more channels gone from TW standard line up

[candy_kisses69]

Well today was the day that some more channels were taken away from our standard cable package. Travel channel Discovery Health Tru Tv. Apparently you have to have a box and they will probably charge you extra. It wouldn't surprise me if eventually you will have to have a box for all of them. WHAT A RIP OFF. Everybody has their hands out for that extra bit of $$$$$

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well today was the day that some more channels were taken away from our standard cable package. Travel channel Discovery Health Tru Tv. Apparently you have to have a box and they will probably charge you extra. It wouldn't surprise me if eventually you will have to have a box for all of them. WHAT A RIP OFF. Everybody has their hands out for that extra bit of $$$$$

That's the name of the game. Drop cable channels in the standard package so that you, and other subscribers, will be forced to buy digital cable. In the near future you might also have to chuck your current TV for one of those high-def ones because most channels will only offer HD. It's not about the programming; it's about the profits.

 

[Bill_W]

or just use the bandwith more efficiently. ie get rid of analog cable and add more digital and HD channels. That's what Comcast is doing and Verizon already did it. Comcast is actually giving analog customers up to 3 free digital converters to continue to watch tv.

 

[kenglish]

But, you don't really get "Digital" with them. You get an analog NTSC (channel 3 or 4) output, with mono sound.
So, if you are just taking Cable to get local TV, you'd be MUCH better off with OTA.

 

[ericNY]

Time Warner is getting ready to add a decent amount of channels (mostly HD) the next couple months to the Rochester Area:

MSG plus HD was recently added to channel 1093

Around August 28:
WUHF DT2: (MyCool tv) will be added to channel 530

September 2:
Style HD will be added to channel 1155
BBC America HD will be added to channel 1175

September 9:
National Geographic Wild HD will be added to channel 1176
MTV HD will be added to channel 1165
Comedy Central HD will be added to channel 1166
Nickelodeon HD will be added to channel 1154
Spike TV HD will be added to channel 1177

September 16
History Channel International HD will be added to channel 1178
CMT HD will be added to Channel 1167
Hallmark HD will be added to Channel 1156
VH-1 HD will be added to channel 1168
Cooking Channel HD will be added to Channel 1157
DIY-HD will be added to channel 1158
Time Warner Cable Sports Network HD will be added to channel 1026
YNN HD will be added to channel 1009

September 23
Womans Max HD will be added to channel 1114
HBO Latino HD will be added to Channel 1106
Fox Sports Espanol will be renamed Fox Deportes

 

[therealjm12]

Of all the channels listed above, I have NO interest in any of them, except Comedy Central, which I could live without. I certainly don't miss it in HD. But somehow I'll end up paying for them.

 

[therealjm12]

I just noticed to that Hallmark Ch 78 is missing from Time Warner Rochester today.

 

[candy_kisses69]

Try channel 40. It's been 40 the last few days

 

[BobRoss]

You're right, the long-term goal IS to make all subscribers use a cable box.

Why? Because right now, all analog channels must always be fed down the line at all times. That takes up plenty of bandwidth. They're constantly sending 70+ channels to your house at all times, even when your TV is off.

On the other hand, switched digital networks allow the cable company to send down only the actual programming you're watching at any given moment. When analog is eventually eliminated, they'll have more bandwidth available to provide even more channels, more bandwidth for digital phone, internet and other services.

The sad part of switched digital is that the number of channels could theoretically become infinite -- there's nothing stopping the cable company from adding another 300+ channels, simply because no channel is being sent "down the pipe" until you call it up with your remote control. Why is this sad? Because the way cable channels are priced, there's no doubt subscribers will be asked to pay more and more and more, even though you're still only watching one channel at a time. Just because there are more and more channels doesn't mean I have more and more time to sit around watching TV.

In the end, the industry could wind up shooting itself in the foot because cable prices are just going to spiral out of control to the point more and more people will just watch TV online. "Back in the day," TV channels made their money purely through ratings based on audience size. But the audience isn't growing exponentially like the channel lineup is -- so most of these third-rate cable networks are only alive because they're heavily subsidized by cable subscription fees. Yep, we're paying for all these channels we never watch, but we still pay because we don't want to let go of the handful of channels we DO watch.

That's where the internet will win: Why pay for 300+ channels you don't watch when you can see what you want ANYTIME you want, online, usually for free? Even if certain websites charged to watch video, it'd be cheaper to pay for subscriptions to one or two websites, than it would cost to get cable.

I was quite surprised to discover the popular AMC series "Mad Men" is viewable for free right on AMC's website. And I only had to sit through one short commercial before the episode started; there were no other breaks during the show.

As more shows move online, it gets more and more tempting to bag cable, install an antenna for the locals, and boost my Netflix subscription to the next level.

 

[w9wi]

In the end, the industry could wind up shooting itself in the foot because cable prices are just going to spiral out of control to the point more and more people will just watch TV online. "Back in the day," TV channels made their money purely through ratings based on audience size. But the audience isn't growing exponentially like the channel lineup is -- so most of these third-rate cable networks are only alive because they're heavily subsidized by cable subscription fees. Yep, we're paying for all these channels we never watch, but we still pay because we don't want to let go of the handful of channels we DO watch.

There are some who argue this is why cable is so opposed to net neutrality. The Internet model does indeed threaten the "you'll pay more for more channels, most of which you'll never watch" cable model. But if cable, as an Internet provider, can throttle AMC.com/Netflix.com/etc. to the point where you can't watch clean video in prime time, then you have little choice but to subscribe to whatever digital tier is necessary to get the programs you want.

As more shows move online, it gets more and more tempting to bag cable, install an antenna for the locals, and boost my Netflix subscription to the next level.

That's what I told my boss when she complained about cable, and in the same breath said she only watches movies and the local news.

 

[Markxxx]

On the other hand, switched digital networks allow the cable company to send down only the actual programming you're watching at any given moment....

The sad part of switched digital is that the number of channels could theoretically become infinite -- there's nothing stopping the cable company from adding another 300+ channels, simply because no channel is being sent "down the pipe" until you call it up with your remote control.

I didn't know that, interesting. So in a way what you're saying is we could move to a "on-demand mode only." Since the shows are only served up when your digital box is on, let's just do away with cable/TV networks all together and let the view pick what he wants to watch it, when he wants to.

 

[BobRoss]

So in a way what you're saying is we could move to a "on-demand mode only." Since the shows are only served up when your digital box is on, let's just do away with cable/TV networks all together and let the view pick what he wants to watch it, when he wants to.

Basically, yes. It's already happening -- TW already offers dozens of "on demand" channels. For example, you can watch the live feed of HBO, or you can watch certain shows and movies anytime you want via "HBO On Demand." There are plenty of premium on-demand channels, and just as many, if not more "free" on-demand channels.

For now, cable TV and FiOS do have some benefits. That's because buying a TV and renting a cable box are relatively inexpensive and simple for most people.

Computers with Windows Media Center or Apple's equivalent (sorry, not an Apple guy) are already capable of tuning in TV channels, DVR'ing for you, playing DVDs, Blu-Ray discs, and so forth. And since it's a computer, you can also go online to watch streaming content. But most people don't have the money to buy a computer primarily devoted to TV-watching, nor do they want to be bothered with the technical aspect of setting it all up or using a remote to navigate the Windows or Mac OS on their TV. For many people, it's still a "mental" thing, where a computer and a TV are two entirely different things.

Somehow, though, I have a feeling the cable companies will still win in the end. While they may lose cable subscribers, most people who drop cable are likely doing so because they can watch programming online. And who controls the high-speed internet? For most of this region, it's the same cable company. They can make up for their losses on CATV by just boosting the monthly rates for internet. And as someone else noted, if net neutrality does not become reality, the cable company could block content coming from certain websites... but if you get "Turbo" internet, suddenly, those websites work again.

Plenty to think about as technologies converge. It'll be a wonder if "appointment viewing" still exists in another 10 years.

 

[therealjm12]

According to the Time Warner Rochester standard cable listings off the net: Ch 75 is C-span 2, 71 is Oxygen, 76 is Trutv, 78 Travel, 99 HSN. There is nothing but snow on those channels since the switch -that is except HSN the crappy shopping network. So I called Time Warner and asked why. They said those channels are now digital and only available with their box at no cost for a year. I am not really interested in those channels but asked if I got the box would I be getting the upper digital tier. The reply was no but at a special price I could. Long story short. I am getting the box mailed to me. The box is free and the upper tier will cost me $7 a month down from $20 last year when I inquired. So now I have more crap to watch.

 

[magicjellybeans]

Of all the channels listed above, I have NO interest in any of them, except Comedy Central, which I could live without. I certainly don't miss it in HD. But somehow I'll end up paying for them.

Thats why they can raise prices to $150 a month and people still pay.What would happen if people
started to cancel?prices would tank.

 

[turmoil1000]

they raised my all in one package to over 150 dollars and i thought that was ridiculous. i haven't missed or even been close to late on a payment in 3 years and they rewarded my loyalty by raising the price 45 dollars in 3 years. yesterday i finally had enough and switched to directv for cable. gonna save 30 dollars per month for the first year and about 5 dollars for the second year, not a huge savings but if enough people do it maybe time warner will start to treat their existing customers better. i like their service and love rnews but not for that much money i don't. i still use road runner and their phone service because i just don't trust the phone company for anything except telephone (heard some horror stories about cable and internet) so i'll try directv for a couple years and hope its as good as they say and maybe the cable company will offer me a new package with some real VALUE to it in 24 months.

 

[therealjm12]

Since you have Road Runner, you might want to check out Vonage for phone service. For me it was a much better deal than TW's.

 

[candy_kisses69]

Well how is Magic Jack. I hear you only pay something like $19.95 a year for everything and that also requires a computer?

 

[turmoil1000]

i'm not sure vonage would save me much, i see the commercials for 25.99 and right now t.w. only charges me 30 bucks. as far as magic jack you have to have your computer on to recieve a phone call so your using electricity all the time and keeping your computer on continuously. i've also heard that the phone quality with magic jack is very poor.