how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
617 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Enforce the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992 Are you kidding me?? Now don't get me wrong.. I don't like bush as much as the others.. but this is Bush's fault??? WOW! Um, Digital cable came about in large under Clinton's term, for one.
And, pay channels, while trapped, were mostly SCRAMBLED and required a box, which required a rental fee. And, even after 1992, people who purchased services like HBO and stuff were usually give the first box at no charge. Similar as today, you get your fist box free.
Can you point me to something in the act that says the operator is required to give you a box for as many televisions as you want? If THAT'S the case, be ready for $300 outlet installation fees, same as Dish/DirecTV charges you a $200 "upgrade fee" for people wanting the DVR. "Upgrade fee my ass"..
I'm sorry, but I think you're not reading the ACT correctly..
By the way.. have you ever tried to trap out digital tiers?? Try that and let me know how that works for ya.
There's nothing in the act that says that you need to be granted free use to hardware.. and no law is going to make technology change, no matter how much you don't understand what you're reading.
"Right now I am forced to pay $6.95 for a digital outlet even though all CATV Wiring was installed by the builder and I am responsible for maintenance and repair if there is a problem with said wiring."
I normally wouldn't touch this.. but, um.. the $6.95 "Digital Outlet" refers to the mirroring fee, NOT the hard line.. Some call it a digital outlet, some call it a mirror fee and some call it a gateway fee. Either way, they're talking about the digital services. The "outlet" can have more than 1 meaning.
However, while you understand that the outlet is yours and it's your responsibility to maintain it and that YOURS may have come with the home from the builder.. that's not always the case.. and the law doesn't care about your home.. it cares about the public in general. MOST people don't believe that it's their own responsibility to maintain OR EVEN PAY to have a physical outlet wired in their home.. if you don't believe me, then search this forum. But as of today, you're able to get the legal required tier of service through your outlet.. the digital services, known as premium tiers, are not required to be carried in the clear. HD programming is not basic programming.. that would be your channels 2 - about 30. The law doesn't regard "Full Basic" or "Tier 2" basic cable being in the clear.. it was largely done as a conveneince to the customer and the company. | |
| | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| Re: Enforce the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992  You sound like the instructor when I took my initial training for a Bell Operating Company. The instructor said "Bell owns everything the phones, the wiring and the network" The consumer must either rent the equipment or do without. The Customer must pay each month for every telephone and feature including ringer cut off switches and other accessories.
One of the reasons for the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992 was created, was that several Federal Lawmakers got angry when the tuners in their new Cable Ready televisions and Video Recorders were useless, because the cable companies scrambled most channels.
After the act was passed the cable company providing service in our area adopted tier traps and channel traps for premium channels. De-scrambling converters were only required for those subscribers viewing pay per view. When digital cable was introduced subscribers were again stuck paying for and using the cable companies equipment.
You forget one thing, subscribers do not care how their programming is delivered, Via NTSC, ATSC or QAM protocols. What they are paying for is programming not the protocol that is being used to deliver the programming.
I own two televisions sets capable of receiving NTSC, ATSC or unencrypted QAM signals. I would like to be able to use my televisions internal tuner rather than the cable box. Furthermore the Motorola DVR that my cable company provides consumes 50 Watts 24 Hours a Day, 365 Days a Year.
The benefit that the CATV Industry derives from the current draconian pricing policy is additional revenue, the ability to charge a customer a monthly fee or each television and collect data on all that the customer sees and hears.
I would like to see the DBS Service Providers be forced to offer the equivalent of Cable Cards so that their customer could add as many non proprietary Televisions and Video Recorders as they need without paying additional feeds. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Enforce the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992 Using the "draconian" word really doesn't amuse me.. sorry.
However, I'm sorry to say you're incorrect.
The 1992 act was rewritten and things changed since then, but lets address this issue at hand. Traps were not "required".. the operators preferred them. I can tell you that the system I was in trapped, un-trapped/scrambled, re-trapped, and un-trapped 3 times total in about 8 years time.
The ONLY thing required to be "in the clear" is the first tier of channels - there's no disputing that. You're now trying to interject "the customer doesn't care".. which is factually correct. However, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter what the customer doesn't care about. The law is the law.. sure, you can say I sound like your bell instructor, however, I'm not going to tell you what you WANT to hear and agree with what you say becuase it sounds better.. I'm telling you like it is.
If you have a TV that is able to tune QAM signals, that's great.. did you choose one with a cable card slot? As for the boxes.. yes, they consume power.. the law doesn't address that issue and since you're bringing up the laws, for right now, I can certainly agree with you that it sucks, but the fact remains, there's nothing that holds water based on what you're saying here. The consumption of power from the box is required and there is no law that's going to help you on that. The same goes with satellite.. they have boxes that consumer power too and so does your cell phone wall charger, even when you're phone's not plugged in.
That "draconian" policy.. stop.. let's slam that freakin' word.. The word is BS and it doesn't make your point any stronger. It makes you sound like a whiner.. sorry. I stated in a message above.. the boxes were never charged for before. In fact, that very act you are quoting FORCED the companies to itemize the boxes based on a depreciation of the value of the equipment placed in the customer's home, essentially turning it into a box rental fee. You can thank your very government for that provision and GIVING the companies the ability to charge you for the box. We can go back and forth all day about box rental fees vs owning, but I guarantee you that you're not about to run out and purchase boxes for your home. I'm guessing the average home of 4 televisions are not going to dump $800 for boxes and take full responsibility.. this argument has been had over..
The REAL argument is that people want better equipment, .. it's not about the rental fees.. period. The top of the line Tivo box is a butt load of money and people don't like paying for it and THEN have to pay a monthly fee FOR THE GUIDE. (and even, just to use the thing)
When you break down your post, if I wanted to continue, really you don't have a solid leg to stand on "AS" you have stated it. Yes, I agree with a lot of what you say.. HOWEVER, what you're asking for isn't law, as you claim, AND, to force the change is a cost burden that you don't want to absorb. Why? Because there's another provision in these acts that you and many conveniently overlook.
NO government agency dictates ANY rate and says "this is what you WILL charge".. ie: the government doesn't set a price for products.. believe it or not.. they don't. What they DO say is that their costs are able to be set based on operating costs.. with that said, the very act you quote, which was supposed to REDUCE customer's bills, actually RAISED about 80% of customer's bills by an average of 12%. The companies were given a formula in which to base their prices off of. When they plugged in the numbers, they were able to justify raising rates becuase of that bill.
If you demand that the government get involved and force a lot of these changes and the video operators, satellite included, this will cost money.. that raise in spending would go towards any formula that is used to calculate the cost of services and who do you think will pay for that....? Regulation DOES allow for price increases based on the cost of doing business.. If you or anyone doesn't understand that, you should read up on that before thinking about demanding so many changes, so fast, and wanting more while paying less.. it just isn't going to happen. The government CAN NOT force a company to spend money and not recover it.. no court would let that happen. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Enforce the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992 said by Mr Matt:  Draconian: From Answers.com. » www.answers.com/topic/draconianExceedingly harsh; very severe: a draconian legal code; draconian budget cuts. In this case draconian (exceedingly harsh) fees for equipment. I just received my Cable TV Bill. The cost for Equipment for Two HD Television Sets including Two DVR's is $38.85 + Tax per month or $466.20 + Tax per year. My monthly fee for programming is $107.75 + Tax. The cost for equipment is about 27% of my $146.60 + Tax Monthly TV entertainment bill. Several years ago I paid about $200.00 for a Panasonic DVR with an 80GB hard drive and DVD Recorder. When Adelphia introduced digital cable most of the features that the DVR included were useless. For what I am now paying to rent equipment I can buy Two + DVR's per year or a new Flat Screen TV every Five Years. Need I say more. WOW that is bad and with direct tv you can likely get a lot more for less and the HD dvr's will cost you less as there is only 1 hd fee and 1 DVR fee per home and you can add boxes for $5 /m each first 1 free. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | So...? DirecTV is cheaper... go with them, and don't look back. Just becuase DirecTV chooses to charge how and what they do doesn't make others "draconian".. in the term you describe it as above, it's objective. Ask someone who's purchased a DVR, had it go back on month 14, get stuck to buy another, and they'll say the rental fee is worth it.
Personally, I don't like the DVR rental fee's either, however, I see a value in renting over buying. If I rent, I get the latest equipment as an option at no charge to me. Satellite charges a $200 or $200 "upgrade fee" (cough cough: my ass!! they made you pay for the box that they keep) ... You want the next box that comes out? you pay for it. In your way of speaking, that's draconian.
If you go out and spend the $300 on a Tivo, you get the pleasure of spending upwards of $13.00 a month to use it.
You can do what I do.. build a Media Center PC for about $800 and you pay nothing per month to use it. I just wonder how many months at $16 a month I'd have to wait to get my $800 back.
So you're right.. you need not say any more..  | |
|
| |
|
Enforce the Cable Television Consumer Protection act of 1992