HDTV Compression: The Next Great (Insert provider here) Scam - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HotHotHeat · 04-07-2008, 01:00 AM

In Canada, Shaw and Bell already compress their channels out the Wazzoo. This week, Rogers will start.

In case you're wondering what is HDTV compression?

It's when your service provider uses the bandwidth designed to send out 2 channels actually send out 3 channels. More channels, more profit, same operating cost.

Photo evidence: (using US providers)

Link to story with photo: http://gizmodo.com/374193/comcast-co...hows-bandwidth

Is there hope of CRTC stepping in?

Maybe. The CRTC states the following:

program signals should be of the same quality and in the same format as those received by the BDU, without any degradation.

Great move by the CRTC to use a word like should in legal jargon.

In my mind, the cable and satellite providers committing this BS scam should be held accountable in the most damaging way possible.

Class action lawsuit material?

Vulcan · 04-07-2008, 01:23 AM

Yeah this is a bad problem that many don't notice because they don't know better or don't pay attention.
I think how Bell does it is they change channels around to different transponders so big shows look good as they only share with one other channel. Actually real HD should have only one HD channel per satellite transponder. An example was last Saturday's games. The Toronto game looked great but the Calgary game was a big drop in picture quality. There is no reason for this that I know of other than Bell's compression. Same station, same 1080i broadcast and I imagine same camera quality but the picture was way worse. Disappointing.

Draug · 04-07-2008, 01:34 AM

Compression ... I have been harping against this for 3 or 4 years now. I am glad to see that some other people are starting to notice and complain too!

6 years ago, when my brother had his first 42" EDTV (720p or 1080p wasnt out yet), the HDTV looked incredible. Shaw had 2 HD channels that they used to grab any aired HD content from the US, and it wasnt compressed at all. We watched the Superbowl that first week - you could see the little stars on the american flag on the refs jersey and you could see the little holes in the player's jerseys when they lined up for the snap. It was truly awesome. I looked way better than my 1080p "HD" now.

Also, I have noticed Bell has gotten even more compressed the last couple of weeks. The TSN game this afternoon was horrible.

browna · 04-07-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draug

Also, I have noticed Bell has gotten even more compressed the last couple of weeks. The TSN game this afternoon was horrible.

FWIW, I don't think the TSN game Sunday was actually shot in HD.

TurnedTheCorner · 04-07-2008, 09:12 AM

I thought part of why Bell/Dish Network went to new HD receivers is to use MPEG4 compression, which is supposed to be a more efficient (or whatever) compression algorithim? I don't care if the signal is compressed if the PQ doesn't suffer.

Ken?

ken0042 · 04-07-2008, 09:44 AM

Yeah, but expect to see Bell going MPEG-4 by about 2016 or so. (only half joking.)

The issue will be what do you do with the millions of receivers out there that are not MPEG-4 capable? Granted my 6100 got demoted to the garage, but as far as Bell is concerned it's still hooked up to an HDTV.

kermitology · 04-07-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browna

FWIW, I don't think the TSN game Sunday was actually shot in HD.

Yeah I think that was just in widescreen wasn't it? Major difference between the first and second games.

HotHotHeat · 04-07-2008, 10:59 AM

MPEG4 will fix the problem, ya, but I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Unless some of the techy activists over at Digital Homes Canada have success. Mmmm the sweet smell of internet justice brewing in the morning!

TurnedTheCorner · 04-07-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yeah, but expect to see Bell going MPEG-4 by about 2016 or so. (only half joking.)

The issue will be what do you do with the millions of receivers out there that are not MPEG-4 capable? Granted my 6100 got demoted to the garage, but as far as Bell is concerned it's still hooked up to an HDTV.

And the other half sounds dead on with your estimate!

llama64 · 04-07-2008, 01:15 PM

Wow, Bell, Rogers and Shaw have come up with yet another way to screw us. These companies sure love coming up with new ways to extort money in an unethical manner.

Perhaps if our government grew some balls and started fining the companies for each scam, things might change. At least the motivation to make a profit via stealing would be limited...

Bobblehead · 04-07-2008, 02:01 PM

As long as people continue to pay the premium for HD channels, they are going to continue to push it, regardless of the signal.

I notice all their advertising, and even when people ask about who to subscribe to for HD channels, the thing that is always pushed is the number of channels and quality is rarely mentioned. As far as Bell or Starchoice goes, they only have so much bandwidth, so if they can compress each channel a tiny bit more and add another HD channel, then they will do so.

Until consumers are actually more concerned with quality of channels as opposed to the number of channels, this will continue to be an issue.

Thor · 04-07-2008, 03:48 PM

Petition time?

OBCT · 04-07-2008, 04:07 PM

I know most of you are in Canada, but I'm wondering if anybody knows which television providers down here in the States are less worse for this HD compression business.

My family has HD through Comcast right now, and at times I would say that the aforementioned compression can be VERY noticeable. This, to me, is unacceptable.

If anybody knows of a provider down here that compresses their bandwidth less (or not at all), I'd love to know about. Some maybe possibilities for me...

AT&T U-Verse TV
DirecTV Satellite TV
Dish Network Satellite TV
Time Warner Cable TV

ken0042 · 04-07-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Until consumers are actually more concerned with quality of channels as opposed to the number of channels, this will continue to be an issue.

Excellent points. Even over on DHC there's several discussions about "X provider has added Y-Channel, when is Z provider going to add it?"

More people are sold on number of channels. My parents understand numbers of channels. Talk to them about bandwidth and MBPS and you may as well be speaking Greek.

SebC · 04-07-2008, 09:35 PM

The effect gets exaggerated with movement, which is just brilliant when you're watching sports, and especially hockey.

T@T · 04-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Is it the compression or the cameras used on Bell, Sportsnet's Blue-Jay games are awesome yet the Hockey sucks.

Rathji · 04-08-2008, 01:49 PM

I would be willing to bet this is the reason why Shaw's applications for more HD channels continue to be held up by the CRTC.

As I see it, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the the biggest cause of this is the (not so recent) price drop in bandwidth prices. When it became non-profitable to lay Fiber Optic, they stopped doing it. Now that they CAN use the bandwidth they are lagging behind in the infrastructure to support it. Now you see companies like Verizon who have invested in Fiber Optic are reaping the rewards.

greerb · 04-09-2008, 10:20 AM

Bell is the worst IMO, there is a reason they call it HD Light. With Starchoice or Shaw it might be hard for them to go this route cause the also sell the feed to smaller cable companies ie Eastlink and Persona there are another 2 that they sell the feeds to as well. That is why Star and Shaw have been falling behind in the HD channel rollout. If you want good quality HD move to Toronto and set up a OTA setup.