GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Network DVR
I hope these lawsuits will scare Comcast away from a network DVR. I would really hate to lose my DVR.
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time. |
|
majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY | This si not to replace the dvr
This was to allow people who dont have the right box for dvrs to be able to have dvr like functionality. |
|
sirsloop
Premium
join:2004-02-18
New York, NY | laggggged
sounds slow as nuts. The IO Guide is slow enough WITHOUT DVR crap lagging it down. |
|
Brianv5
Low Level Functionary
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Keyser, WV |  Different end of the cable matters?
So we can record at our end of the cable, but not at the network end? Yeah, that makes sense!
--
More power never hurt anything. |
|
idjk
@144.226.x.x | reply to majortom1981
Re: This is not to replace the dvr
You don't think this will be free do you,set top box or network server they will get their coin, and then they will sell your profile to everybody for a little extra coin. NO FREE LUNCH! |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| the networks are showing who they are...
while this may seem like a positive event on the surface, consider this. there aren't more than a few big companies who have a hold on the TV Industry (catv/sat/iptv). they have a lot of say when, for example, TWC wants to add one channel. contracts are often drawn up that force TW to carry much more than the one channel; usually a few shopping channels in conjunction.
so while i applaud any effort to bring DVR functionality back to us, the customer, the bigger picture is getting more scary when the networks can have such power. what i think most all of us want is, unrestricted access to channels and content we pay for. i'd much rather have 5-10 channels for $10 each, with the ability to shift and store their content for my own use. every fight we allow the net's to wage on 'our behalf' hurts us in the long run. we as class of customers should be filing suit against both the providers and the net's for their many years of unfair business.
the net's would love to continue to control their content on this scale. TV providers want control too, but often they simply want to turn a profit (usually much more than what is fair however) by reselling the 'service'. there's a reason CATV companies are investing so much in ISP rollout; they must have the foresight to see that traditional broadcasting is nearing extinction... their only hope for profit is IP-based services. the problem is, why buy from TW when if things go right, (and by 'right' i mean we need much more broadband bandwidth in this country, like full duplex 10Mb at minimum!) google or 'sharing sites' will have higher quality and more selection of programming... there's an awesome future ahead if we are to understand where we stand as customers- we now have the ability to become mini-TV-providers for ourselves if only the net's loosen their grip on content.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! |
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: 
 ·Packet8
| reply to sirsloop
Re: laggggged
said by sirsloop  :sounds slow as nuts. The IO Guide is slow enough WITHOUT DVR crap lagging it down. Agree X1000! |
|
hmm_
@swbell.net | reply to kba4
Re: the networks are showing who they are...
Strikes me as odd that TW is suing then their cable division is making the same plans. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Drop them from the line up...
The cable operators should get together and drop TW programming from the line up. When TW Cable is the only provider for CNN, they'll quickly change their tune.
And given CNN's sorry ratings, they need Cablevision a whole hell of a lot more than CV needs CNN. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| This is one of the reasons why I am a fan of Dish Network/Echostar. Last year Time Warner tried to force Dish into just such a deal as mentioned above. You WILL in addition to the channels you already carry you will also put on this, this, and this Channel and we will charge you a bunch more, take it or leave it. Echostar told Time Warner to stick where the sun don't shine, and took off OLN and the Man's network. The latter is one I never watched as it seemed all they did was sell penis plumper pills, and orgasm oil, and Outdoor Channel was better then OLN anyway. It seems it was Time Warmer that blinked because OLN is back and there is none of the other channels which Time Warner tried to make Dish swallow.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs: | Who cares about network DVR anyhow?
Things like on demand and network DVR are just excuses for the cable company to raise your rates. There is no point for those things when you can go out and buy your own DVR or VCR. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Drop them from the line up...
E* also had a run in with ABC and Cox did this a while back with Fox Sports West.
These networks think they're God's gift and they're not...99% of them suck ass. Cable and DBS need to smack the network bitches up and put these 0-ratings loser channels in their place. |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Brianv5
Re: Different end of the cable matters?
said by Brianv5 :So we can record at our end of the cable, but not at the network end? Yeah, that makes sense! If you record at your end, you're covered by an extension of the Betamax SC case law.
If Cablevision records at their end without express consent from the content owner, then they are illegally rebroadcasting copyrighted content. |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to majortom1981
Re: This si not to replace the dvr
said by majortom1981 :This was to allow people who dont have the right box for dvrs to be able to have dvr like functionality. Wrong, this is indeed intended to replace the set top DVR.
Using a network based system lowers the cost of the set top box. |
|
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
1 edit | reply to damonlab
Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow?
said by Transmaster :... there is none of the other channels which Time Warner tried to make Dish swallow. ... said by damonlab :Things like on demand and network DVR are just excuses for the cable company to raise your rates. There is no point for those things when you can go out and buy your own DVR or VCR. Some things do NOT belong together.
Like freedom AND a gun pointed to one's head  .
The Internet is a great technology.
The cable or fiber run on OUR public and private land should be a transport system ONLY.
Like the highways.
Imagine a highway owned by a private HIGHWAY COMPANY that dictated, and sold, what cars you were allowed to drive on it.
There is NO constitutional right for these cable, and now fiber, operators to run wires across our lawns and streets. The franchise contracts can be re-negotiated at renewal time. The laying of new cable/fiber should be by public contract. So should the yearly management of such plant.
The bandwidth necessary to support ALL on demand content would evolve much quicker if the fox was removed from being in charge of the hen house.
Get rid of the bastards. Tell them to either remove "their" wire at their expense, or sell it at reasonable cost to the new way of doing business, i.e. the wires that run on our public and private property will be built and managed by a company that does only that and nothing more. The wire is just a conduit for OTHERS to use. Equally, democratically, on demand. |
|
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
| reply to Brianv5
Re: Different end of the cable matters?
another way to look at it, if you record it, that copy is viewed on ONE set.
If the head end stores it, one copy is being accessed and viewed by MANY sets. Hence the suit for re-broadcasting.
lol this is so backwards and straightforward at the same time. |
|
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN | reply to iq100
Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow?
that is extreme to me, but I can't disagree with the basic concept. |
|
voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY
1 edit | Advantages
Anyone ever had their cable-provided DVR go bad?
What happens when the friendly cable technician replaces it?
That's right - you lose everything!
With network-based storage, you could swap boxes and still have your content. You could also record from a box in one room and watch on another. |
|
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
1 edit | reply to Fluker
Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow?
said by Fluker :that is extreme to me, but I can't disagree with the basic concept. Hey Flurker, glad someone agrees with my post above and a new model that the Time Warners, Verizons, and Cablevisions MUST follow in order to string wires across our private and public lands. |
|
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
2 edits | reply to voipguy
Re: Advantages
said by voipguy :Anyone ever had their cable-provided DVR go bad? What happens when the friendly cable technician replaces it? That's right - you lose everything!With network-based storage, you could swap boxes and still have your content. You could also record from a box in one room and watch on another. Except when you swap your TV provider, you loose ALL your recorded programs. When people ask you to prove the METS actually won a world series, your carefully recorded proof will have disappeared. What a crock this DVR is. Whether home based box, or network/head end box. What you record is owned by the Cablevisions of the world, and can disappear at their whim. I guess a sucker is born every day. |
|
