Poll: Cable Or Satellite Based Hd?

univera

I know there has been much discussion in the past on this topic and I just read the recent ranting about Time Warner, but I'd like to get an up to date feel since A/V is rapidly changing these days.

I am getting ready to get my t.v. installed and need to decide on one vs. the other. Since I have been paying the $13.00/month for very basic Comcast cable, the $70.00 just to get HD via Comcast feels like a second mortgage. Please vote and add anything you feel is helpful based on current conditions.

My Sony won't have a cable card, even though it costs more than others, but I have read that isn't a big deal. I am also aware of satellite having weather issues. Other than that, I know of no other negatives. The NFL package is a big positive for me as a vote for satellite. I have not checked into Direct TV prices or where is the best place to subscribe. I also don't care about premium channels, so that isn't a consideration in terms of price.

billbillw

By the middle/end of next year, DirecTV should have more national HD channels than any competitor, satellite or cable. They are saying 150+ national HD channels by the end of 2007. They have just launched two new satellites to get HD locals, one more in September, and two more for early next year. Many people complain about satellite companies compressing and down rezzing the HD signal, but I have to say, I'd rather have more channels with slightly less quality than fewer channels in perfect HD. The cable companies are running up against a brick wall for bandwidth and will not be able to add HD channels without themselves compressing the signal.

PolkThug

billbillw wrote:

but I have to say, I'd rather have more channels with slightly less quality than fewer channels in perfect HD.

NOOOOOO! You have been brainwashed!

billbillw wrote:

but I have to say, I'd rather have less channels with better quality than more channels in substandard HD. If we are paying for HD, we should get true HD, not a watered down XM Radio style compression.

fixed!

brettw22

Comcast is a finely tuned rape machine...........

amulford

For real...

bobman1235

Be careful with Satellite HD. A guy I work with has DirectTV, and they will NOT send him any local HD broadcasts if he can get them OTA (other the air). He lives about 45 miles from Boston, where the stations all originate, and behind a hill, so it's impossible for him to get most of them, but they are not allowed (for whatever reason) to send him his local HD channels. So I'd say that could be almost a deal-breaker for most people.

Also, if the NFL package is such a big deal to you, but 70/month seems like a lot, wait until you see what NFL Sunday Ticket costs....

billbillw

I don't know what kind of stuff your friend is telling you, but its just not true. With the new MPEG4 equipment and the 5-LNB dish, anybody who lives in one of the top 50 or so markets, can get HD locals via satellite (the big 4 networks at least), as long as they have a clear view of the satellites in the southern sky. Its possible that prior to the HD Local rollout (last fall), your friend was told that he could not the the HD DNS feeds (NY/LA) because he was within the broadcast area of the Boston locals.
FYI- NFL Sunday Ticket costs about $70/month during football season, but they have a promotion where you get free service for 4 months (lenght of football season), so you just pay for the Sunday Ticket during that time (plus any extra services like HD, or extra box fees)

bobman1235 wrote:

Be careful with Satellite HD. A guy I work with has DirectTV, and they will NOT send him any local HD broadcasts if he can get them OTA (other the air). He lives about 45 miles from Boston, where the stations all originate, and behind a hill, so it's impossible for him to get most of them, but they are not allowed (for whatever reason) to send him his local HD channels. So I'd say that could be almost a deal-breaker for most people.

....

univera

I don't mind spending 70 bucks a month on the NFL. I just think its bogus that Comcast makes me subscribe to a fullblown digital package (not including premiums) to get HD AND charges another $5 for HD service. If someone can justify why digital cable costs so much more than regular cable in the first place (other than cable charging for a cleaner signal,) I'm all ears. Does it really cost them more to broadcast digitally? Honestly, I just want a few basic channels, CNN (yes, CNN, not Fox;) and ESPN. Hell, as long as I can see Oprah every day in HD, I'm happy:) (not really..)

billbillw

I've had both Comcast and DirecTV, at the same time. Nobody brianwashed me. I can't stand to watch any of the SD channels (on both Comcast and Satellite) since the quality is so poor on the bigscreen, so any additional channels I get are a big bonus, makes me feel like I'm getting more for my money. I think that the image quality will get better with the additional satellites and MPEG4 compression algorithms anyway.

PolkThug wrote:

NOOOOOO! You have been brainwashed!

Demiurge

Had both, Sat. sucks. Cable is a rip-off, but I like it more.

adam2434

I voted for cable, since that's what I have.

I've experienced installation and customer service issues, but the picture quality and signal reliability have been satisfactory.

The content on the HD Tier channels is generally weak, so I don't watch them much. But it's nice to have when something decent comes on or to demo. For me, having ESPN HD is worth the HD Tier upcharge.

I do wish they would offer mainstream, new release movies on the HD Movies on Demand channel though. That would be awesome.

bobman1235

billbillw wrote:

I don't know what kind of stuff your friend is telling you, but its just not true. With the new MPEG4 equipment and the 5-LNB dish, anybody who lives in one of the top 50 or so markets, can get HD locals via satellite (the big 4 networks at least), as long as they have a clear view of the satellites in the southern sky. Its possible that prior to the HD Local rollout (last fall), your friend was told that he could not the the HD DNS feeds (NY/LA) because he was within the broadcast area of the Boston locals.
FYI- NFL Sunday Ticket costs about $70/month during football season, but they have a promotion where you get free service for 4 months (lenght of football season), so you just pay for the Sunday Ticket during that time (plus any extra services like HD, or extra box fees)

I admittedly haven't discussed it with him in probably 6-9 months, but it was true at the time. DirecTV refused to allow him to access to any local network televisions in HD, he had to get them OTA. Believe me, this was a huge argument he was having with DirecTV, and almost caused him to cancel his service at the time. Maybe things have changed since - I'll have to ask - but I'll still take his anecdotal first-hand evidence over your theoretical insistence.

PolkThug

bobman1235 wrote:

I admittedly haven't discussed it with him in probably 6-9 months, but it was true at the time. DirecTV refused to allow him to access to any local network televisions in HD, he had to get them OTA. Believe me, this was a huge argument he was having with DirecTV, and almost caused him to cancel his service at the time. Maybe things have changed since - I'll have to ask - but I'll still take his anecdotal first-hand evidence over your theoretical insistence.

Yep, for the time I sold DirectTV, local HD was not available. If they do local HD channels now, its been a development within the last 8 months.

I-SIG

I'm fairly satisfied with my Comcast HD service. I personally like a lot of the stuff on the Discovery Channel and PBSHD. Sports on the ESPN and the networks are phenomonal when in HD. They just added Universal HD and MHD which pulls HD music vids from MTV, VH1, and CMT. Unfortunately they dropped INHD2.

For all you satellite guys, how are you getting your high-speed internet from?

Wes

brettw22

I-SIG wrote:

I'm fairly satisfied with my Comcast HD service.

You guys are Comcast down in Tucson? Up in Phoenix it was Cox so I figured that they were all over AZ........

Demiurge

Is it Cox in Chicago, too?

billbillw

bobman1235 wrote:

I admittedly haven't discussed it with him in probably 6-9 months, but it was true at the time. DirecTV refused to allow him to access to any local network televisions in HD, he had to get them OTA. Believe me, this was a huge argument he was having with DirecTV, and almost caused him to cancel his service at the time. Maybe things have changed since - I'll have to ask - but I'll still take his anecdotal first-hand evidence over your theoretical insistence.

Bob, Not theoritical at all. Boston Locals networks ARE available in HD via satellite to everyone that lives is in the Boston DMA. (see this map

The availability of the major 4 networks locals in HD to Boston area is is a fact since mid-December 2005, not theoretical. Here is a screen shot from the Directv website:


It is possible that he lives outside the 16 county Boston DMA, in which case, there is nothing that Directv can do because its the FCC that dicates which local networks a given area must receive. Prior to December '05, the local HD channels were not available to your friend via satellite. Its not that Directv wouldn't give them to him, they couldn't, they didn't have the capability!

PolkThug wrote:

Yep, for the time I sold DirectTV, local HD was not available. If they do local HD channels now, its been a development within the last 8 months.

PolkThug,
Directv started HD locals after their new Spaceway satellites were up and running. They started broadcasting HD locals in MPEG4 last October in Detroit. By the end of the year, they had the top 12 or so markets available in HD. Since then, they have added at least another 24 markets and are continuing to add markets ever month.

wodom1

Comcast sucks

bobman1235

billbillw - i in no way meant to assuage guilt on DirecTV, they explained to my friend that it was not their choice, but rather the FCC that mandated whatever limitations tehre were. However, it doesn't matter whose FAULT it is - Where he was, he coudln't get local HD channels. With Comcast, he could. If I were making a decision about satellite vs cable, that would be a deciding factor for me. Thanks for all the info though.


Also, just as my own opinion, I use Comcast, and they are hella expensive, but their service is pretty damned good. My internet is faster than a lot of people's, I never have outages, and my cable has been great. Even their customer service has been quick and easy when needed. I really can't complain.

halo

wodom1 wrote:

Comcast sucks

For some odd reason cable sucks in the city of Chicago but the 'burbs have almost no issues. I've got Directv but if they don't get their HD shite together I'm going to Dish Network instead. Never gonna go back to Comcast.

billbillw

Halo wrote:

For some odd reason cable sucks in the city of Chicago but the 'burbs have almost no issues. I've got Directv but if they don't get their HD shite together I'm going to Dish Network instead. Never gonna go back to Comcast.

Halo,
Be patient my friend...Look at this investor presentation from February:
Link to Investor Day slide show

Focus on Page 7, 8 and 33.
Dish may have a few more HD channels right now, but they are way behind in future satellite launches.

Holydoc

In my area the definition of cable broadcasted HD channels versus satellite broadcasted channels is no comparison. Cable PQ is much clearer and the sound is much richer. Several of my co-workers have moved from satellite to cable because of their bad experiences with picture and sound quality.

Of course I feel completely opposite than Bill. I will take fewer channels with excellent quality than more channels with lesser quality. I spent big bucks for a system to display excellence. I will not bend to anything less.

ledhed

Neither. Antenna all the way baby!! It's free, no compression and around here, I have access to channels I can't get through Comcast.

wingnut4772

I have Dish with an MPEG 4 HD DVR and the PQ is nice. I used to have Adelphia but their DVR had no HDMI connection at the time. I don't really remember the PQ quality to compare.

Fireman32

I have Cablevision by me and the HD programing is free all i had to do was swab my cable box for a HD box. They do not have alot of HD channels yet only about 14 but they are expanding so my vote is for cable. I used to have direct tv and i had problems with them both weather and billing issues. I do not have any experience with comcast but ive heard bad things about them. Good luck with your choice.

danger boy

wodom1 wrote:

Comcast sucks

they all suck... they are all to expensive.. really.. if the big 4 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) can broadcast for free why can't cable TV be free too? or at the very least reasonably priced.

Why do we sometimes have to pay extra for local channels? Pay extra for HD channels? If say for instance cable TV charged a one fee for all the channels.. i think everyone would be happier. say $39.99 for all the damn channels you could want to watch.. for one price. I'd be happy.

jgido759

In regard to DirecTV, read this thread about "HD Lite".

Willow

Apparently, one of our main telephone companies who offer HD sat is now offering TV through telephone lines ! interesting to say the least

By the way, we use HD cable currently

billbillw

Holydoc wrote:

In my area the definition of cable broadcasted HD channels versus satellite broadcasted channels is no comparison. Cable PQ is much clearer and the sound is much richer. Several of my co-workers have moved from satellite to cable because of their bad experiences with picture and sound quality.

Of course I feel completely opposite than Bill. I will take fewer channels with excellent quality than more channels with lesser quality. I spent big bucks for a system to display excellence. I will not bend to anything less.

You have to admit that the repetitiveness, when speaking of the few HD channels that we (both Satellite and Cable) get outside locals networks, gets pretty boring.

I mean HD Net, HDNet Movies, Discovery HD, INHD, Universal HD, etc; They play the same stuff over and over. When you first get the channels, you watch quite a bit, but after a month or so, you are watching repeats after repeats. Of course ESPN1/2 show fresh material, but really folks, we need more content. What good is having a perfect picture if you never have any new content to entertain you?

The HDLite argument has been going on for almost 2 years and it will probably never go away. The problem is not so much downrezzing, but over compressing. If the bitrate is high enough, most people cannot see the difference. The problem is when you start getting fuzzyness and motion artifacts from over compression. This happens with OTA feeds too when the network decides to multicast a news channel and a weather channel along with their HD signal.

I can guarantee that cable companies will start compressing/downrezzing their HD channels at some point to deliver more content as well. They did it with their SD siginals when the push was to deliver more channels, they will do it with HD.

PhantomOG

I have no experience with Comcast, but with Time Warner, I just call and **** about the price and say I'm moving to satellite and suddenly I'm not paying nearly as much.

I get digital cable, 14 HD channels, sports pack (Fox Sports out of region, etc.), no DVR, 1 box, and road runner for $94 a month total. I still think that's probably too much, but miraculously, the cable/internet provided is very stable so I'm happy. At regular price that would be almost $150 I think.

I won't settle for HD-lite, unless its almost free. I would pay more for FIOS but I don't think I'll live long enough for that to get here

I-SIG

brettw22 wrote:

You guys are Comcast down in Tucson? Up in Phoenix it was Cox so I figured that they were all over AZ........

Comcast is on the North and West areas of Tucson, especially Marana and Oro Valley and out by Casino del Sol, etc.

Cox is south and east including Sahuarita, Corona de Tucson, Vail, Green Valley, etc.

Wes