How come Rogers customer service isn't aware they will be compressing HD signals, when there are even articles in the newspaper about this, even with quotes from David Purdy?

Because network operations would not inform customer service about changes in the delivery infrastructure.

Network Ops makes changes all the time that are essentially transparent to users so keeping CSR's informed would be information overload.

I'll bet most people in the company were unaware of the changes including marketing and PR

Well, it certainly won't be transparent if it's anything like Comcast in the US.

I wonder if the compression will affect the capacity of the PVR. Does anyone know if the PVR records the actual channel bitstream or the QAM it is carried on.

I believe it records the bitstream as my firewire setup records files according to the actual quality sent by Rogers. As example, popular shows like CSI are about 8 GB per hour but far less popular shows can be as low as 4 GB per hour.

My understanding is that if it was by QAM bandwidth, I would always have files of the same size.

So, theoretically, I should be able to report on how much compression is making it into the files. If I see a byte difference, you can be sure I will report it.

Why is this? I would have thought it would be the other way around (540 lines of resolution per frame for 1080i vs 720 per frame for 720p).Co-incidentally, I made the same mistake on another thread; the reason is that there is more horizontal (columns) of resolution as well. Fuller explanation here (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=728317#post728317).

I believe it records the bitstream as my firewire setup records files according to the actual quality sent by Rogers.
...
So, theoretically, I should be able to report on how much compression is making it into the files. If I see a byte difference, you can be sure I will report it.You are correct, the PVR drive and the firewire are using the bitstream rate. So if you start to see a substantial reduction in the file sizes you may be seeing the result of Roger's addition compression.

There is a more detailed discussion of recording your PVR/HD numbers here (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=728292#post728292).

And there are some comparative numbers and images here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13393488#post13393488) from Comcast's similar additional compression. You may see comparable results when Rogers starts their additional compression.

Those comparative images are scary. If that is what we are going to get with this additional compression, then good luck to Rogers and their customers who decide to stay with them.

Those comparative images are scary. If that is what we are going to get with this additional compression, then good luck to Rogers and their customers who decide to stay with them.
That's apparently without mux'ing (statistical multiplexing), which Rogers intends to use. So hopefully, It won't be THAT bad.

Something Rogers should try instead, is to bite the bullet, hand out free STBs to all their analogue-basic customers, and drop all NTSC channels going over their cable. That should free up close to 100 mhz in Toronto... 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 29, 36, 41, 47, 52, 57, and 69. Apparently, it's already being done by Verizon and some smaller cablecos in the USA... http://www.cedmagazine.com/Verizon-cease-broadcasting-analog-channels-FiOS.aspx

That should free up close to 100 mhz in Toronto... 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 29, 36, 41, 47, 52, 57, and 69.Surely if you were to go that route, you'd free up all of channels 2 through 63, 65, and 69. Almost 400 MHz.

I'm sure Rogers is heading that way eventually, but the longer they wait, the more people who'll migrate themselves, and the less it will cost them. I'd expect them to (continue) to make baby steps, and next time move the Ultimate TV pack to digital. That way they can add a few $ and deal with a smaller group. That would release channels 29 through 58, which would be 180 MHz.

This thread is about the compression of HD signals by Rogers NOT about what Rogers should do in the future.

Please stay on topic or your posts may be deleted without notice

I just turned onto channel 505 (Discovery HD) and it looks like GARBAGE! I seriously vomited a little in my mouth. There is a HUGE difference that I notice. There was an image with a humming bird and some trees in the background and I could see the squares that made up the image which is no doubt due to the low bitrate! This is noticeable especially when the image moves fast. I want to do something about this, what the hell could I do to get back the quality I had before? Should I call and threaten them or email them with threats? I am seriously thinking of doing some damage to this company!

Wow - I was hoping it wouldn't be that bad. Will check it out in a while when I get home.

You can tell the image isn't crisp like it used to be. It is a little blurry now, meaning that it doesn't have the color definition that it used to. I am utterly angry with this company that AT EVERY SINGLE corner they try to cheat you and take your money!

The fact that this wasn't made public calls for HARSH lawsuits! When a company decreases the quality of your experience, they must let you know you so you can make an informed decision whether to remain with them or not.

First bandwidth throttling for Rogers Internet now this, how much longer will this go on before that CRAPPY CRTC steps in and takes action???

how much longer will this go on before that CRAPPY CRTC steps in and takes action???FYI, there is already a thread here (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=84230) on getting the CRTC to enforce the rules forbidding BDU's from degrading HDTV signals.

I just turned onto channel 505 (Discovery HD) and it looks like GARBAGE!

I thought there was some info thing you can do to see the QAM each channel was on. I know I've followed this just for fun a long time ago -- it's probably in a FAQ here. Wouldn't that confirm if 505 is, in fact, sharring with 2 other channels?

Discovery often looks pretty good; but not everything does; and not every scene is great; not every program is even HD. Case in point is something like BBC Planet Earth on HD DVD: some is stunning; some scenes, with high magnification or lower lighting don't look very good.

It would be ironic if this scheme wasn't put into place and people still "saw" the differences. And if a senior guy at Rogers has said to the National Post that they did extensive testing and stat muxing really has minimal impact on the quality, I think I'd reserve judgement for what I can actually see.

It's also been mentioned in passing but I'm not sure the point has been grasped by everyone: there are 38 mbps to deliver 2 channels. If 3 channels are put in this space -- but the source is 13 mbps (like PBS Buffalo) there is, in effect, no "compression".

Stat muxing is like jpg or mp3: when it is used correctly, the compression provides final images (or sounds) that are identical to the end-user. I understood it is on "on-the-fly" analysis and re-allocates the most bandwidth where needed.

I'll be taking a close look tonight to see what I can see. Final arbiter will be my eyes, not my calculator. ;)

HDNET which by far has the best quality is looking blurry compared to what I am used to. Rogers just sucks since we can't get these specialty channels on OTA. I am not happy with this crap!

Since Discovery repeats its shows quite often, did anyone think to record one of these shows before compression was implemented? Probably the best way to do a comparison.

I thought there was some info thing you can do to see the QAM each channel was on.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=729349#post729349

Stat muxing is like jpg or mp3: when it is used correctly, the compression provides final images (or sounds) that are identical to the end-user. I understood it is on "on-the-fly" analysis and re-allocates the most bandwidth where needed.

SensualPoet, I appreciate your posts but with all due respect, I think you should recuse yourself from this thread!

I PVR'd BIG! before and after. I haven't checked the difference yet. When I get a chance, I'll try to take a picture of it.