Comcast's CFO claims that "not every HD channel deserves to be in HD"
By Darren Murph 
posted Mar 10th 2008 6:10PM
posted Mar 10th 2008 6:10PM
posted Mar 10th 2008 6:10PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Ill tell you what doesnt get watch very much , every channel NOT in HD .. we dont even bother looking at my house .. the only menu we use on the darn comcast DVR are the HD channels .. you think i would watch hours and hours of HGTV and Discovery , Animal planet if they were not in HD ??? Give me a break
I agree completely. For instance, I'm going to wait to watch the new season of The Riches until it comes out on Blu-Ray because I don't get FX HD.
Perhaps he was trying to talk about stretch-o-vision or something though.
Same here. In fact, I wish there were a way to remove all those crappy SD channels from my DVR's guide so I didn't have to wade through them to get to the REAL channels.
Lucky me out Comcast DVR doesn't filter channels by anything but numbers you cant filter genre, HD anything.
TBN. Or anything similar. Tell me how that's a necessary use of money.
He has a point. There's a lot of channels that either aren't watched or aren't really ever in HD.
As an extreme example, who wants the shopping channels to go HD and waste more bandwidth? Not me.
But I kind of suspect he's just saying this because he knows on March 17th, DirecTV will pull far ahead in the bandwidth war and Comcast will have to be more choosy about what channels to provide than DirecTV will.
I think his context was for networks that are "HD" but half their content is upconverted, stretched SD. aka History HD. IMHO if a channel is advertised as HD, every second of content on that channel should be HD (aka HDNet).
That's what I think it is. I have looked at numerous channels like this. I switch on the show and it is in SD on my HD channel. WTF? I suspect this will be the norm for quite a while especially on stations that play "vintage" content but want to jump on the HD bandwagon.
sorry if this is a double post...I think something went wrong the first time and I don't see it on the site.
--
Non-HD channels should just be sent out in widescreen 480p. DVD quality. If people are happy with upscaled DVD's on their HDTV's, then such a signal from the cable company could be upgraded just as easily.
On the other hand, a pillarboxed 4:3 480i signal just looks terrible on an HDTV and makes me sad. Those zoom and stretch modes to make the image fill the screen are even worse, and make me angry.
The problem is that there's a HUGE catalog of 4:3 programming already stored and still being created, so we just have to deal with that. Heck, even one of my favorite shows, The Wire on HBO is still being created in SD 4:3. I'd rather see pillarboxed 4:3 for content that originated as 4:3 rather than the terrible stretch-o-vision that we get on some of our "HD" channels (TBS? Grrrr.)
Keep everything in the original aspect ratio, PLEASE. If I wanted my picture distorted, I'd seek out a TV that would let me do that to the signal myself.
Agreeing with Mr. E.
I don't want anything stretched, and if the channels stretch it, I don't have a way to unstretch it.
Especially those awful fisheye stretches.
Don't care Comcast. Let me decide what I feel like watching in HD.
150 HD channels yeah right...this is coming from the same Comcast who @ CES 2008 promised 50 - 100 MBPS HD downloads....
Why tell the boring truth when you can tell an interesting lie?
Especially at a Bear Stearns Media Conference.......
If he doesn't think some channels are worth watching, then why does he force us to pay for them?
Dave
BRAVO!!
A la carte pricing FTW!
@DJ
Hahahaha I was thinking the same thing.
Not every Comcast CFO deserves to be a CFO, either.
This is like saying that the customers don't need HD, or won't no the difference. Stop insulting us. Those of us (however few there might be in the end) that get HD, realize what the difference is between it and SD digital cable, and have spent money to appreciate the difference should be able to get every HD channel that Comcast has to offer.
A Chief FINANCIAL Officer expressing hesitation towards spending a lot of money to provide new versions of channels that may not have much of a return on investment?
Color me shocked.
lol....that was my reaction. Though I had to agree with him - my cable lineup is littered with random channels I never tune into.
finally a face to the mfers that keep nickle and dimeing their consumers.. i hate you comcast.
I would not be surprised if he actually has DirecTv at home instead of Comcast! Why? Because Directv not only markets better, but actually puts its money where its mouth is. It has more HD channels and of better quality, unlike the false advertisement of Comcast.
Comcast Sucks!
All I can say is that it seems every other content provider throws up "new" HD channels almost at launch, at it takes CC months to even think about putting that channel in their lineup.
Arseclowns like this should be hunted down and removed from existence. If a standard definition channel will not present itself with a move to HD then I can agree. But if a channel is HD the content on it should be 100% HD. I think this idiot may have made himself look foolish because he mis-spoke what he was trying to convey.
I sorta agree with the Comcast guy. I have Comcast, and at LEAST half of the "HD" channels I get I don't watch. Why? Because if the content WAS compelling enough to watch, I'd watch the SD version of the channel in favor of "stretch-o-vision" on the HD version. A higher bitrate and artificially stretched are not compelling.
As I understand it, aren't they supposed to be able to fit several HD channels into the bandwidth used by ONE SD channel? And why don't providers like Comcast just out and out DROP the SD version once the HD version is available? Just slot HistoryHD into where History used to be in the lineup, don't make me keep track of two different channel numbers. And have the set top box be smart enough to downconvert if the subscriber doesn't have and HD capable set.
Too many of the "new" HD channels are REALLY what should just be considered digital equivalents of the analog originals. They aren't broadcasting HD. However, it's likely they WILL, it will just take time. Most of these channels even in analog form didn't exist 10 years ago, let alone made a complete switch to HD production of new content.
Heck, I live near the nation's capital and we can only get ONE local news in HD (CBS), the other 3 are still buggering along in SD.
One thing that DOES irk me is Comcast (and others) claiming channels such as HBO-HD, SHO-HD, etc. in their "count" of HD offerings. That's misleading the consumer if you ask me, since those sorts of channels require an extra charge over and above the "HD" package.
you would think this would make sense! but i think they are still catering to the analog consumers that use just the cable and not the cable box. and i think if i remember correctly, it has to be this way untill 2012.
also, even though the potential of more channels on the same bandwidth exists, they have to pay for those extra channels, weather or not people are watching. i think satalite, with it's broad reach gets a cost savings on this one. sadly, even if they kept the same channel lineup, that extra bandwidth would allow faster cable internet speeds, but i think untill consumers start to complain (or untill competition in the form of fiber comes to town) they wont care.
With the exception of 1 news program not YET in HD, I just skip everything and go to a true HD program. No stretch crap for me, I watch that news program in 4:3.
The guy has a point, but it is kind of a stupid thing to say. Of course my problem is if you know that some stations don't deserve to be in HD why put them on channel list? Why not put channels that are putting HD programing regularly and not using stretch-o-vision.
HD cable boxes should be smarter - when duplicate SD and HD channels exist, automatically switch to the HD channel.
Also hide all the channels I don't subscribe to.
I also think that they should make HD boxes where the program guide ACTUALLY FILLS A WIDESCREEN (hint, hint cable box software developers...)!
It is very disturbing to me that an officer of a cable company is this out of touch with reality.
What a cheap fucking CFO, what you need to do is stop pulling lies out your ass, and start preaching the fucking truth to us customers. To tell you the fucking truth you minds will say that "Comcast has no HD, we never will actually, Direct Tv will alwayz whoop us bad in their lineup of HD programs, sorry to say to all of our customers but we will never surpass them and we will never attempt to even try so leave us alone with our garbage HD offers!" SO FUCK YOU COMCAST YOU WORTHLESS PEICES OF SHIT!!!!!
i couldn't agree w/you more. i bet you he has every channel in his mansion and beach houses with our money that he gets rich off. comcast is the worst cable ever and they are full of shit!!! where were at in this part of ft laderdale florida they are the only service offered. i had directv but could n't stand the stupid satelitte out when a bird or a leaf flew over it. alot more things they need to work on. if that was fixed i'd go back. i also miss the clear, crisp pics from satelite