Has anyone gone back to cable after being on satellite for awhile?

I have been on DirecTV for a few years now, and originally switched to that from cable because satellite was a little more "high-tech." It seems though that cable has sort of caught up now.

My setup - I use a Channel Vision modulator to feed two SAT receivers in the basement (one a DirecTivo) throughout my house. I have a third HD receiver in my family room, feeding the local HDTV at that location.

I am considering switching back to cable for the following reasons:

1) Local HD channels (w/o antenna) - already included with Comcast cable; I know DirecTV will be offering it as well, but when?

2) Ability to have standard cable on any TV in the house, tuned through that TV, instead of a receiver (seems simpler to me and would eliminate the need to use an RF extender to control a receiver in the basement).

3) OnDemand - Comcast has this feature with several movies and other programs available "ondemand." Seems pretty cool - any others with experience on this?

4) Comcast's DVRs are also HD (HD DirecTivo's are still pretty expensive, aren't they?)

So, I would get two HD DVRs - one would go in the family room, one would be distributed from the basement. So any TV could use that one, and a third TV, if need be, could always just use standard cable. I would also save $10/month on my internet (through Comcast), but overall the pricing would be almost identical to my current setup, though I'd save $400 or so over the first year as part of a Comcast promotion.

So, sorry for the long post - but any thoughts on going back to cable?

Thanks a bunch!

Really just one, because your points all seem totally valid.

The channels used by the cable company for their HD channels are in the higher numbers, above those numbers used for analog channels. You can't see any of them by tuning them in with a cable box or a VCR.

The signals on them will, however, mess up modulated channels that you now use. You might lose the ability to send modulated channels out at all, or find they all have to be higher than cable channel 100. I have seen modulators that don't go that high, so if this is your case, you might have to buy another modulator just to find out if you can keep this feature of your system.

Otherwise, have fun, and remember this is from a guy who still recommends satellite but sees how good the cable companies have gotten...but I think their cable boxes stink...

Ah, let me go on a bit here. I have seen cable boxes where, when you hit guide, you get the guide at channel 2. No matter where you were. If you are on a music channel, you hit guide and it shows you channel 2...and the music channels are on a separate guide, accessed through the menu, so if you don't know what channel you want, you have to go hunt and peck.

I have seen MOXI boxes not able to be made to work. And good ones. And cable companies that know what to do, and those that don't (all within the same area!).

The MOXI box has a revolting menu system. When you open the menu, scroll to what you want, and hit enter to get some change, it changes. Next time you open the menu, you are in that same place. Because there is no standard menu opening screen, you can never tell what buttons you will have to hit to do something. This makes automation via macros impossible.

The latest cable HD DVR I have seen comes on on channel 1, the music on demand channel. Just like the Motel 6 TV. How classy. And we put its HDMI output into a Gefen HDMI switcher...when we switch the HDMI switcher to the DVD signal, then switch back, the cable box is back on channel 1. Just like Motel 6. How classy.

So the programs will give you little problem, but the boxes are just another strange breed.

Thanks Ernie for the insight - a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind:

So, I am thinking of two HD DVRs - one "local" to my HDTV, and one "modulated" to be distributed through the home video network. The only High-Def viewing I would have is off the local family room receiver, which would have a single coax going to it, and then to the TV through component-video.

The modulated DVR, in the basement, would only be "feeding" non-HD TV's. So, are you saying that the simple fact that the receiver puts out channels at a number higher than 100, this would conflict with the modulator, assuming it does not go that high (that's something I haven't checked yet)? For example, if the "normal" channels go from 2-80, and then the HD channels start at 100, I could not use 90 for the modulated channel?

Another question - I figured I'd have two coax lines feeding into the video network (through a splitter): the regular cable line, and the line from the modulator (with the digital cable DVR connected). Hypothetically, let's say that is modulated at channel 89. My assumption is that on a TV connected to that network, I go through it's internal cable tuner, and every channel up through 89 is showing the "standard" cable channels. Once I hit 89, it is the modulated digital cable signal, and is now controlled through that "central" receiver. Is that right?

Again, thanks for the responses - there's just no way to get these kinds of questions answered through the cable company.

With all these issues I am thinking of, along with your feedback on the cable boxes, I'm already thinking of just sticking with DirecTV and waiting for local HD availability (which is my #1 priority in all this).

I have just connected my Motorola 6412 and Denon 2910 to a gefen HDMI switch. I can switch back and forth between the two just fine. My problem begins when I leave the switch on the DVD for a long period ie. watching a movie. When I switch back to the 6412 cable box the cable box settings have changed from 1080i to 720p and the screen size shrinks. Once I change the settings back to 1080i everything is fine again until I watch a movie.
I have sent Motorola a email but their person replying really didn't understand my question. I will call them next and see what they say. I know my cable provider will have no clue!

Beldredge -

Can you get HD OTA in your area? If so, stick with DTV and use attenna for local HD. It is my understanding that both DTV and cable use compression when sending HD. I have HD DirecTV and notice that HD from OTA looks better than the same show from HD DirecTV on Samsung DLP set. For local HD, I would stick with OTA (which is supported by the DirceTV HD Tivo box) rather than rely upon DirecTV or cable.

I didn't see this post until just now, after someone bumped this to the top recently.


That is totally clear, except "receiver" -- you mean DVR?


No. The receiver? You mean the DVR? Its programs, all in 480i, would be on whatever channel the modulator can go to that has no interference from digital channels. The DVR might have a channel 3/4 output, might not, so I think you are thinking of the modulator channel here.


Yes, on many channels.

You can't tell by the cable channel number what channel the program is on. I have seen, on a Sharp TV before adding a cable card, programs listed on 92.1, 92.2, 92.3, 93.4, etc; these seem to be subchannels of the cable frequencies (these are typical of what the frequencies look like, but I made up these actual numbers; I don't mean them to be the few channels in the nineties that are in the FM band). It is quite possible that every cable channel above your highest normal cable channel (77 or 78 in the Los Angeles area, remembering that a couple in the mid-nineties are actually in the FM band so do not count in this discussion) has several digital channels on it, so you might not find ANY usable channels for your modulator until you are above 100.


Digital channels 100, 101, 102, 103, 177 and 206 might be on cable channel 90, while 104, 117, 123, and 129 might be on cable channel 91. In other words, there is ZERO predictable relationship between the actual cable frequency and the numbers of the channels delivered on those frequencies. The numbers above 100 on the cable box ALL are channels that came in on some other cable frequency.

You will have to go fish with your modulator, and see which channel(s) have no interference from digital channels.


Right. Typical and perfect.


Well, up through 88. 89 can't be below the modulated channel and also BE the modulated channel.


Again, what do you mean by "receiver?" "Controlled?" No -- Tuned in and watched, yes. If, by receiver, you mean TV, yes, when your TV is at 88 or below, it will be tuning in regular cable channels. When you hit 89, you will be tuning in the modulator.



It's coming soon, although it will be a new and different type of mess. I am not sure what to recommend, and this post has made me realize that I am just sitting back waiting to see what will happen. As I understand it, when Mpeg 4 is enabled, ALL current DirecTV receivers will be instantly obsolete!

Kinda makes ya wanna go ta cable, doesn't it? Attaboys, DirecTV!

Yes, it kinda makes me want that. Until I read about the cable companies. Then I want to stop watching TV and crawl in a hole. At least until the weekend when football is on!

All current HD receivers will be obsolete, sorta. The SD receivers will not be obsolete at all. And the HD ones will only be truly useless when/if they eventually go to ONLY MPEG4, and then only useless for HD channels, SD would still work. That couldn't be before 2009 at the earliest, IMO. The last 2 birds won't even be up until 2007, and they will still be concentrating on locals, not national HD channels.

For me, my MPEG4 locals should be up and running by the end of March. But I already get my locals just fine OTA. So I'm happy with my HDTivo for now.

That's one of the benefits of cable. You don't own any equipment, only rent it.

I guess my issue with the cable companies is with their marketing. They run commercials talking about how satellite goes out in bad weather, how expensive it is, etc but in my opinion, without the competition from satellite and a huge number of us dropping cable in favor of satellite over the years, we'd likely still be watching TV with 260 lines-of-resolution and 50 channels.

I agree they have come a long way but in truth, they slowed satellite subscription dramatically when they lobbied for (and won) the mandatory inclusion of LOCAL channels over satellite if they were to carry any network TV. In the good old days (late 90's), you could get all the network feeds (east and west) from DirecTV, it was sweet! Along comes cable, they can't compete so they ruin it for satellite and their subscribers, I guess all is fair in love, war and business. Truth is without that decision, we could all be watching full-time, every channel in HD via satellite because bandwidth wouldn't be an issue (even with only 2 or 3 satellite's in orbit). I hate cable for many reasons but this one is my biggest, they couldn't compete so they lobbied the FCC and ruined the original idea of satellite and getting a feed from anywhere, no matter the source or content.

Cable companies are worried about the infrastructure, they want to protect their investment. TV, networking and other broadband technologies can be piped into your house so many ways but all require you to in effect "lease" the connection and rely on someone maintaining the copper or fiber. Satellite comes over the air, it's the closest we can ever come to "owning" the infrastructure (move to a new house, point your dish and BAM, Digital Dolby 5.1 and a perfectly clear picture)... Call the cable company, you might get them to meet you between 8:00 and 12:00 in 2 weeks...

My 2 cents anyway...

JFetter

I am no fan of cable. But your assertion that sat would be all HD is borderline ludicrous. First, there aren't that many HD channels, and the provider companies don't own the channels, so this fact has little to do with them. Second, they do not have the bandwidth for that, even if they dropped all their SD channels. That's why they (DirecTV) had to upgrade to modern sats.

I have to challenge your bandwidth facts. Granted, the content is and will always be an issue, DirecTV doesn't control how the networks record their shows and it wouldn't be all HD just because the satellite bandwidth was available. If you factor in all the Satellite transponders beaming tightly focused signals down to specific cities only (that's how they control access), you'll find quite a bit of satellite hardware devoted to just that, local channels for a very specifc region of the country rather than non-directed signals beaming content to all.

That was really my point if you want to get specific...

JFetter

I'm carefully watching what DirecTV does as things unfold. I am interested in getting my locals via DirecTV, as the local HD broadcast towers are just at the edge of my reception range, and I get some dropout during some weather conditions.

I really like the DirecTV HD TiVo. Yes the menu's are a bit slow, but I can live with it. It's still prefer it to any other DVR I've seen.

When DirecTV comes out with their new HD DVR, I'll be weighing my options carefully. The options by then should include, moving to cable, and buying a HD TiVo unit from TiVo. (It will likely support the home networking options, etc... all the stuff that DirecTV could have supported, except they just don't care about users.)

Since the new TiVo is supposed to support 2 single stream cable cards, or a multi-stream cable card, the TiVo may be the most powerful option. And it even sounds like TiVo intends to price the units very competitively.

My assertion is that there is no such bandwidth available. The content issue is an afterthought, although it matters just as much.

The current sats do not have nearly the bandwidth to provide anything like you suggested. They are using 2 bigger ones (Spaceway 1, 2 -- total 500 HD channels between them) that are in the sky right now and 2 more MUCH bigger (Directv 10, 11 -- 1150 HD channels) sats that will be going up this year and next. And these are only to cover most locals and 150 other HD channels. There is no way the old sats could've transmitted an HD version (if they existed) of every current SD channel that D* provides. Not even close. Not even using MPEG4.

I'm sorry I don't have numbers on the old sats' bandwidth in my head or in front of me to quote to back this up. They could only handle something like 1/5th or less the capability of one Spaceway sat.