AfterDawn: News

Rogers to compress HD quality, like Comcast

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
* HD WGN
* HD The Score
* HD Showcase
* HD National Geographic
* HD Mpix
* HD Discovery
* HD MORE
* HD TMN
* HD NBC Seattle
* HD SUN
* HD RAP
* HDA&E
* HDCNN
* HDNET

The selection of channels are so-called "premium networks" that subscribers normally purchase separately from basic digital and HD channels. Using a comparison picture provided by the source article, the Compression artifacts are very noticeable. Fortunately, major American networks such as ABC and FOX, and Canadian networks CBC, CTV, Global, and sports network TSN were omitted from the list.

We hope this is a trend that will not continue.



Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 6 Apr 2008 14:51

• Previous article

• NCC attacks anti-file sharing letters

• Next article

• Lenovo will sell off its mobile phone business

• 17 comments

• 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.

  6.4.2008 17:21 #1

• DXR88

  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.

  6.4.2008 17:36 #2

• domie

  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.

  6.4.2008 17:42 #3

• Blackloz

  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.

  6.4.2008 18:09 #4

• Hunt720

  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.

  6.4.2008 19:04 #5

• canuckerz

  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.

  6.4.2008 20:56 #6

• Hunt720

  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.

  6.4.2008 22:50 #7

• 905drager

  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.

  7.4.2008 00:36 #8

• ZoSoIV

  This is why i use a rooftop antenna for HD content

  7.4.2008 03:47 #9

• A_Klingon

  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".

  7.4.2008 06:53 #10

• A_Klingon

  Originally posted by ZoSoIV: This is why i use a rooftop antenna for HD contentTechnically, 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".

  7.4.2008 06:56 #11

• Krmnnghia

  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!!

  7.4.2008 10:17 #12

• 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.

  7.4.2008 17:11 #13

• SProdigy

  I wonder if Mark Cuban has caught wind of this? He's very particular that everything on HDNet is actually broadcast in High Definition...

  8.4.2008 13:08 #14

• runar

  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 :)

  10.4.2008 11:10 #15

• matt5112

  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.

  12.4.2008 15:00 #16

• FredBun

  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.

  12.4.2008 15:52 #17