when hbo hd on demand

[vick vega]

They have hbo on demand why not hbo hd on demand? I rarely watch the regular hbo's as is. I would rather have hbo hd on demand than some of the other hbo's

[JTK]

They probably will in due time and probably charge subs another $15-$20 a pop for it.

[phranctoast]

yeah.. kind of bites that they dont have it yet. I had to dvr the sopranos to see it in HD since on demand isnt HD yet.

Its the same thing right not for tv shows. Im better off recording it on dvr in HD then waiting for the dvd's to come out if I want the better quality.

[ProvenFlipper]

I've been wanting the same thing... Maybe its time we start hounding our cable companies.

[BTBuck1]

they still haven't even gotten the channels from 100 down onto the digital side yet which they still are suppossed to do this year.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Brian@BBY

they still haven't even gotten the channels from 100 down onto the digital side yet which they still are suppossed to do this year.

Don't believe it 'til you see it.

[Shadowself]

The issue is legacy compatibility versus bandwidth.

Legacy (aka analog, aka simple NTSC) signals use more bandwidth than the more modern technologies.

Many cable users don't use set top boxes. Several years ago they bought "cable ready" CRT based TVs and hooked them up directly to the coaxial cable coming into their homes. They are able to get the lowest 50-100 channels doing this.

In order to convert everything to purely digital signals and free up bandwidth to convert more channels to HD the cable companies need to get rid of those legacy channels -- the bandwidth hogs. The cable companies would love to get rid of the old, legacy channels and charge everyone $5 a month for a digital cable box or sell them digital cable cards (for the TVs that support them), but that may not happen. That will alienate a significant fraction of their user base. Additionally, many local governments are restricting the cable companies from forcing their customers to move to purely digital signals.

The industry IS moving forward, but just at a much slower pace than most of us would like.

[ProvenFlipper]

Originally Posted by Brian@BBY

they still haven't even gotten the channels from 100 down onto the digital side yet which they still are suppossed to do this year.

The Cox lady said that is coming very soon, and that they are going to start making some channels digital only.

Hopefully that will free up some bandwidth so we can get some more HD channels.

We probably won't begin to see huge changes in cable until 2009 when everything goes digital. Which unfortunately is a very long time away.

[TurboNutter]

I have HBO HD on demand. However, there are only a select films to choose from. I live in New York, Cablevision is my provider.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by ProvenFlipper

We probably won't begin to see huge changes in cable until 2009 when everything goes digital. Which unfortunately is a very long time away.

In February 2009 (I forget the exact date) all over air, RF transmissions have to go digital for TV broadcasts in the U.S. (It has to do with freeing up the RF bands so the FCC can auction them off and make money for the U.S. Government.)

There is no regulatory requirement for cable companies to drop their analog signals at that time. There are cable only channels right now that are analog based. There is no requirement for them to change.

However, on a practical basis, virtually all the data sent by that time will be digital. I would expect only those channels sourced from outside the U.S. will be analog after the over air, RF transition date.

[vick vega]

You do? that's awesome I have Time Warner ever since Adelphia went under and I wish they had hbo hd on demand