Jack Briggs
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 1999
- Messages
- 16,805
I just noticed another query about so-called "digital" cable, and I thought I'd offer information about my own experiences to help others reach a decision. Make of this what you will:
About two and a half years ago, my former cable provider, AT&T Broadband, began offering "digital" cable. My only interest in it was the possibility of obtaining a better picture; I had no great need for additional channels. Word had it that AT&T's "digital" receivers possessed S-video outputs, and the salesperson with whom I spoke assured me the boxes slated for the Los Angeles market had them.
Therefore, I agreed to having a "digital" cable receiver installed in my main home-theater setup, while I would keep an analog cable feed for the bedroom. (At the time, I was not enamored of going through the hassle of dealing with a DBS dish and my apartment building's manager.)
Alas, when the "cable guy" arrived, I was dismayed to see that the "digital" receiver did not have a working S-video out, which was the only reason for my interest in the first place. There was a location on the back panel marked "S-video," but it was an empty slot.
The installer insisted none of the boxes intended for the Los Angeles market had working S-video outputs. An angry call to AT&T the following day confirmed this. And I expressed my concerns in no uncertain terms about having been misled.
However, I decided to keep the box and determine what the big deal, if any, was about "digital" cable.
I didn't like what I saw (and heard).
First, many of the channels that were in stereo on the analog feed were instead in mono on the so-called "digital" feed. Only the local broadcast channels and the few "premium" channels I still subscribed to put out a stereo signal.
Next, the compression artifacts. Quite frankly, most of the channels looked mediocre at best while some were just short of unwatchable. The analog picture in my bedroom setup was much superior.
And, of course, the channel-selection process was noticeably and annoyingly slow.
As for the additional channels, big deal. Most of them didn't interest me. (A year before, I had already discontinued all my HBOs, Showtimes, Cinemaxes, Movie Channels, and other so-called "premium" services, as I prefer not to watch panned-and-scanned movies.)
I stuck with this dual-feed arrangement for about a year, always telling anyone who would come to my house that I preferred "watching television" on the bedroom setup. It had gotten to the point that I was using the "digital" cable only to warm up the Sony WEGA and to give it some 4:3 programming to counterbalance any uneven phosphor wear from watching several 16:9-encoded DVDs.
The situation might have remained this way but for AT&T Broadband's greed and arrogance. To wit:
Since the provider was in the midst of an all-out campaign to get consumers to "ditch the dish" in favor of its "digital" cable "service," it began migrating my few remaining cable channels of interest over to the "digital service" only. Gone from my analog feed were Turner Classic Movies, Sundance, IFC, and others.
To watch them, I'd have to go to my main home-theater system.
The hell with that.
In anger and in protest, I called AT&T Broadband and asked them to pick up both receivers. This was not quite a year ago. My thinking was that I'd switch over to DBS.
Something interesting happened, however. I rediscovered the purity of a good OTA signal. And, luckily, my most-watched and favorite network, PBS, is one of the best signals I receive. The colors look truer and purer.
What a trip, I thought. All along, most of my "television watching" had been relegated to PBS anyway. And here I was, getting it for free, with a better picture to boot.
Add to that my more than 450 DVD titles (almost a third of them being multi-disc boxsets), and I had precious little incentive to pay for "television" again. I still haven't switched over to DBS. I'm not interested.
Moral of the story? You probably already have reached this conclusion without my help: "Digital" cable is a marketing ploy more than it is a technological benefit. The only rationale for a "digital" cable signal is the ability to split it into more lines.
Otherwise, the picture "quality" I endured was muddy and washed out, and the sound was clearly inferior.
Not all cable providers are as bad as AT&T Broadband, however. Some people are enjoying truly superior images and sounds with "digital" cable (especially those who are fortunate to be receiving high-def images in this manner).
For most of us, though, it is a bad deal.
"Ditch the dish"? I say, "The hype is tripe." "Digital" cable is a moribund industry's way of diverting our attention from the superior medium of DBS.
Still, though, I can't get over how good my PBS affiliate, KCET-Channel 28 Los Angeles, looks thanks to my trusty antenna.
Hope this helps.
About two and a half years ago, my former cable provider, AT&T Broadband, began offering "digital" cable. My only interest in it was the possibility of obtaining a better picture; I had no great need for additional channels. Word had it that AT&T's "digital" receivers possessed S-video outputs, and the salesperson with whom I spoke assured me the boxes slated for the Los Angeles market had them.
Therefore, I agreed to having a "digital" cable receiver installed in my main home-theater setup, while I would keep an analog cable feed for the bedroom. (At the time, I was not enamored of going through the hassle of dealing with a DBS dish and my apartment building's manager.)
Alas, when the "cable guy" arrived, I was dismayed to see that the "digital" receiver did not have a working S-video out, which was the only reason for my interest in the first place. There was a location on the back panel marked "S-video," but it was an empty slot.
The installer insisted none of the boxes intended for the Los Angeles market had working S-video outputs. An angry call to AT&T the following day confirmed this. And I expressed my concerns in no uncertain terms about having been misled.
However, I decided to keep the box and determine what the big deal, if any, was about "digital" cable.
I didn't like what I saw (and heard).
First, many of the channels that were in stereo on the analog feed were instead in mono on the so-called "digital" feed. Only the local broadcast channels and the few "premium" channels I still subscribed to put out a stereo signal.
Next, the compression artifacts. Quite frankly, most of the channels looked mediocre at best while some were just short of unwatchable. The analog picture in my bedroom setup was much superior.
And, of course, the channel-selection process was noticeably and annoyingly slow.
As for the additional channels, big deal. Most of them didn't interest me. (A year before, I had already discontinued all my HBOs, Showtimes, Cinemaxes, Movie Channels, and other so-called "premium" services, as I prefer not to watch panned-and-scanned movies.)
I stuck with this dual-feed arrangement for about a year, always telling anyone who would come to my house that I preferred "watching television" on the bedroom setup. It had gotten to the point that I was using the "digital" cable only to warm up the Sony WEGA and to give it some 4:3 programming to counterbalance any uneven phosphor wear from watching several 16:9-encoded DVDs.
The situation might have remained this way but for AT&T Broadband's greed and arrogance. To wit:
Since the provider was in the midst of an all-out campaign to get consumers to "ditch the dish" in favor of its "digital" cable "service," it began migrating my few remaining cable channels of interest over to the "digital service" only. Gone from my analog feed were Turner Classic Movies, Sundance, IFC, and others.
To watch them, I'd have to go to my main home-theater system.
The hell with that.
In anger and in protest, I called AT&T Broadband and asked them to pick up both receivers. This was not quite a year ago. My thinking was that I'd switch over to DBS.
Something interesting happened, however. I rediscovered the purity of a good OTA signal. And, luckily, my most-watched and favorite network, PBS, is one of the best signals I receive. The colors look truer and purer.
What a trip, I thought. All along, most of my "television watching" had been relegated to PBS anyway. And here I was, getting it for free, with a better picture to boot.
Add to that my more than 450 DVD titles (almost a third of them being multi-disc boxsets), and I had precious little incentive to pay for "television" again. I still haven't switched over to DBS. I'm not interested.
Moral of the story? You probably already have reached this conclusion without my help: "Digital" cable is a marketing ploy more than it is a technological benefit. The only rationale for a "digital" cable signal is the ability to split it into more lines.
Otherwise, the picture "quality" I endured was muddy and washed out, and the sound was clearly inferior.
Not all cable providers are as bad as AT&T Broadband, however. Some people are enjoying truly superior images and sounds with "digital" cable (especially those who are fortunate to be receiving high-def images in this manner).
For most of us, though, it is a bad deal.
"Ditch the dish"? I say, "The hype is tripe." "Digital" cable is a moribund industry's way of diverting our attention from the superior medium of DBS.
Still, though, I can't get over how good my PBS affiliate, KCET-Channel 28 Los Angeles, looks thanks to my trusty antenna.
Hope this helps.
