it uses a much shorter run. Probably no more then a couple hundred feet. The drop from the cable node to your home could be a thousand feet or more.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Shielding. Only high quality quad shielded RG6 can carry a 1GHz signal reliably. The quality of the connectors and splitters is also important.
> 
> And it's not just the coax to the home that's a problem, the coax inside people's homes is also a problem. A lot of older home still have cheap RG59 cables and 800Mhz splitters which will cause signal issues for 1GHz systems. And since most people pay the "wire maintenance fee" the MSO would be on the hook for fixing all that too.


Interesting. So basically the original wiring was crap, so it can't handle more than 600 or 700 or whatever mhz? I was thinking of the plant. I'm sure there's some shady wiring out there in many places, but modern systems can handle up to 1ghz. OTOH, if the cable company isn't feeding enough power, the higher frequencies screw things up. My parents have low signal, and when they rebuilt the plant to 860mhz from 650mhz, they got a few new channels in HD that were glitching out until I put the amp back in, and that cleaned things up.



Dan203 said:


> DSS only requires the coax inside your home, so it uses a much shorter run. Probably no more then a couple hundred feet. The drop from the cable node to your home could be a thousand feet or more.


Yeah, exactly. MoCA and satellite run over much shorter distances. The older satellite systems can go up to something like 2.4 or 2.6ghz. SWiM is sub-1ghz, IIRC.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

**** Red said:


> You may want to check out this blog entry before spending the money on solid copper core coax cable.


I knew there had to be a reason for the difference. That article helps bolster my advice that satellite equipment (especially splitters) shouldn't be used for Cable TV applications.

It is still true that the solid copper core loses less signal strength per foot, even with just Cable TV frequencies. Aside from it costing more, I didn't see any downside presented for using solid copper core coax. I'd never use satellite coax, though (due to the shielding differences).

One downside I'm aware of with solid copper is how easy it breaks off, which can happen inside any connector/tuner/splitter it is inserted into. I always shake my splitters to check for this, and have found tuners with broke-off pieces inside as well. OTOH, since solid core is much more flexible, that has pros to it. Copper-clad is so stiff, it needs to be inserted with care, and held stationary while tightening the connector, or the internal contacts of what it is being connected to will lose their gripping strength. OTOH, not doing the same with solid copper is how it winds up broken off, inside...

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> I'd never use satellite coax, though (due to the shielding differences).


Satellite specific coax? Isn't coax general use? Like RG-6 that's rated to 3ghz? Shouldn't it work equally as well with cable, satellite, OTA, MoCA, HPNA, etc?


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Satellite specific coax? Isn't coax general use? Like RG-6 that's rated to 3ghz? Shouldn't it work equally as well with cable, satellite, OTA, MoCA, HPNA, etc?


Go find some coax that says DirectTV right on the jacket and dissect it. You'll immediately see the differences, if you have some modern high-grade cable TV coax to compare to.

There is "all purpose" coax out there, some of which likely will do either/or, just fine.

RG-6 is not a strict standard, at least not the kind of standard that means much more than the diameter of the inner conductor. I have some cable labeled "RG-6" that is as thin as ultra-cheap composite cable. Good cable needs to have the right type/thickness center conductor, the right type/thickness insulation (cable TV tends to be solid insulation, while satellite tends to be foam), the right foil shield around that, and ideally some braided sheath-wire around that, than a good outer jacket. Beyond this, there grades that add layers of more film/braid, and outdoor/underground tends to have silicone dielectric goop infused in the braiding, making it self-healing, and corrosion-resistant. Much of the "satellite" RG-6 tends to have a single ply of bi-material mylar/aluminum foil for the shielding, no braiding, no dielectric goop, and solid copper core conductor.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> Go find some coax that says DirectTV right on the jacket and dissect it. You'll immediately see the differences, if you have some modern high-grade cable TV coax to compare to.
> 
> There is "all purpose" coax out there, some of which likely will do either/or, just fine.
> 
> RG-6 is not a strict standard, at least not the kind of standard that means much more than the diameter of the inner conductor. I have some cable labeled "RG-6" that is as thin as ultra-cheap composite cable. Good cable needs to have the right type/thickness center conductor, the right type/thickness insulation (cable TV tends to be solid insulation, while satellite tends to be foam), the right foil shield around that, and ideally some braided sheath-wire around that, than a good outer jacket. Beyond this, there grades that add layers of more film/braid, and outdoor/underground tends to have silicone dielectric goop infused in the braiding, making it self-healing, and corrosion-resistant. Much of the "satellite" RG-6 tends to have a single ply of bi-material mylar/aluminum foil for the shielding, no braiding, no dielectric goop, and solid copper core conductor.


The cable co gave me a big spool of RG-6 to wire my home with when my home was under construction, it has all the shield you were talking about but how do I find out if the inside wire is solid copper ? It sure looks like and feels like solid copper. The underground cable coming to my home is a much bigger cable than RG-6.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

lessd said:


> The cable co gave me a big spool of RG-6 to wire my home with when my home was under construction, it has all the shield you were talking about but how do I find out if the inside wire is solid copper ? It sure looks like and feels like solid copper. The underground cable coming to my home is a much bigger cable than RG-6.


That sounds like RG-11, which is often used on very long lateral runs to homes. RG-11 has a larger center conductor, but gets a special end that downsizes it to RG-6 (unless an adapter is used for that purpose). The outer sheath is a larger diameter than the "nut" at the end of RG-6. I'm not aware of any RG-11 that uses solid copper inside the cable. But, some connectors for it might have a downsized end that might be copper, copper-clad, or aluminium (generally, not useful for determining what core is in the RG-11).

A small super-magnet, like on the back end of a telescoping mirror, or the front of a telescoping magnet will stick to copper-clad.

The other giveaway of solid copper, is if it is nearly effortless to bend the conductor with a finger. Copper clad is likely to poke through your finger, before it will do more than flex. Solid copper can usually be bent without stabbing you.

The reason why visual identification is so hard, is the soft copper cladding tends to get smeared over the iron core, when it gets cut. If going for visual, you can whittle the copper off the iron and expose it, or sand the end flat, then inspect the end (lighted magnification is suggested for this).


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Why is it an issue with cable but not satellite? They don't even recommend using quad shielded cable with Satellite installs any more. With Digital signals quad shielding supposedly is not needed.


Digital/analog is the modulation, but it's the carrier frequency of that modulation that determines what type of cable (transmission line) is to be used.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nooneuknow said:


> Go find some coax that says DirectTV right on the jacket and dissect it. You'll immediately see the differences, if you have some modern high-grade cable TV coax to compare to.
> 
> There is "all purpose" coax out there, some of which likely will do either/or, just fine.
> 
> RG-6 is not a strict standard, at least not the kind of standard that means much more than the diameter of the inner conductor. I have some cable labeled "RG-6" that is as thin as ultra-cheap composite cable. Good cable needs to have the right type/thickness center conductor, the right type/thickness insulation (cable TV tends to be solid insulation, while satellite tends to be foam), the right foil shield around that, and ideally some braided sheath-wire around that, than a good outer jacket. Beyond this, there grades that add layers of more film/braid, and outdoor/underground tends to have silicone dielectric goop infused in the braiding, making it self-healing, and corrosion-resistant. Much of the "satellite" RG-6 tends to have a single ply of bi-material mylar/aluminum foil for the shielding, no braiding, no dielectric goop, and solid copper core conductor.


Interesting. I didn't know that they made satellite-specific stuff. Most RG-6 will work with either, I know that installs often re-using existing cable switching from one service to another...

The house I'm renting now has a hodge-podge of original, DirecTV, and Comcast wiring that we use with Comcast today...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Interesting. I didn't know that they made satellite-specific stuff. Most RG-6 will work with either, I know that installs often re-using existing cable switching from one service to another..


The purpose of SWIM was to make it as easy and seamless as possible to install DirecTV on existing cable lines. Prior to that installation was complicated and many times required running two lines of coax to each room.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

@Bigg: Yeah, it tends to be exceptionally easy to use almost anything, or any mix of cable, when you are on a sub-860MHz cable RF network, like yours. But, making a broad statement that it WILL be that way for everybody (or most), based on your parameters (without stating them), is a slippery slope, like it is for me to say what WON'T work, based on the 1GHz network I'm on (without stating that). It's a PITA, but your old argument with me over splitters, which we resolved peacefully, now has me always stating the 1GHz factor (or always trying to). Even though the published MoCA specs say existing 860MHz splitters are just fine, they aren't for a 1GHz network, and the splitter companies are selling 1.2GHz ones as being "MoCA-enabled", with BS "MoCA enhanced pass-bands", which their own port isolation specs prove is BS. It's HDMI cable deja-vu!

@Dan203: Yep, you are right. I'll admit that my satellite knowledge it limited. Cox has fits every time they find any satellite equipment being used on their network, in customer homes homes. I know better than to just take their word for it that DSS/DirecTV splitters and diplexers/combiners will cause problems (they always try to blame the customer, or look for equipment that is not their own, as something to blame all things on). So, I've had to delve into both worlds to separate fact from fiction.

@all: Trying to tell people that they don't NEED to buy "Moca-enabled/enhanced" splitters, and likely won't gain anything, but a lighter wallet, is turning into a headache. People are still buying the deceptive marketing on HDMI cables, no matter how many credible sources publish not to fall for it, and the HDMI body tries to stop such marketing. I'm thinking of giving-up the fight on that one. It is the right kind of fight, just not one that I'm going to win on my own...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The purpose of SWIM was to make it as easy and seamless as possible to install DirecTV on existing cable lines. Prior to that installation was complicated and many times required running two lines of coax to each room.


Right I know that, since they only need one wire now (hence the name SWiM), but that doesn't have anything directly to do with the coax. IIRC, they dropped from a max of 2600mhz to 1700mhz or so, not sure how much that affects things...



nooneuknow said:


> @Bigg: Yeah, it tends to be exceptionally easy to use almost anything, or any mix of cable, when you are on a sub-860MHz cable RF network, like yours. But, making a broad statement that it WILL be that way for everybody (or most), based on your parameters (without stating them), is a slippery slope, like it is for me to say what WON'T work, based on the 1GHz network I'm on (without stating that). It's a PITA, but your old argument with me over splitters, which we resolved peacefully, now has me always stating the 1GHz factor (or always trying to). Even though the published MoCA specs say existing 860MHz splitters are just fine, they aren't for a 1GHz network, and the splitter companies are selling 1.2GHz ones as being "MoCA-enabled", with BS "MoCA enhanced pass-bands", which their own port isolation specs prove is BS. It's HDMI cable deja-vu!


I think it's fair and accurate to point out that running MoCA over the top of a 1ghz system requires much better quality gear than most systems (for the QAM side). However, MoCA over an 860mhz system should work with about any mix of crap that you can find. 860mhz requires a little more power than 650mhz, as I found out when my parents were upgraded, but MoCA works on about anything, it's the QAM signals coming in that are the limiting factor, with standards tightening up a bit as you approach 860mhz, and then going up drastically when you get into a 1ghz system...

MoCA LAN with cable tv is always running between 1150mhz and 1500mhz (D bands). The lower frequency bands are for DECA (E bands, 500mhz-600mhz), or MoCA WAN on FIOS (C bands, 925mhz-1000mhz). As a result, no matter whether you'd on a 1ghz plant, or a 650mhz plant, your MoCA is going to be at the same frequencies, so your QAM is surely a lot more sensitive than mine, but my MoCA isn't. Since my QAM could work on crap that would never work for yours, I might notice issues on MoCA where you may not, since you'd already have to be running better gear for QAM...



> @all: Trying to tell people that they don't NEED to buy "Moca-enabled/enhanced" splitters, and likely won't gain anything, but a lighter wallet, is turning into a headache. People are still buying the deceptive marketing on HDMI cables, no matter how many credible sources publish not to fall for it, and the HDMI body tries to stop such marketing. I'm thinking of giving-up the fight on that one. It is the right kind of fight, just not one that I'm going to win on my own...


Total side note, the one type of HDMI cable that is worth the extra money are Redmere cables. They're like $15 a pop, which is absurdly expensive for an HDMI cable, but they are super thin, and man do they make wiring in half a dozen or more HDMI devices less of a painful experience!

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with "MoCA-enabled" splitters? That they are falsely marketed? That's sort of obvious given that splitters don't care what's running through them. If they support 860mhz, they support 860mhz, if they support 1ghz, they support 1ghz, etc.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Total side note, the one type of HDMI cable that is worth the extra money are Redmere cables. They're like $15 a pop, which is absurdly expensive for an HDMI cable, but they are super thin, and man do they make wiring in half a dozen or more HDMI devices less of a painful experience!


But that extra money does buy you something with the HDMI cable, a super thin HDMI cable that works as well a less expensive fat HDMI cable, I wish I had known about super thin HDMI cables as I have some 15 foot HDMI cable that are real fat, it would have been much easer to have used the super thin ones if they came in 15 foot lengths.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Total side note, the one type of HDMI cable that is worth the extra money are Redmere cables. They're like $15 a pop, which is absurdly expensive for an HDMI cable, but they are super thin, and man do they make wiring in half a dozen or more HDMI devices less of a painful experience!
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at with "MoCA-enabled" splitters? That they are falsely marketed? That's sort of obvious given that splitters don't care what's running through them. If they support 860mhz, they support 860mhz, if they support 1ghz, they support 1ghz, etc.


Yeah, I wish I had all Redmere cables. I'd have much less HDMI-port fatigue issues, with lighter cables.

Yes, I'm saying that there is false marketing with splitters. "MoCA-enabled" splitters are everywhere now. IMO, based on facts and much research, it's like selling "electricity-enabled" copper wire, as a drastic oversimplification to keep this post short.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> Yeah, I wish I had all Redmere cables. I'd have much less HDMI-port fatigue issues, with lighter cables.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying that there is false marketing with splitters. "MoCA-enabled" splitters are everywhere now. IMO, based on facts and much research, it's like selling "electricity-enabled" copper wire, as a drastic oversimplification to keep this post short.


Any copper wiring will carry an electric current, but copper wired specifically made to carry the amount of electric current you are running through them probably work better than some piece of copper wire that wasn't.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> But that extra money does buy you something with the HDMI cable, a super thin HDMI cable that works as well a less expensive fat HDMI cable, I wish I had known about super thin HDMI cables as I have some 15 foot HDMI cable that are real fat, it would have been much easer to have used the super thin ones if they came in 15 foot lengths.


Yeah, they had just come out when I did my setup, and I was more than happy to drop $200 or so on HDMI cables (I have at least 8 devices plus connections between my switch, scaler, AVR and TV). My setup would have required 24 gauge cables, which would have been absolute beasts to work with!



nooneuknow said:


> Yeah, I wish I had all Redmere cables. I'd have much less HDMI-port fatigue issues, with lighter cables.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying that there is false marketing with splitters. "MoCA-enabled" splitters are everywhere now. IMO, based on facts and much research, it's like selling "electricity-enabled" copper wire, as a drastic oversimplification to keep this post short.


Yeah, I guess in that case, it just means they work to at least 1500mhz. Most splitters I see today are good for 2ghz, so that they will work equally as well with SWiM/DECA as they will with HFC/MoCA, QAM/MoCA/MoCA, HPNA, or anything else you can run over coax.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Right I know that, since they only need one wire now (hence the name SWiM), but that doesn't have anything directly to do with the coax. IIRC, they dropped from a max of 2600mhz to 1700mhz or so, not sure how much that affects things...


Over short distances you can achieve high frequencies even over sh*tty cable. As I said above cable drops can be 1000' or more from the node, with splits in between, so even with high quality quad shielded RG6 1GHz can be problematic. DSS has the advantage of only needing the very short run inside the home, so like MoCa it can run at much higher frequencies and still function correctly.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, I guess in that case, it just means they work to at least 1500mhz. Most splitters I see today are good for 2ghz, so that they will work equally as well with SWiM/DECA as they will with HFC/MoCA, QAM/MoCA/MoCA, HPNA, or anything else you can run over coax.


I'm not even going to say what I truly want to say... Unless people are just getting a laugh at my expense, it seems what I mean about "MoCA-enabled" labels being slapped on things that are identically spec'd and tested (if/when tested) is falling on deaf ears, or being taken the wrong way...

< long melodramatic sigh >


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> I'm not even going to say what I truly want to say... Unless people are just getting a laugh at my expense, it seems what I mean about "MoCA-enabled" labels being slapped on things that are identically spec'd and tested (if/when tested) is falling on deaf ears, or being taken the wrong way...
> 
> < long melodramatic sigh >


Yes think Monster cables


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Over short distances you can achieve high frequencies even over sh*tty cable. As I said above cable drops can be 1000' or more from the node, with splits in between, so even with high quality quad shielded RG6 1GHz can be problematic. DSS has the advantage of only needing the very short run inside the home, so like MoCa it can run at much higher frequencies and still function correctly.


Right. In that case, I was just looking at RG-6 in-building...


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

rainwater said:


> I would imagine these "discussions" are with MSOs that already use TiVos. I'm not sure other cable operators are really their priorities for this initially. I hope I am wrong and this will work for the stand alone market but I am not holding my breath.


what US MSO's use Tivo hardware and sdv?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't know if any of their partners currently use SDV or not, but maybe one of them wants to and they worked with TiVo on this so they could do it without the TAs?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I don't know if any of their partners currently use SDV or not, but maybe one of them wants to and they worked with TiVo on this so they could do it without the TAs?


Maybe Suddenlink to support their crazy gigabit DOCSIS plans, or RCN to up their game against Verizon, TWC, and Comcast?


----------

