rv65
Let's just say I like Dublin Dr Pepper
Premium
join:2008-08-02
San Diego, CA | reply to jmr50
Re: Idiots...
Most CableCard TV's don't have a USB port so they can't use the tuning resolver. Plus the TV manufacturer would have to make a firmware update. The tuning resolver is free and is much smaller than a cable box. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to jmr50
said by jmr50  :it still does nothing for the millions of CableCard-enabled TVs out there. There actually are very few cablecard enabled TVs being used with cards, sadly. The vast majority of them that aren't in MSO owned boxes are in TiVos, by something like a 10 to 1 margin.
That doesn't mean I disagree with your point or think that the tuning resolver is a real solution.
And as a side note, a large part of the reason for that low penetration is the cable companies themselves, leaving out SDV entirely. They misinform customers, many require a truck roll to have them installed, and they have such poor training on them that even when they send out an employee to do the install, it still often either doesn't work or takes hours for them to make it work.
It's really quite ridiculous.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
jmr50
join:2000-05-14
Chantilly, VA
| reply to fiberguy
What about my TV? I paid for it, and it has big digital cable ready sticker on it, and now it can't receive a third of the HD channels. Consumers have paid thousands of dollars for equipment which now can't be used as advertised (i.e., without a set-top box). The law which required separable security which didn't require it for just a few channels, it required it for all linear channels. I'm not sure why the law requires it for HDNet but doesn't require it for SciFiHD... and I don't care what they do to make TiVo users happy, it still does nothing for the millions of CableCard-enabled TVs out there. |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME | reply to COXNVA customer
In our market, TWs SDV channels are all listed as so on the channel line ups, quite clearly, on there website.
--
Usenet Accounts |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
3 edits | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by Dogfather :What else would you expect from the resident cable industry spokeshole? Watch your mouth. Maybe I should, for fun, launch a law suit against BBR for them allowing you to personally insult and attack me all while they don't enforce their own TOS rules property, yet selectively when it makes their position better. But anyway, coming back to reality even thought you're not there.. I'm not going to speak to a child who is always here on a rant throwing a temper tantrum. Did someone take away your tinker toys & stomp them into little pieces today Mr. Communist? This is the 3rd time I have seen you crying about BBR's TOS. Instead of launching a lawsuit against BBR, which is not funny at all, why don't you move to another site?
Oh, and for the love of god are all your paragraphs one sentence? |
|
Exactly
@cox.net
| reply to Dogfather
We in our early geek stages should have been more aggressive, and now we should be too.
It's ridiculous how much power is given to the phone company and cable networks, not to mention money.
Whats the real difference from hiring a host to having Cox communications or anyone else host your account?
They have access to all of your scripts, people that work for them can plug in a flash drive and steal all of your programming, and there doesn't seem to be an end to all of this.
A beginning would be to script programs that only upload the visual contents and leave the controls on the person's PC.
Another good idea would be to create a program that checks out scripting to insure it doesn't round robin or steal from the person using the script. |
|
COXNVA customer
@cox.net
| reply to bufbandit
so what you are saying is that me the consumer who called my cable company to ask if they supported tivo hd, they responded yes so spent $300 on a new tivo, as it conforms with fcc regs that allow me to remove my programs from the dvr, something that most cable company owned boxes make increasingly difficult to do. so when the company knowingly lies to me the consumer they need to be reprimanded, especially when asked specific questions, such as what channels are SDV? Is USAHD SDV? and the answers are either a resounding yes, which is a lie, or I don't know anything about SDV.. So as far a hurting business the company is doing that itself by alienating a percent of their population.
So the consumer isn't the idiot the company is... |
|
Zen6
@rr.com | reply to bufbandit
Are we talking big mac or the ig and nasty? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | reply to swintec
It is irrelevant if it's a necessary utility. Companies are prohibited from engaging in certain anticompetitive behaviors and in this case the FCC stated the rules well in advance and TWC violated them. Microsoft Windows isn't a utility either, but that doesn't mean Microsoft was allowed to do anything in the marketplace they wanted to the detriment of competitors and consumers.
Take it or leave it are not competitive forces no matter how much the corporate kissasses and coaxial fanboys think they are. |
|
cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA
| reply to Dogfather
My thing is Telo Tv should comply, btu they cant because of withced digital which they do. Kinda sucks when the government runs your technology....
But heck they will give 700 Billion out to the Insurance and Mortgage companies...errrr
Gov has to much sway in our technology..
Of course we can go the Chinese model all about business 1st.. |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
 ·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather : want them you have to pay $20 instead of $10. Umm...Wanting something, means you also agree with the price, or well, you wouldnt pay it. Judging by your posts here, you need to realize that cable service is not a necessary utility, that MUST be had.
--
Usenet Accounts |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to magnushsi
Then what these cable dumbasses to is put those two good channels on two different tiers so if you want them you have to pay $20 instead of $10. |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Hardly...more like accelerated anti-competitive behavior to force people to rent their overpriced crap hardware. They're in the video business; not the rip you off for shitty DVR business. If they don't like the rules, they're free to sell their franchises. However they're not allowed to abuse their market position to put customers over a barrel. Meanwhile they see a bandwidth savings of 50% but don't give any of that to additional HSI channels. Instead, they move to implement caps. F TWC. To make it fair, they should not be able to encrypt anything except for the premium services (Showtime, HBO, etc.). They should have to keep the digital equivalent of "basic" or as Insight calls it "classic" service (their "basic" is more like lifeline) in the clear. Otherwise, by switching to digital, even if you have a QAM tuner, you're still forced to rent a cable box or cable card (the cable co still owns the cable cards and they still charge a monthly fee for them) to get what they could get without a box on a cable ready TV with an NTSC tuner. |
|
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| reply to mmainprize
I agree that customers are forced to pay for crap they don't watch, but remember, it's not the cable companys that force that. It's the content providers. They are the ones who sell the content to the MSO in bundles. The MSO can definitely eliminate the garbage channels, but they had to pay for them and thus you will as well, so you might as well have them in the lineup. You can pay $10 for 10 channels (8 garbage) or $10 for 2 channels. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :What else would you expect from the resident cable industry spokeshole? Watch your mouth.
Maybe I should, for fun, launch a law suit against BBR for them allowing you to personally insult and attack me all while they don't enforce their own TOS rules property, yet selectively when it makes their position better.
But anyway, coming back to reality even thought you're not there.. I'm not going to speak to a child who is always here on a rant throwing a temper tantrum.
Did someone take away your tinker toys & stomp them into little pieces today Mr. Communist? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to wierdo
Wow.. so I disagree I am invested in the company or industry.. real good come back.. is that all you have?
Now, before you come here, wierdo, and tell me I know nothing of what I speak of.. the last time I checked, and it was posted here, SDV side cars, dongles, adapters, etc. are in the works of being developed and being brought to market FOR Tivo users so they can continue using their boxes with SDV.
Anything else I can correct you on today? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to wierdo
What else would you expect from the resident cable industry spokeshole? |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :I could care less about Tivo users.. I'm tired of a few people holding up progress for the majority. That's the end of my discussion on that. After reading your rant below, I shouldn't have been surprised that you wrote this. Maybe you should read the linked findings before spouting off about that which you do not know.
The FCC's problem isn't SDV, the problem is moving existing linear channels to SDV and continuing to charge UDCP users for them and failing to include the correct PSIP data for those now MIA channels.
My problem is the companies making the rules such that competitive hardware makers can't make the sort of boxes the cable companies provide. They're forbidden from making a box that works with SDV and has their own interface? What's up with that?
Are you also against being able to choose which phone you use with your POTS line? (or your cable company provided telephone service)
Should you have to lease your computer from your ISP if you want to get on the Internet?
Your position makes no sense except as someone who either has a vested interest in selling cable companies SDV equipment or someone who works for one.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Dogfather
I could care less about Tivo users.. I'm tired of a few people holding up progress for the majority. That's the end of my discussion on that.
However, YOU of all people Ske, should have picked up on the fact that the FCC fined the cable company for not "properly informing the franchise of the change"..
Why in the hell should the FCC collect money because they failed to do something with the franchise? Why didn't the franchise fine TWC? And, who got the money? The FCC! Why didn't the FCC give that money to the F/A after fining?
There's a lot to go around here for finger pointing (which is the spirit of BBR these days).. but the bottom line is that eve on the basis on the actions of the FCC, your own water won't stay in the bucket on this one. The fine was for not "properly informing the franchise of the change"... not that they did it and it wasn't allowed.
And, to your post.. the FCC doesn't say you have to make buns so the competitors seeds stick, necessarily, it says you have to be truthful in how you are modifying the bun. In your logic, the FCC is saying that once a device is supported, it's always supported which has NEVER been the case anywhere. TWC is certainly allowed to flick off the Tivo users from the bun, so long as they make sure they know in advance. |
|
mmainprize
join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
| reply to Sammer
Ypu are correct and to add to that statement, The reason they have 50% bandwidth savings is because of those not need channels that we are forced to buy that no one watches. We have 50% to many channels that are junk being forced on us and we can't seem to do anything about it. |
|
