Cable TV Companies Running Out of Room for HDTV

[lee78221]

Cable TV companies are running out of bandwidth and may have trouble bringing HDTV channels to your house, at least in numbers that compare well against satellite TV and the upcoming fiberoptic systems proposed (and piloted) by Verizon and other phone companies. David Lieberman, in his latest column, gathers the facts that tell a very interesting story. Here it is in a nutshell.



Consumer adoption of HDTV is growing quickly. According to Morgan Stanley, HDTV will be in 26% of US households by end of year, and over 2/3 of homes by 2010. As HDTV becomes more prevalent in homes, demand for HD content will increase dramatically. And with only a finite amount of bandwidth in coax, cable companies have their backs up against the wall. According to Lieberman, 70% of cable bandwidth is being eaten up by analog content, which is viewable without a set-top box on a cable-ready TV. So cable TV providers only have bandwidth remaining to distribute a dozen or two HD channels. That puts them far behind satellite TV and phone companies. DirecTV and Echostar both plan to launch additional satellites to add up to 150 HD channels. Verizon wants to connect fiber to your home, and bring you 210 HD channels. (Verizon has tested its TV service in "50 communities" across 7 states.)



So what can cable companies do? Well, they have two options:

1. Drop analog channels, and replace them with HD content. For each analog station that's dropped, three HD channels can be added. But, cable-ready TV owners will be forced to pay an extra $5-10 per month for a set-top box or face a dwindling list of channels. (Comcast is going this route.)
2. Implement a "switched digital" solution. All analog stations would still be sent, which means no loss of service for cable-ready consumers. But, digital channels would only be sent when requested by the digital set-top box (like video on demand, which has high latency on my cable service). But guess what -- CableCards then become obsolete since they can't be used for this two-way communication. (Time Warner and Cox are going this route.)

No matter how you slice it, there are going to be victims of progress. Especially in February, 2009, when the big digital TV switch becomes a reality.


http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/06/05/13237.aspx

 

[wherron]

Hmmm, the problem with this argument is that Sat has limited bandwidth as well. These 150 HD channels that are referred to are most likely local HD stations. The average viewer will not get any more HD channels on Sat than a Cable customer. In fact, right now, I get more HD channels in better quality than I do with Sat. To be sure, there is a bandwidth problem, but it is faced by Sat and Cable.

 

[charper1]

Hmmm, the problem with this argument is that Sat has limited bandwidth as well. These 150 HD channels that are referred to are most likely local HD stations.

No; the capacity of the current system will be 1500 LIL HD and 150 National HD channels - More than enough room for any current and upcoming channels for the next 3 years at least; plenty of time for new sats to be built and launched.

 

[cableman265]

The only reason cable still has analog is to accomodate the people that are reluctant to change. Shortly they are going to have no option. Analog channels are already being moved to digital. 75% of the bandwidth is being used for analog channels 2-99. But if you think about it, the other 25% is being used for all the digital channels, pay-per-view, Video on Demand, Hi speed Internet, and telephone service. So once those analog channels are gone, there is going to be a lot of room for HD channels and whatever else.

 

[code4code5]

For each analog station that's dropped, three HD channels can be added.

That doesn't really seem feasible to me... anyone else?

 

[charper1]

I think even the cable company rep in the story says its close to 10 to 1. I will go back and read it again, but I think thats what he said.

 

[charper1]

My bad on the above: it was 10 digital SD to 1 analog SD.. So 1 HD to every 3 analog removed sounds real close to me. Not a ton of room if you ask me! Are there even 70 analog channels to remove? Even if there are 70 to remove, that only adds 23 channels to the HD capacity based on the 3 to 1 ratio (what if its higher - like 5 to 1 ?)... That is far less than the capacity satellite can offer, which is what I really think the story was eluding too.

Examples:

25 analog removal 8 HD capacity added

30 analog removal 10 HD capacity added

35 analog removal 11 HD capacity added

40 analog removal 13 HD capacity added

45 analog removal 15 HD capacity added

50 analog removal 16 HD capacity added

55 analog removal 18 HD capacity added

60 analog removal 20 HD capacity added

65 analog removal 21 HD capacity added

70 analog removal 23 HD capacity added (at 3/1) ONLY 14 added at 5/1 ratio.

 

[charper1]

OK, if someone read that article, could you please explain your understanding.. Are they saying they can ad 1 HD for every 3 SD analog removed or can they add 3 HD for every 1 analog removed? I re-read it and had that question posed to me as well. That would change the ratio.

 

[uncrules]

OK, if someone read that article, could you please explain your understanding.. Are they saying they can ad 1 HD for every 3 SD analog removed or can they add 3 HD for every 1 analog removed? I re-read it and had that question posed to me as well. That would change the ratio.

The article says 1 SD analog would free up 3 HD but I see how that would be possible. I can't believe the 1 SD analog would take the bandwidth of the 3 HD channels.

 

[lou_do]

OK, if someone read that article, could you please explain your understanding.. Are they saying they can ad 1 HD for every 3 SD analog removed or can they add 3 HD for every 1 analog removed? I re-read it and had that question posed to me as well. That would change the ratio.

From the article I read it sounds like the satellite companies D* & E* have the bases covered with their new satellites. Cables companies are limited on what they can offer because of their bandwidth.

Here is the location of the printable article on the Florida Today Newspaper web site, from yesterdays edition:http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pb...INESS/606060315/-1/archives&template=printart

 

[charper1]

From the article I read it sounds like the satellite companies D* & E* have the bases covered with their new satellites. Cables companies are limited on what they can offer

That I gathered, but are they saying:

removing 1 analog channel will allow them to add 3 HD channels?

or

removing 3 analog channels will allow them to add 1 HD channel?

The 2nd makes more sense, but now I am not sure after re-reading that. However, regardless of what the cable companies say, what is the truth?

 

[lou_do]

That I gathered, but are they saying:

removing 1 analog channel will allow them to add 3 HD channels?

or

removing 3 analog channels will allow them to add 1 HD channel?

The 2nd makes more sense, but now I am not sure after re-reading that. However, regardless of what the cable companies say, what is the truth?

I really don't see any reference to the conversion of analog to HD. Just the ratio of 10 to 1 for analog to digital channels. "
More important, being all-digital makes more efficient use of their capacity: About 10 standard digital channels fit into the bandwidth required for one analog channel."

From things I have read and heard, it sounds like your "removing 3 analog channels will allow them to add 1 HD channel", is the correct explanation.

They could have explained it a little better, in the article.

 

[GeorgeLV]

You can easily fit 3 HD channels in one analog channel!

With common 256QAM modulation you get 38Mb/s for each 6mhz analog channel. The article is explaining it exactly correct. If the cable company is passing along the channels without any rate shaping/recompression/etc at the ATSC maximum bitrate of 19Mb/s then it would only be 2 HD per analog. If they deploy an advanced codec like mpeg4 or vc1, then they could get 4-5 HD channels per analog.

 

[charper1]

OK, that makes some sense, but are all those "IFs" right now? or are they actually doing that?

 

[charper1]

I really don't see any reference to the conversion of analog to HD. Just the ratio of 10 to 1 for analog to digital channels. "
More important, being all-digital makes more efficient use of their capacity: About 10 standard digital channels fit into the bandwidth required for one analog channel."

From things I have read and heard, it sounds like your "removing 3 analog channels will allow them to add 1 HD channel", is the correct explanation.

They could have explained it a little better, in the article.

It was back in post #1 of this thread.

 

[GeorgeLV]

OK, that makes some sense, but are all those "IFs" right now? or are they actually doing that?

Yes, 256QAM is the standard for digital cable right now. The only "IF" is that most cable systems could deploy 200-300 HD channels today IF they dropped all of their analog. 64QAM is an older standard, which gets 27Mb/s per 6mhz channel, that may still be in use in some cable systems.

The reason we don't see dozens of HD channels on cable systems today is because:

1) Cable customers don't want set top boxes on all of their tvs and complain when their "favorite" channels get moved to digital.
2) Requiring set top boxes removes a competitive advantage for cable.
3) When a channel is removed from analog the reclaimed bandwidth doesn't necessarily go to HD. Internet, telephone, and digital simulcast are often higher priorities.