|
Rogers to compress HD quality, like Comcast
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 6 April, 2008
Recently, the large ISP Comcast began sacrificing quality for quantity in their broadcasts by degrading the quality of their HD video to make room for more channels.
Beginning on April 9th, Rogers Cable, of Canada will follow suit and will begin compressing 15 of its HD channels. The channels affected by the new announcement, according to Digital Home Canada, are as follows:
* HD PBS Buffalo
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
runar
Newbie
4 product reviews
|
6. April 2008 @ 17:21 |
Link to this message
|
Nice to see how more and more HD providers encourage people to download from the internet instead of paying ridiculous sums for bad quality HD content. Why pay to watch a movie on satellite when you get a better quality Blu-ray rip for free.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
6. April 2008 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by runar:
Nice to see how more and more HD providers encourage people to download from the internet instead of paying ridiculous sums for bad quality HD content. Why pay to watch a movie on satellite when you get a better quality Blu-ray rip for free.
Satalite doesn't suffer From this, only Cable Based Networks do.
|
|
domie
Member
|
6. April 2008 @ 17:42 |
Link to this message
|
You guys should live in the UK - I bought a HDTV over 2 years ago and followed it 19 months ago with an HD capable cable receiver from what is now Virgin Media to go with it and we are still waiting for the first HD channel to be launched - welcome to rip-off Britain.
|
|
Blackloz
Newbie
|
6. April 2008 @ 18:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have DirecTv and I have yet to notice a quality drop on any of there HD channels. Hopefully they don't follow suit and do the same.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. April 2008 @ 18:10
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
6. April 2008 @ 19:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hopefully Fiber-optics will expand much more as the bandwidth for this would be much higher... here's hoping.
Satellite broadcasting is also affected by bandwith limitations (hence the reason satellite radio can't meet 128kbs despite thier "cd quality" advertisements) and hopefully they won't need to due this compression BS for programs people pay EXTRA for... grrr.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
6. April 2008 @ 20:56 |
Link to this message
|
These companies shouldn't be allowed to get away with this compromising because of their crappy infrastructure, if they're going to do this they shouldn't call it HDTV channels they should just call them EDTV (extra) channels.
Originally posted by Hunt720:
Satellite broadcasting is also affected by bandwith limitations (hence the reason satellite radio can't meet 128kbs despite thier "cd quality" advertisements) and hopefully they won't need to due this compression BS for programs people pay EXTRA for... grrr.
The reason that satellite radio is having problems is more than likely a result of the receivers.
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
6. April 2008 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
These companies shouldn't be allowed to get away with this compromising because of their crappy infrastructure, if they're going to do this they shouldn't call it HDTV channels they should just call them EDTV (extra) channels.
Originally posted by Hunt720:
Satellite broadcasting is also affected by bandwith limitations (hence the reason satellite radio can't meet 128kbs despite thier "cd quality" advertisements) and hopefully they won't need to due this compression BS for programs people pay EXTRA for... grrr.
The reason that satellite radio is having problems is more than likely a result of the receivers.
The receivers definitely don't help man, but I read an article where 2600 did a calculation based on XM's satellite bandwidth vs. the amount of land they would need to cover,and the kbs fell short by abou 20kbs. I felt ripped off... the same way a customer who shelled out the $ for a HD set and now recieves sub-par video for their "HD" service should. "CD Quality Sound" should mean EXACTLY what it says .... the same way "HD" should.
|
|
905drager
Newbie
|
7. April 2008 @ 00:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Great! Not only do I have to already complain about the compression from the source broadcaster that is sending us the signal, but Rogers is going to compress it even more?? Thanks a lot, uncle Ted! Looks like my VIP Bundle now stands for Very Idiotic Provider.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. April 2008 @ 03:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is why i use a rooftop antenna for HD content
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
7. April 2008 @ 06:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
... if they're going to do this they shouldn't call it HDTV channels...
I think you are absolutely right, canuckerz. (I'm from Canada, as well).
Is Rogers advertising these channels *AS* High-Definition? If so - as far as I'm concerned - this is Fraud.
If you degrade a signal to the point where it is noticeable, then I would NOT call it High Definition. Seems to me, these fellows are looking for legal trouble foisting lossy-compressed, pixilized video on people and calling it (and inappropriately charging for) "High Definition".
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
7. April 2008 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZoSoIV:
This is why i use a rooftop antenna for HD content
Technically, I don't think that would make any difference.
They can still easily transmit an OTA channel in lossy-compressed form, and call it "Hi-Def".
|
|
Krmnnghia
Newbie
|
7. April 2008 @ 10:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
3 of my friends have already switched from Comcast to Dish Network when the news broke last week. I wonder how many in Canada will do the same. What are these people thinking! Less quality for the same amount of money? Idiots!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. April 2008 @ 10:18
|
Senior Member
|
7. April 2008 @ 17:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by runar:
Nice to see how more and more HD providers encourage people to download from the internet instead of paying ridiculous sums for bad quality HD content. Why pay to watch a movie on satellite when you get a better quality Blu-ray rip for free.
This same company is imposing a 60GB cap on the majority of its customers and 95GB for the highest end service, so i don't think that downloading a blu-ray rip would really be recommended.
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
8. April 2008 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wonder if Mark Cuban has caught wind of this? He's very particular that everything on HDNet is actually broadcast in High Definition...
|
|
runar
Newbie
4 product reviews
|
10. April 2008 @ 11:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sukhvail:
Originally posted by runar:
Nice to see how more and more HD providers encourage people to download from the internet instead of paying ridiculous sums for bad quality HD content. Why pay to watch a movie on satellite when you get a better quality Blu-ray rip for free.
This same company is imposing a 60GB cap on the majority of its customers and 95GB for the highest end service, so i don't think that downloading a blu-ray rip would really be recommended.
Well, in that case yeah, it would not be a possibility. Luckily I live in Finland where non-capped connections are the standard, only mobile connections are capped here AFAIK :)
|
|
matt5112
Junior Member
|
12. April 2008 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
They're kidding right? Has anyone compared a BD or HD DVD to the current Rogers "HD"? The feeds we already get from Rogers are no better than upscaled DVD quality and now they want to compress it further.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. April 2008 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't know how they can get away with this, I mean this is like criminal stuff, so of course the politcians are getting thier palms greases other wise it would be criminal.
|
