Re: Looks like we might possibly be losing AMC, IFC, & WE.

skeeterintexas · ‎12-09-2007

Melissa69 wrote:

robbo wrote:

Melissa69 wrote:
Has anyone ever had Direct TV? How does it compare to Comcast and U-Verse? I really don't want to go back to Comcast if this doesn't work out. But I will if no agreement is reached.

picture quality is great, the new DVR is nice looking (the old one was horrible) - they have WHDVR, all tvs can be HD ( which neither comcast nor dish have) - the biggest loss is the ability to tape 3, watch 1. you can only tape 1, watch 1.
You also lose "Wealth TV", which i actually watch more than i think i do. it probably doesn't matter to most.
Thank you. See I don't have an HD TV so you're saying my TV would be HD quality even if I don't have one?.

Ahhhh....that made me lol....what the OP meant was that all STBs are HD ready. Doesn't make your TV HD, though.

robbo_1 · ‎07-14-2010

wotsnewnow wrote:
robbo wrote:
....if you had all HDTVs, they would all show the true 1080i signal.
_______________________________________________________

You seem knowledgeable on this subject, robbo, so maybe can answer a question that's been dogging me --

I have a top-of-the line Bravia with 1080p (which I thought was better than 1080i).
WHY can I ONLY get my HD in 1080i, or is this an ATT thing ??

Or, what does it take to see HD1080p ? (pardon my un-techiness)

1080i is the best that you'll get with cable or satellite. the only way to really get 1080p is with a bluray, i think. there may be a way to get some kind of digital download (on demand or from a PC plugged in via HDMI), but i've never really experimented with it. it comes down, basically, to the amount of information needed to create the picture. i could get more technical, but i'd bore. you could probably check out wikipedia - it will give you a lot more info than i could.

wotsnewnow · ‎05-12-2010

...Answers to my HDTV 1080P question are appreciated.

(So good to get THAT one off my mind.)

cheer · ‎10-20-2007

robbo wrote:

wotsnewnow wrote:
robbo wrote:
....if you had all HDTVs, they would all show the true 1080i signal.
_______________________________________________________

You seem knowledgeable on this subject, robbo, so maybe can answer a question that's been dogging me --

I have a top-of-the line Bravia with 1080p (which I thought was better than 1080i).
WHY can I ONLY get my HD in 1080i, or is this an ATT thing ??

Or, what does it take to see HD1080p ? (pardon my un-techiness)
1080i is the best that you'll get with cable or satellite. the only way to really get 1080p is with a bluray, i think. there may be a way to get some kind of digital download (on demand or from a PC plugged in via HDMI), but i've never really experimented with it. it comes down, basically, to the amount of information needed to create the picture. i could get more technical, but i'd bore. you could probably check out wikipedia - it will give you a lot more info than i could.

My standard 1080p/i/resolution rant.

1080p is more marketing nonsense than anything else, and here's why:

(1) Anything shot on film (or shot digitally in a film-like manner) is recorded at 24 progressive frames per second. This includes pretty much all movies, scripted TV dramas, and scripted comedies, as well as a number of reality shows.

(2) Anything shot on HD video (or traditional video) is recorded at either roughly 60 interlaced fields per second (480i or 1080i) or 60 progressive frames per second (720p).

(Nobody broadcasts at 1080p -- more accurately, 1920x1080x60 progressive frames per second -- though DirecTV evidently has some 1080p video on demand stuff.)

(A frame is just that -- a single full frame of video. A field is basically half -- either the odd or even numbered lines of a full frame of video.)

When the items in example (1) are broadcast on TV, they are "telecined" to pad them out to either 60 interlaced fields/sec (if broadcast at 480i or 1080i) or 60 progressive frames/sec (if broadcast at 720p). This is done by adding duplicate frames (i.e. copies of frames already in the original material) for padding. In the case of progressive telecines, a LOT of dupes are added (36 frames/sec). In the case of interlaced telecines, they add dupes of 6 frames/sec (which gives you 30 frames/sec), then interlace those frames into 60 fields/sec.

Modern digital (HD) TVs are, with a few exceptions, progressive devices. They only show progressive frames. (The exceptions either tube HDTVs or the traditional rear-projection sets, often known as "CRT RPTVs.") They are also fixed resolution devices, e.g. if you have a so-called 1080p TV, then its only resolution is 1920x1080, and if you have a 720p TV, its resolution is 1280x720.*

Most modern TVs also do something called "pulldown." This is a process where the TV removes the dupe frames. The TV will also automatically deinterlace any interlaced video that gets sent to it.

So. Whether you watch Lost in "1080i" or "1080p" scarcely matters. Whether the TV provider sends you 1920x1080/60 interlaced fields/sec or 1920x1080/60 progressive frames/sec, either way you get what you *really* want: the original 24 progressive frames/sec. The rest is all fluff.

As for example (2) -- since no sporting events, news events, or the like are recorded at 1920x1080/60 progressive frames/sec, broadcasting it that way would make no sense.

So then...why the fuss over Blu-Ray? It's not the 1080p. It's the bitrate. Blu-Ray discs give a bitrate that is insanely high -- far, far higher than any TV provider. More bits = less compression = better picture.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

Shoe just noted on another thread that a deal has been reached.

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

The deal is done! Here is the press release.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=30954

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

Thats not surprising to know. Too much money would have been lost by both companies. I guess these threads to find themselves in the forum dungeon before too long.

wotsnewnow · ‎05-12-2010

....well, now I (we) can rest at ease !

Not only do I keep my Indi films, but understand ATT is going to

give us the Padres games also!! My day is made.

bri_man_65 · ‎09-21-2007

The last question... any chance they negotiated to get the channels in HD, and to get them in the areas currently banned from getting them? Hmmmm

jasardo · ‎12-24-2006

I'm no expert on this, bri_man, but from what I've gathered Rainbow media's contract with the major cable providers just might have an exclusivity clause, which makes it impossible to offer their channels in HD to U-Verse, DirectTV, Dish, etc, until their contract is renegotiated.

Does anyone have any information on this? There's a lot of garbage floating around out there at the moment, so don't quote me as gospel.

Tigercub67 · ‎10-01-2009

We won't be losing the three channels as Rainbow made a deal with Att, the only bad side is they did not nail down the chance of us getting the channels in HD. But we won't be losing the channels. If you go to the business news you find the article.

dalegrn · ‎12-27-2008

wotsnewnow wrote:

but understand ATT is going to
give us the Padres games also!!

Like you I'd LOVE to see the Padres on Uverse. Though Channel 4 Cox said they'd be open to allowing Uverse access to Channel 4/Padres, it WILL come at a price. Probably steep. Too much for Uverse is my guess. In short, we probably won't see Channel 4 on Uverse in San Diego this season. Sad but true.

gbh62 · ‎11-28-2009

Now that everyone seems all happy that these channels were saved, should the thread be re-named to,

"Looks like we might possibly be 'getting a rate increase instead of' losing AMC, IFC, and WE"

paul416 · ‎10-10-2008

gbh62 wrote:
Now that everyone seems all happy that these channels were saved, should the thread be re-named to,

"Looks like we might possibly be 'getting a rate increase instead of' losing AMC, IFC, and WE"

Wait and see. I felt all along that this whole episode was nothing more than a smokescreen on ATT's part to ram through a price increase and blame it on someone else.

hgrub · ‎07-17-2010

i pay enough to uverse every month and i don't want to see amc taking from the line up

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

You are a bit behind.

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/Looks-like-we-might-possibly-be-losing-AMC-IFC-amp-WE/m-p/232...

soonerteam1 · ‎01-30-2009

Are these preminum channels? I have u300 but they are not showing up on my tv.

cheer · ‎10-20-2007

soonerteam1 wrote:
Are these preminum channels? I have u300 but they are not showing up on my tv.

No. Where do you live? There are a few regions in the country where (at the moment) AT&T cannot offer these channels, as Rainbow does not permit it.

cheer · ‎10-20-2007

hgrub wrote:
i pay enough to uverse every month and i don't want to see amc taking from the line up

Dude.

Dewey lost.

soonerteam1 · ‎01-30-2009

Oklahoma

smcleod1106 · ‎12-23-2008

soonerteam1 wrote:
Oklahoma

see this thread

http://utalk.att.com/t5/TV-Programming/AMC-In-Tulsa/td-p/142095

siouxmoux · ‎07-28-2007

I was out for last couple of days So I am glad I have missed all the drama with AMC, ATT, IFC, Rainbow Media.

siouxmoux · ‎07-28-2007

And if Att and Rainbow Media could ever comes to terms with HD Versions of AMC and IFC,

http://www.tvpredictions.com/att071510.htm

Prior to this deal, AT&T did not offer those channels in its high-def lineup.

The only sliver of hope for AT&T HD viewers is a reference in the release that the Rainbow channels would be available "across platforms." This might suggest that AT&T will be able to add AMC HD at a later date.

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

siouxmoux wrote:
And if Att and Rainbow Media could ever comes to terms with HD Versions of AMC and IFC,

http://www.tvpredictions.com/att071510.htm

Prior to this deal, AT&T did not offer those channels in its high-def lineup.

The only sliver of hope for AT&T HD viewers is a reference in the release that the Rainbow channels would be available "across platforms." This might suggest that AT&T will be able to add AMC HD at a later date.

I also read into that, that might be a reference to AMC HD on U-Verse BUT it could also mean "platforms" in terms of equality between traditional cable, satellite and IPTV.

mgduhl · ‎07-03-2010

Well UVerse and Rainbow Media made a what they call a "satisfactory agreement" If we don't have AMC in the Tulsa Market by the end of the month I will be going back to Cox. We have had nothing but trouble with this service...Less than 3 weeks in and I have spent more than 8 hours with customer service...they cut off one of our TVs...and took service 2 hours to figure out why 1 tv didn't work. We lost all service completely and it took them 6 hours before they agreed to send out a tech.

I am NOT happy at all with UVerse and if I can't watch Mad Men that just puts it over the edge...

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

mgduhl wrote:

Well UVerse and Rainbow Media made a what they call a "satisfactory agreement" If we don't have AMC in the Tulsa Market by the end of the month I will be going back to Cox. We have had nothing but trouble with this service...Less than 3 weeks in and I have spent more than 8 hours with customer service...they cut off one of our TVs...and took service 2 hours to figure out why 1 tv didn't work. We lost all service completely and it took them 6 hours before they agreed to send out a tech.

I am NOT happy at all with UVerse and if I can't watch Mad Men that just puts it over the edge...
Welcome to U-verse!

Has everything been resolved, and is your service working now?

dhascall · ‎04-21-2008

Cox Cable -

1 (888) 359 4129

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

mgduhl wrote:

Well UVerse and Rainbow Media made a what they call a "satisfactory agreement" If we don't have AMC in the Tulsa Market by the end of the month I will be going back to Cox. We have had nothing but trouble with this service...Less than 3 weeks in and I have spent more than 8 hours with customer service...they cut off one of our TVs...and took service 2 hours to figure out why 1 tv didn't work. We lost all service completely and it took them 6 hours before they agreed to send out a tech.

I am NOT happy at all with UVerse and if I can't watch Mad Men that just puts it over the edge...

Why would you stay with a service you only like for a channel you can get with another provider? I left Comcast and DTV for 1 or 2 reasons, and if it had been one channel keeping me I would have been gone. Even if it meant paying an early cancellation fee. Eventually I would have gotten over the sting of having to pay it.