5 ms·

Interesting, I looked at the channels they offer and I couldn't see any reason why they would refuse to carry the network, none of their programming seems in po

by AaronM 8y ago

Interesting, I looked at the channels they offer and I couldn't see any reason why they would refuse to carry the network, none of their programming seems in poor taste or extreme.

tyingq 8y ago
Maybe revenue potential versus some other channel in that slot?
JackFr 8y ago
If you've ever seen "Comics Unleashed" you know that Byron Allen is basically unable to create or recognize entertaining programming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed
- bksenior 8y ago
  He used to be on at like 4a when I was in high school. I genuinely dont understand how this guy has had his own shows consistently for 2 decades and STILL most people have never heard of him.
mikeryan 8y ago
There's a limited amount of bandwidth that can be carried over your cable line and its pretty much tapped out until more carriers switch to an IP based system. Ultimately these providers do need the ability to "discriminate" on which channels they choose to allocate bandwidth to. It's a strange case trying to make a racial discrimination case here (more so for Comcast as apparently someone from Charter said a few things out of line)
- kw71 8y ago
  Well this isnt so much the case anymore with switched networks. This was a thing 10 years ago when I retired from broadcasting. Basically the headend sets up a video session for the program if someone in the area tunes to the channel. This is like vod streaming except more than one viewer can utilize the session/stream.
  - mikeryan 8y ago
    I was going to mention this but didn't want to get too far into the weeds. My understanding was the the infrastructure rollout to Switched Video has slowed as providers look at leapfrogging to IP based solutions. Comcast's X1 platform can run IP based.
    - milankragujevic 8y ago
      Hm, I always thought IP based solutions were worse, given my terrible experience with IPTV (Actual IPTV, over DSL on a different VPI/VCI number)... + they can track your viewing habits...
      - kw71 8y ago
        Like I said above I retired from this business a decade ago but I have a hunch that IP is going to be a better experience over docsis or any other broadband link. I don't see much complaining from fios/uverse customers, and I worked independently on a metro WAN iptv development in moscow, which worked pretty well when the residents had fast-ethernet connections, once we got the infrastructure to handle all the multicast traffic.
        metildaa 8y ago
        IPTV like what Centurylink Prism offers is a really good experience. Extremely fast channel switching, live previews of the last couple channels you were on, and a decent UI made for a good experience. I have yet to find another IPTV provider that offers tthe first two features mentioned, despite it being possible with ddecade old technology running WinCE (in Centurylink's case).
- leeoniya 8y ago
  comcast also downgraded their entire lineup to a poorly re-encoded 720p. i think in the last few years. there was some PR about it being improved this and uniform that. indeed, the quality is now uniform: complete garbage. really defeats much of owning a good 4k sony :(. i wonder how many additional useless channels they added that no one watches. at least their set top boxes have abysmally slow UIs. https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Non-X1-Service/1080i-channels-are-being-changed-to-720p60-channels/m-p/2778182#M183045 https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Non-X1-Service/1080i-channels-...
  - cronix 8y ago
    Agree. The difference between watching "HDTV" on Comcast vs Verizon FiOS was like the difference between watching SDTV and HDTV, with Comcast being SDTV. Everything is so pixelated and "smeary" on Comcast whereas FiOS buttery smooth and fully detailed. I should have noted the bitrate of the two at the time as I use cablecards and can see that data, but FiOS had a MUCH higher bitrate (when comparing 720 vs 720) and most channels were broadcast in 1080 instead of 720. I think it's because Comcast keeps upping their internet speeds, which they need to rob the bandwidth from the tv side to do. They also still simulcast broadcast everything in SDTV wasting bandwidth. How many people actually have SDTV sets anymore? Cable bandwidth is simply outdated with current societal needs, just like the telephone line was 10 years ago.
    - leeoniya 8y ago
      the 80/20 rule probably applies. 80% of their customers watch 20% of their channels. the other 80% of channels are simply there to grab some small demographic that's only important to advertisers. so they rob everyone of quality to maximize revenue. it's disgusting, and there's not much i can do about it due to local duopoly. my best bet is to move to higher quality streaming services. i looked into Sling TV recently and their lineup has really improved. does anyone have experience with it, quality-wise?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        I had Sling TV for awhile. It was good enough. But, it didn’t have as many local channels as DirecTVNow in my area. DirecTVNow was flakey the last time I used it on either my RokuTVs or with my Roku sticks. It worked better when I would AirPlay it to my 3rd Gen AppleTV or watch it using the app on my 4K AppleTV. My wireless connection in the same area as my TVs never dips below 159Mbps so it’s not my bandwidth. My AppleTVs throughout the house are all connected via gigabit Ethernet throughout my house.
kw71 8y ago
It's a business decision, the network usually demands a per-subscriber fee for carriage on a cable plant.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It depends. Some networks pay the cable company, other networks get paid by the cable company and others just ask for a spot and share ad revenue and allow the cable company to advertise locally.
  - kw71 8y ago
    I think the shopping channels pay for carriage, and they are popular beyond my wildest expectations - if I did anything to make one of them go out there would be calls complaining about it immediately!

by AaronM 8y ago

Interesting, I looked at the channels they offer and I couldn't see any reason why they would refuse to carry the network, none of their programming seems in poor taste or extreme.

tyingq 8y ago

Maybe revenue potential versus some other channel in that slot?

JackFr 8y ago

If you've ever seen "Comics Unleashed" you know that Byron Allen is basically unable to create or recognize entertaining programming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed

bksenior 8y ago
He used to be on at like 4a when I was in high school. I genuinely dont understand how this guy has had his own shows consistently for 2 decades and STILL most people have never heard of him.

mikeryan 8y ago

There's a limited amount of bandwidth that can be carried over your cable line and its pretty much tapped out until more carriers switch to an IP based system. Ultimately these providers do need the ability to "discriminate" on which channels they choose to allocate bandwidth to. It's a strange case trying to make a racial discrimination case here (more so for Comcast as apparently someone from Charter said a few things out of line)

kw71 8y ago
Well this isnt so much the case anymore with switched networks. This was a thing 10 years ago when I retired from broadcasting. Basically the headend sets up a video session for the program if someone in the area tunes to the channel. This is like vod streaming except more than one viewer can utilize the session/stream.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  I was going to mention this but didn't want to get too far into the weeds. My understanding was the the infrastructure rollout to Switched Video has slowed as providers look at leapfrogging to IP based solutions. Comcast's X1 platform can run IP based.
  - milankragujevic 8y ago
    Hm, I always thought IP based solutions were worse, given my terrible experience with IPTV (Actual IPTV, over DSL on a different VPI/VCI number)... + they can track your viewing habits...
    - kw71 8y ago
      Like I said above I retired from this business a decade ago but I have a hunch that IP is going to be a better experience over docsis or any other broadband link. I don't see much complaining from fios/uverse customers, and I worked independently on a metro WAN iptv development in moscow, which worked pretty well when the residents had fast-ethernet connections, once we got the infrastructure to handle all the multicast traffic.
      - metildaa 8y ago
        IPTV like what Centurylink Prism offers is a really good experience. Extremely fast channel switching, live previews of the last couple channels you were on, and a decent UI made for a good experience. I have yet to find another IPTV provider that offers tthe first two features mentioned, despite it being possible with ddecade old technology running WinCE (in Centurylink's case).
leeoniya 8y ago
comcast also downgraded their entire lineup to a poorly re-encoded 720p. i think in the last few years. there was some PR about it being improved this and uniform that. indeed, the quality is now uniform: complete garbage. really defeats much of owning a good 4k sony :(. i wonder how many additional useless channels they added that no one watches. at least their set top boxes have abysmally slow UIs. https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Non-X1-Service/1080i-channels-are-being-changed-to-720p60-channels/m-p/2778182#M183045 https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Non-X1-Service/1080i-channels-...
- cronix 8y ago
  Agree. The difference between watching "HDTV" on Comcast vs Verizon FiOS was like the difference between watching SDTV and HDTV, with Comcast being SDTV. Everything is so pixelated and "smeary" on Comcast whereas FiOS buttery smooth and fully detailed. I should have noted the bitrate of the two at the time as I use cablecards and can see that data, but FiOS had a MUCH higher bitrate (when comparing 720 vs 720) and most channels were broadcast in 1080 instead of 720. I think it's because Comcast keeps upping their internet speeds, which they need to rob the bandwidth from the tv side to do. They also still simulcast broadcast everything in SDTV wasting bandwidth. How many people actually have SDTV sets anymore? Cable bandwidth is simply outdated with current societal needs, just like the telephone line was 10 years ago.
  - leeoniya 8y ago
    the 80/20 rule probably applies. 80% of their customers watch 20% of their channels. the other 80% of channels are simply there to grab some small demographic that's only important to advertisers. so they rob everyone of quality to maximize revenue. it's disgusting, and there's not much i can do about it due to local duopoly. my best bet is to move to higher quality streaming services. i looked into Sling TV recently and their lineup has really improved. does anyone have experience with it, quality-wise?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      I had Sling TV for awhile. It was good enough. But, it didn’t have as many local channels as DirecTVNow in my area. DirecTVNow was flakey the last time I used it on either my RokuTVs or with my Roku sticks. It worked better when I would AirPlay it to my 3rd Gen AppleTV or watch it using the app on my 4K AppleTV. My wireless connection in the same area as my TVs never dips below 159Mbps so it’s not my bandwidth. My AppleTVs throughout the house are all connected via gigabit Ethernet throughout my house.

kw71 8y ago

It's a business decision, the network usually demands a per-subscriber fee for carriage on a cable plant.

scarface74 8y ago
It depends. Some networks pay the cable company, other networks get paid by the cable company and others just ask for a spot and share ad revenue and allow the cable company to advertise locally.
- kw71 8y ago
  I think the shopping channels pay for carriage, and they are popular beyond my wildest expectations - if I did anything to make one of them go out there would be calls complaining about it immediately!