Talk about an onslaught. Within the course of a few weeks we've seen Shaw, Rogers and Comcast all get flamed for purportedly compressing their signals to a point beyond acceptable, and as if that wasn't enough, a recent research report found that video quality issues (shocking, we know) were the primary reason for call-in complaints. All the while, Verizon is taking the chance to toot its own horn and boast about its ability to pass along HD signals sans additional tweakage. So, are you right in the middle of this firestorm? Or are you gleefully looking in from the outside with a gorgeous HD picture on your set? Give us your story below, won't you?

[Image courtesy of Vidiot]

Considering the recent hullabaloo over Comcast and Rogers Cable deciding to (over) compress at least part of their respective HD lineups, Electronic House's latest writeup is particularly timely. It's investigation into HD Lite reveals quite a few tidbits that everyone should know, but often get overlooked in the uproar. Put simply, every high-def channel that gets piped your way is compressed in some form or fashion (that includes you too, Verizon) before it hits the carrier. In other words, just because a signal gets modified before it hits your set doesn't automatically make it HD Lite. Still, there's no doubt that some providers have taken this squeeze too far and compressed signals to the point of noticeability -- that's where the problem emerges. Give the article a read, you'll likely learn a thing or two about nomenclature if all else fails.

It was inevitable, really. No sooner does Comcast and Rogers Cable begin taking heat for over compressing their HD feeds than Verizon pumps out a TV spot trumpeting its ability to deliver "pure, uncompressed high-definition." The ad campaign asserts that its delivery of material is superior to that offered up by traditional cable providers, but the company's media relations director Bobbi Henson did note that the real purpose was to show that "FiOS TV customers are receiving HD that's not compressed by Verizon." She noted in an e-mail statement that "content owners compress their video before sending it to video service providers, but [Verizon] forwards the signal to its customers the way that [they arrive]." You know what they say about bandwidth: if you've got it, flaunt it.

Bad news for Rogers Cable customers -- word on the street has it that your HD feeds may begin to look a little less fantastic in the coming days. According to Digital Home Canada, the carrier has outlined a plan in a technical briefing sent out by Rogers Network Engineering and Operations that will compress part of its high-definition lineup in order to "deliver more HD channels without having to use more bandwidth." As it stands, 15 HD channels are facing the dreaded HD Lite treatment effective April 9th, but curiously, we're not told which HD networks are actually on the docket to be added. Granted, we've yet to see a definitive confirmation, but given that Comcast has recently caught loads of flack for its decision to shove three HD channels on a single 6MHz slot, we suppose an awful trend could be (re)emerging. Keep a critical eye out, Rogers customers -- let us know if anything changes.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

It's not unusual to hear of entire neighborhoods kvetching over lackluster HD quality, but judging by the growing chorus of complaints over at AVSForum, we're beginning to wonder if this issue isn't more widespread. Reportedly, Comcast is squeezing three HD channels onto a 38.8Mbps QAM, which is typically used to handle just two HD channels. One particular user decided to pull screen grabs from shows seen on Comcast and Verizon's FiOS TV, and needless to say, the results were fairly startling. We aren't assuming that the overdone compression is being seen elsewhere, but we are curious to know if your Comcast service has taken a hit in quality. So, is your viewing experience as good as ever? Or have things become slightly less Comcastic of late?

[Thanks, Dave]

We had heard that some Shaw customers up north (that's Canada, to be precise) were having some serious quality issues with their HD programming towards the end of 2007, and according to a recent writeup by Digital Home, the problems haven't gone away -- entirely, at least. Apparently, the audio dropouts and macroblocking that seemed to be present on nearly every HD channel were finally brought to the attention of management, and while the bigwigs did proclaim that they were taking the complaints "very seriously," nothing had been done as of early January. After a six-week effort that consisted of gathering data from 38 volunteers experiencing the problems, users say that the audio issues have improved somewhat, yet visual quirks are persisting. Any problem that hangs around for months on end can't be good, but we're curious to see if Shaw's done anything since to improve matters. So, dear Canadians, has it?

[Image courtesy of Vidiot]

After breaking things down as best we could this week, we noticed a flood of comments from critical HD consumers about the quality (or lack thereof) of their HD service. Of course, it's impossible for us to take a look at each provider out there and assess just how wonderful (or not) its deliverance of high-definition programming is, so we figured we'd put it out there for all of you readers. Bottom line: are you stoked about the quality of your high-def service? If so, by all means, let the world know who's treating you right. If not, shout out what's keeping you from extolling your carrier -- be it a shoddy HD DVR, inexplicable compression, a high level of outages, a dearth of HD offerings or simply charging too much for too little.

Make no mistake about it, as the bandwidth belt tightens around cable, carriers are grasping for ways to cram more channels into an increasingly small space. Reportedly, Comcast Media Center has devised a method to stuff three HD signals into a single 6MHz carrier, which is typically just enough to handle two HD channels without picture quality taking a dive. Though the process sounds quite technical, the long and short of it is that a "second-pass MPEG-2 encoding system from startup Imagine Communications" is reportedly being used to "stack together three signals at variable bit rates into one 6MHz QAM channel." Of course, it's hard to say if this clever methodology results in noticeably poorer picture quality, but unless something drastic happens in the world of coax, you can count on seeing a whole lot more where this came from.

Same story, different continent. The compression bug has seemingly struck again, and this time its aggravating those Down Under who'd like to enjoy Seven Network's 1080i programming in all of its high-definition glory. After just recently flipping the switch to broadcast content in HD, a sect of Australians have already begun to grumble over the "relatively low amount of bandwidth the network has allocated to the high-definition channel." Of course, it should be noted that "most" viewers have seen no reason to get bent out of shape, but for those relaxing in Oz, what say ye on the Seven situation?

We've certainly seen the head honchos give the cable companies a piece of their mind before, but this time the carriers are receiving a fairly stiff scolding care of the National Association of Broadcasters. David Rehr made sure to make every moment of his speech segment count, as he ripped cable providers for "downconverting" the signals of local channels in order to boost the bandwidth available to "their own high-definition signals." Mr. Rehr even went so far as to call the process "broadcast discrimination," and we can only presume that certain providers -- such as Time Warner, who has ties to HBO and Comcast, which is strongly linked to Versus / Golf Channel -- are the targets of recent battles. Unsurprisingly, anonymous cable services have reportedly denied the claims of delusion, but how do the actual end-users see it? Let us know folks: is your cable company giving preferential treatment to channels it has vested interest in?

[Via HiDefster]

We already know how fond CableLabs is of HD VOD content, so it makes perfect sense that the gurus behind the scenes are aiming to provide media that satisfies the discerning eye of the HD viewer. Considering that nearly every HDTV owner has a sneaking suspicion that they're not getting the bandwidth they're paying for at times, CableLabs new specifications hope to ensure that HD VOD viewers don't get the "HD Lite" experience. While the recommended SD VOD rate remained steady at just 3.75Mbps, CableLabs has named 15Mbps the "safe harbor bitrate" to allow all forms of HD VOD content (including talking heads and fast-moving action films) to be seen at a quality that represents what HDTV should be about, including 5.1 audio and an absence of pixelation. Of course, these latest suggestions are entirely based on MPEG2 transfers, and could very well change if MPEG4 starts running the show, but at the very least it's good to see someone making sure we get our due bandwidth.

There's nothing like a warm, heartfelt lawsuit to really spread that holiday cheer, and we've got yet another battle in the courtroom about to get cranked up, and this time it's between rivals DirecTV and Time Warner. While TWC still can't claim the ability to offer the fledgling NFL Network on its cable systems, DirecTV felt the need to boast not only about its "superior coverage," but to also rub a little salt in Time Warner's wound by informing folks in NFL towns that games shown on the NFL Network "couldn't be seen" on Time Warner. Although the claims seem somewhat legitimate, Time Warner insists that "all eight games featured on the NFL Network will also be available to local fans over broadcast networks," which apparently wasn't the message being conveyed to pigskin-loving consumers. Regardless, DirecTV dug its hole a tad deeper by hiring Jessica Simpson to state that the firm's HD quality "beats cable," which is quite the laughable statement to anyone familiar with "HD Lite." In the end, however, we're sure the ads will be removed (or at least reworded), and the two firms will continue to bicker in future bouts, but what fun would it be if these two actually decided to get along, right?

[Via MultiChannel]