dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1639
share rss forum feed


shade45

join:2004-07-04
Queens, NY

RoadRunner Free Local TV?

i read somewhere that you can get local news channels free with roadrunner. Is it true?

I tested with my HDTV today and all i got was ny1, pix 11, and i few other shopping channels but they are very poor quality standard definition channels. Not even HD channels..so gave up. I think i should just buy a regular rabbit ear antenna.

Is it suppose to be like that?

Thanks


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:20
If you only pay for internet service, you're only supposed to get internet service and no video.

If you get any video you're the lucky recipient of channels slipping by the channel filters that are supposed to block them and they may disappear or change at any time.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

Fleeced

join:2012-10-06
kudos:2
It's likely that you "heard" from people whose traps weren't put in correctly and were getting a service they weren't paying for. There are no current deals that I can see that would indicate "free" basic or standard cable. Hopefully they'll go full digital soon so trapping will no longer be an issue and cable theft will drop dramatically.


juilinsandar
Texas Gooner
Premium
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to shade45
In my area, there's a basic + turbo for $49.99.

That's almost like getting the TV for free.

Fleeced

join:2012-10-06
kudos:2
Well color me mistaken. We do have this here as well.

scooper

join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2
reply to shade45
FOR NOW - I'm subscribing to internet only.

HOWEVER - I can get a number of unencrypted digital QAM channels, covering most of the local broadcasters (exception being the local ABC owned station).

I expect that to go away as TWC goes to offering cheap / free adapters to encrypt even these.

However, since I can get the local stations via both Dish network AND OTA - I really don't care if this continues.

One man's opinion...

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
Reviews:
·TowerStream
reply to Fleeced
The filters block analog channels. Since cable internet is a huge profit center, relative to TV, a lot of TWC installers will filter the analog but leave the clear QAM. Very common for Internet only houses to get the rebroadcast OTA channels.

Now that the FCC wimped out and allowed Comcast to encrypt the OTA rebroadcasts I expect TWC will do this.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
Ding. The filters are to protect analog channels, which are much harder to encrypt. The digital channels are usually above the range of the filter, and protected by encryption (and SDV.)

I'm surprised TWC hasn't moved all the locals to SDV, and move them around at random purely out of spite. (note: I've not done a scan in years... their TV looks like crap anyway. Even OTA looks worse over cable.)


antdude
A Matrix Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
said by cramer:

... (note: I've not done a scan in years... their TV looks like crap anyway. Even OTA looks worse over cable.)

Ditto, OTA has the best quality.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to cramer
said by cramer:

Ding. The filters are to protect analog channels, which are much harder to encrypt. The digital channels are usually above the range of the filter, and protected by encryption (and SDV.)

I'm surprised TWC hasn't moved all the locals to SDV, and move them around at random purely out of spite. (note: I've not done a scan in years... their TV looks like crap anyway. Even OTA looks worse over cable.)

moving locals to SDV would be and FCC violation and also they are watched the most so having then on SDV is pointless.

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to cramer
Comcast did this. And now that the FCC is in big cable's pockets i sense TW doing the same with "free digital adapters"

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to motorola870
said by motorola870:

moving locals to SDV would be and FCC violation and also they are watched the most so having then on SDV is pointless.

a) no it isn't -- there's no requirement that OTA channels be available without additional hardware. and b) since the point is to keep the freeloaders from watching the clear-QAM OTA rebroadcasts, it'll do exactly what they want.

It's a moot point since the p***ies as the FCC caved and now allow them to encrypt them as well. Greedy f'ing bastards. The costs associated with encrypting those channels far outweighs what they get from selling them. So people with cable modems can see them, they make a ton of money from internet access to begin with. So what if people who cancel service can still see them -- as long as the cable remains connected?


hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:11
"The costs associated with encrypting those channels far outweighs what they get from selling them"

Really? You have something to back that up?

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
And you think the encrypters are free?

What they get out of it is not having to roll a truck to physically connect and disconnect people. Once you're connected, you stay connected. And they make YOU bring the equipment back. If you fail to pay your bill, now they can cut you off with the click of a mouse. (actually without a human even being involved at all.)


Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:25
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
reply to hobgoblin
said by hobgoblin:

"The costs associated with encrypting those channels far outweighs what they get from selling them"

Really? You have something to back that up?

Hob

I agree with what Hob is saying. The gear used to encrypt the channels are "simple". Not inexpensive at all especially for a large company like Time Warner and for how long the gear has been around. While I'm not too sure about this aspect, I believe the gear is a simple one-time cost disregarding all of the fees owed to the networks for the feeds that come in. The decryption gear (Set Top Boxes) are also pretty cheap and are "simple". What I think racks the prices up on these are licenses. The hardware on those boxes isn't worth anything more than $160 when you put it into perspective. $20 Power Supply, for a DVR, a $60 hard drive, a $5 shell and circuitry and logic covering the rest. These things are sourced, built, and purchased in bulk amounts. Any additional costs are the costs of licensing and software.

Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong though

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

Cable companies are required to use cablecards -- even in their own uncertified two-way boxes. CCs are neither simple nor cheap. They're more expensive than the simple tuner stb's that require them. (and about as expensive as the dvr) [their secretive, proprietary nature keeps them expensive even when the hardware inside them is fairly cheap today. which is why the cable companies screamed for DFAST -- build the crypto hardware into the stb and download the security system. Luckily, the FCC had a pair then and said no, and made them use the CC they'd been (re)designing for a decade.]

If you look at it for a minute, you'll see their logic. It's all about inconveniencing basic cable subscribers... they MUST use a set-top box to get any channels at all, which encourages them to go to a higher tier where the cable company's profits are measurable. Most of the revenue from basic cable goes to licensing/royalties for rebroadcasting those stations -- aside from PBS, I don't know of any broadcaster invoking "must carry". When you aren't a video subscriber, you aren't counted in the royalties.

The stated reason -- so they can cut off basic cable accounts without physical disconnection, and prevent "thief of service" -- doesn't hold water in the face of the cost to encrypt the channels vs. the profit margin for basic cable. Sure, they're quite profitable in total and have the millions necessary to do so system-wide. The revenue they claim to be protecting isn't the reason they're doing it.

Bottom line... basic cable subscribers can cancel service and continue to receive exactly the same channels. They have to roll a truck to physically disconnect your cable -- if you're still an internet customer, they can't. While they make next to nothing from basic cable, the fact that anyone is getting anything from them for free pisses them off. They will spend millions in spite to "protect" pennies in profit.