Comcast Tops Satellite in HD Picture Quality Survey.

[Smokey]

The results of a new survey show that in side-by-side comparisons, two-thirds of satellite customers expressing a preference between Comcast and DirecTV and between Comcast and Dish Network said Comcast delivered a better HD image. More than 65% of customers ranked Comcast higher than DirecTV, and almost 70% chose Comcast over Dish Network.

In the survey, participants were asked if they felt there was a difference in quality between the HD television pictures displayed on three identical, unlabeled television sets (one set displaying a picture from Comcast, one from DirecTV and one from Dish Network).

Among satellite customers in the survey, 65.60% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast, and 69.92% who expressed a preference between Comcast and Dish Network chose Comcast.

Among all participants in the survey, 60.3% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and DirectTV chose Comcast, and 65.6% of those who expressed a preference between Comcast and Dish Network chose Comcast.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainm...2052007-1.html

[Groundbeef]

Check back at the end of 2007 when all of DirecTV's new sats are up. Currently they are compressing the signal, but after all the sats are up and running they will not need the compression.

HD bandwidth will also be increased, and Comcast will be left in the dust for HD offerings as opposed to DirecTV. Rumors of 100+ channels in HD are floating around.

[Smokey]

I think more satellites DirecTV and Dish put into space, the bigger dish have to be to capture those satellites which might limit as to how many satellites can be launched to carry more HD channels.

Comcast might have an advantage in the above scenario over satellite companies since that limitation is eliminated and are not bound to a fixed bandwidth capability.

[Rich-n-Texas]

If Verizon offers a good deal on a Triple Play package in the near future, I'll jump right off the DirecTV ship. I can't speak to the HD PQ of either Comcast (Time Warner cable in my area) or DTV since dropping locals from my DTV package (another point of anger directed to DirecTV), but since FIOS TV wasn't included in the comparison, it's an unknown quantity from a PQ standpoint at this time anyway.

[Smokey]

I can't speak to the HD PQ of either Comcast (Time Warner cable in my area) or DTV since dropping locals from my DTV package (another point of anger directed to DirecTV).

I have heard that local HD channels look better over air than with cable or satellite. I can not testify to that since don't have cable, but with a simple rabbit ear antenna I get over 16 digital channels. Although not all of them in HD.

[Rich-n-Texas]

You get digital channels over the air? Didn't know that was possible. Including the hispanic channels offered here in North Texas, I get about that many channels in SD along with their HD equivalent.

[Groundbeef]

I think more satellites DirecTV and Dish put into space, the bigger dish have to be to capture those satellites which might limit as to how many satellites can be launched to carry more HD channels.

Comcast might have an advantage in the above scenario over satellite companies since that limitation is eliminated and are not bound to a fixed bandwidth capability.

I don't follow. DirecTV had to come out to my house to change out the dish for the upcoming sat feeds (Local HD, and the increase in HD offerings). The physical dish increased in size by maybe 3" across, so its hardly noticable. An added benefit is that AFTER they carry my local channels in HD, I can REMOVE the "Local" dish I have to have up now.

ComCast has NO such advantage. They are limited by the bandwidth of the physical cable that runs from the central station to the home. Unless they switch every line to fiber, they are going to lose the HD battle. Sat distribution of signal is more efficient, and can handle larger bandwidth requirments, as more sats can "share the load".

Its not like I need 1 dish for each sat. The one I have now picks up 3, after the new ones get up this year, it will be able to recieve 5 signals. And I don't have to do anything different. Its already programmed in my box.

As far as OTA being more "clear" than offerings from either Sat or Cable, their may be some validity to the claim. Typically these OTA feeds do NOT need compression as they are a single feed from a single source. The main downside to the OTA feeds are that not all homes will be able to get them depending upon location, and broadcast signal strength.

For example, I am able to currently pull in FOX, and ABC. (Yeah, LOST, and 24 whooho). But not NBC, or CBS. PBS comes in clear as a bell though. But when DirecTV gets the sat going in my area (next month), I will get ALL affiliates in HD. So I guess a compressed signal will be better than NO signal.

[Smokey]

ComCast has NO such advantage. They are limited by the bandwidth of the physical cable that runs from the central station to the home. Unless they switch every line to fiber, they are going to lose the HD battle.

I am not sure how much bandwidth cable can carry, but there are couple of new technology on the way such as Switched Video (SV) or switched broadcasting that can address bandwidth issues with fixed cables.

But I imagine all of TV program provider will run into bandwidth problem down the road as more HD channels come on line, as neither cable or satellite have unlimited bandwidth capability. Satellite provider have to carry every local channels cross the country in their feed, and that alone will eat up alot of bandwidth.

By the way, did you have to pay for new dish or DirectTV did?

[Groundbeef]

I am not sure how much bandwidth cable can carry, but there are couple of new technology on the way such as Switched Video (SV) or switched broadcasting that can address bandwidth issues with fixed cables.

But I imagine all of TV program provider will run into bandwidth problem down the road as more HD channels come on line, as neither cable or satellite have unlimited bandwidth capability. Satellite provider have to carry every local channels cross the country in their feed, and that alone will eat up alot of bandwidth.

By the way, did you have to pay for new dish or DirectTV did?

Its officially a 'gray' area in the DirecTV policy. Because I bought a D10 box @ BB, they 'upgraded' my 3NLH sat dish to the 5NLB dish (will handle the new sats). On older equipment you technically would have to pay, but your going to need the new reciever anyway. If you have the protection plan it makes it easier for you to talk them into doing the service call for free.

The new reciever will handle MPEG-4 signals, but the old boxes only do MPEG-2.

Thats why DirecTV launced the 3 new Sats starting in 2006. It has increased their bandwith sufficiently to cover all the new HD signals AND local programming.

[PeruvianSkies]

Check back at the end of 2007 when all of DirecTV's new sats are up. Currently they are compressing the signal, but after all the sats are up and running they will not need the compression.

HD bandwidth will also be increased, and Comcast will be left in the dust for HD offerings as opposed to DirecTV. Rumors of 100+ channels in HD are floating around.

As true as that may be, the fact is that many people are converting now and going with Comcast and I would venture to guess that most people stick with who they start out with, until they screw up their bill a few times, or jack up the prices, or are rude on the phone....then people consider switching.

[pixelthis]

YOU couldnt be more wrong peruvian.
A fiber optic cable is a HUGE pipe, standard coax is pretty big, no way can you send enough microwaves down to comprete, not unless you want to fry the planet.
Tho only advantage is that the physical plant is costly at first, but cable companies
have deep pockets.
I get around fourty HD channels inc locals, and a sizable offering on VOD and payperview.
Also the picture from the digital channels is really nice, translates good on my TV.
The picture is the best HD I have ever had, they dont skimp on bandwidth.
How much bandwidth? THEIR entire cable modem traffic is between channel 3 and 4.
Not channel 3 and 4, BETWEEN channel 3 and 4! I average up to 1.5 megabytes
for my connection alone, and EVERYBODY is getting it.
I had the dish for a few years, didnt want to go with the rube goldberg two dish system.
BUT the biggest advantage is internet service. You want a cable modem you have to have cable, I had dsl during my dish years and theres no competetion, not to mention you need a land line, something that is becoming increasingly rare as people cut theirs out and just use their cells. Does it make sense to have a cable modem and get your other services from sat? Not at all. So sat is behind the eight ball.
My cable company went almost all fiber optic a few years ago and now they just sit around and try to fill up bandwidth.
Eventually the ease of one stop shopping (tv and internet and voice over internet phone)
is going to put the brakes on sat, they just wont have the bandwidth of even a coax system

[Smokey]

Thanks for info pixelthis.

I thought coax cable should have good bandwidth, but I didn't know just how much. I figure with all of their ON-Demand programming and unternet service, they should have pretty good size bandwidth.

[pixelthis]

Thanks for info pixelthis.

I thought coax cable should have good bandwidth, but I didn't know just how much. I figure with all of their ON-Demand programming and unternet service, they should have pretty good size bandwidth.

Coax does have good bandwidth, but cable will have to go fiber-optic or perish.
I havent kept up with the tech lately, but you can fit thousands of channels on a fiber optic
"pipe", and improvement in compression tech will increase that further.
The sats just cant compete, but dont worry about em, theres plenty of open country that
cable cant or wont reach, thats where their market will be.
BTW I am the age where I get junk from "retirement" communities", and they almost all
brag about their "fiber optic" networks as much as their golf courses

[assman]

no one will ever convince me that cable has a better picture, analog or HD then satellite! GIVE ME A BIG FAT BREAK, MAN!!!!.......cable, along with its awful service, cant hold a candle to directv....EVER!! ive had directv for about 12 years now, and its the best!!

[recoveryone]

Now listen to yourself Assman, You have had Sat for the last 12 years and you are not even willing to give the newer technology a chance. 12 years ago cable was barely putting out its first digital channels and none had HD yet. As for any of us on here had a HD display to view them. 12 years ago the big deal was just getting a CD quality sound. I'm not here to say your wrong or right, but open your mind a bit, you may just learn a thing or two.

[assman]

where did i ever say that ive had my head in the sand for 12 years.....like i havnt seen the "new" cable that is out now!! i laugh when i go to friends houses and they THINK they are getting a great deal with the "DIGITAL" signal you get from cable!! you dont have to put them side by side to tell the difference. people who come to my house and see real HDTV signals are amazed at how much clearer and more defined satellite is. DIRECTV should be paying me for all the customers i have sent them.

enough said!!

yamaha rx-v3300
toshiba dvd player
klipsch- epic cf2 tower main speakers
polk audio cs 400 center channel
2- polk audio psw 1200 subs
4- polk audio fx 500 surrounds
2- polk audio rm 7500 satellites front stage effects
2- polk audio rm 7500 satellites- rear center channel (wired parallel)
2-polk audio rt 55
samsung 46" dlp hdtv
rca tivo/hd box w/ directv HD program package.......SWEET!!

[recoveryone]

Now you say say you seen cable on your friends systems, but failed to say what type of display they had. I too go over friends homes and cringe at the PQ of their systems and that is with Sat and cable. Most of the time they have failed to use the highest level of wiring (Components or HDMI). But will swear up and down that they are getting HD quality. And many have been mislead by the hype of some unaware sales person. So I would never judge my system base on the performance of someone Else's unless I did the install my self. Which is what lead me to buy a Vizio LCD, I did a bedroom install for a friend and his wife picked up this 26" Vizio. I never heard of them before at the time and he didn't know where she had got it. I did the install, made sure the Vizio was connected properly, and Bam!!! the picture just about jumped off the screen. My friend has Direct TV and I have cable. Now to me I felt it was the display is what made the difference and not the signal. And to back up that claim, my friend only had Digital package no HD. I compared my Digital channels to his and His looked better. But when I brought my Vizio a year ago I saw the same results. The LCD just did a better job with digital broadcast than my Mits rear CRT. With HD channels and DVD's the MIts gives me a better PQ than the LCD. So unless you did the install on your friends systems I would not judge their PQ against yours.

I did not mean to say you have not been informed or unaware of the upgrades, but to say unless you have done a side by side test with the same equipment it would be hard to claim hands down that Sat is better than cable. Cable varies from city to city as far as equipment being used to broadcast. Some cities are far ahead of others with fiber optic lines. I have been very fortunate that when my house was built in 93 all the lines in my area were fiber optic under ground, so I have always gotten better signal via dial up/DSL and cable over the years. And Yes I have had Sat before and was not impressed, but that was way back when they didn't carry the local channels or HD. That was the reason I went back to cable.

[markw]

As true as that may be, the fact is that many people are converting now and going with Comcast and I would venture to guess that most people stick with who they start out with, until they screw up their bill a few times, or jack up the prices, or are rude on the phone....then people consider switching.

As long as things are working well, people are, by nature, complacent, Let a problem (or problems) arise and a stupid, rude or arrogant customer service rep pisses 'em off, and then you'll see people jump ship.

That's why I left Sprint after seven years for Cingular. Got more minutes, better service, nifty phones and I pay $10/month less.

So far I'm happy with Comcast but, Lord, it's costs. We don't have the option of FIOS yet, but I've heard tell about realiability problems there.

and, OTA HD is, I think, just a teeney bit better than cable but it's hard to be 100% sure.

When I'm watching something available on my seven HD OTA channels, I use that method, just because I can!

[Smokey]

I had Dishnetwork since 1998, but had to switch over to Comcast cable couple years ago due to restriction in my apartments complex. Quality of Comcast digital non-HD channels were as good as Dishnetwork. And Comcast offer more channels as they also carried the eastcoast and westcoast feed of same channels. But their $70 basic digital package was kind of steep so had to drop their service.

The thing that impressed me about Comcast that satellite lacked was their free On-Demand service. It is so addictive that we didn’t even watch regular programming anymore since they had so may variety on their ON-demand service

[assman]

allow me to retort......my friend has a pioneer plasma , 50 some inch hdtv, and his cable so-called-hd signals suck!! he has very good interlinks, monster cable i believe, and has tweaked it to get the best image possible......MY SATELLITE IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS BETTER THEN HIS CABLE.....THANK YOU!!!

[recoveryone]

Once again you are assuming that your friend has his system hooked up correctly. And you and I both cannot know what type of equipment the cable company is using to broadcast the signal, but we all will have to take your word for it. Its odd that you are the only one that shares this view, but again its your view.

[assman]

to be honest with you, this article and you of course is new news to me. everyone i talk to that has satellite overwelmingly say it has better picture, better sound, better service.....enough said!!

[GTF]

Lets see. We were at a Firehouse sub shop the other day watching some Nascar racing
on one of their TV they have for their customers to watch.
OOPS
Picture gone. Up comes a message, "searching for satellite".
After a few minutes with no picture I spoke to the owner about the loss of the picture
and he said "yep every time a large cloud passes by or it rains heavy and, blaa blaa blaa
the picture goes out" And I thought Dullhouse offered crappy TV service.
Are there any of the large dish services available anywhere and do they also suffer from the same
problems as the little dishs?
GTF

[Smokey]

Picture gone. Up comes a message, "searching for satellite".
After a few minutes with no picture I spoke to the owner about the loss of the picture
and he said "yep every time a large cloud passes by or it rains heavy and, blaa blaa blaa
the picture goes out"

Usually when that happen with satellite, it mean the dish is not its optimum position. A calibration might be needed.

[Groundbeef]

It's pretty rare now for Sat to go out due to "cloud cover". You can rest assured if everytime a cloud passed and the signal goes out Sat Service would be out of biz pretty rapidly.

I have had my service go out 2 times since I got it 5 years ago. 1 time was when 2 F2 tornados passed within 1/2 mile of the house (IN THE SAME NIGHT). The other was when we got 12" of snow in 8 hours. But I was still able to pull in OTA broadcasts, just not the sat signal.

Like the last poster, sounds like his dish needs to be calibrated.