said by greggy :Sirqam, your posts and suggestions are quite ridic. CV is only obligated to provide a working STB for the level of service the customer subscribes to. Providing the latest Samsung STB would pass any kind of complaint filed to any regulatory body despite the customer wanting an older obsolete one. CV legal obligation is to support tivo like devices but not equipment bought off the internet. OP should just pay for the service call if getting an 1850 is that important. He can also buy a $10 RF modulator and feed it with the composite outputs of a Samsung.
And your post and suggestions therein are perfect examples of the attitudes that have helped elevate CV and most other MSTV providers into a power position above the service subscribers.
At some point in time, CV must have provided the OP with the SA 1850, which the OP reports was fulfilling their video needs. That converter subsequently failed to perform, and the OP contacted CV to obtain a replacement. The OP has stated that he/she tried the replacement Samsung STB provided by their local CV walk-in center and found the PQ to be lacking as compared to the SA 1850. The OP contacted CV about this, and was offered to be charged for a service call to install an SD box.
What the OP hasn't made clear yet is whether CV actually promised the technician would be dispatched with an SA 1850, as per the customer's preference.
If CV would only provide the SA 1850 under those conditions, it sounds rather suspicious. Why should a customer be force-charged to obtain a replacement converter box for one they already have, but failed?
In that case, the OP should be able to step in where CV refuses to do so, provide his/her own equipment which CV should then activate (and maintain full control over, as they do every single converter box connected to the CV network) and the OP would then be a satisfied customer.
Greggy, your post exhibits no compassion whatsoever for the customer's problem. I interpreted your post as one blaming the OP for expecting the same or better PQ he/she had prior to the failure of the SA 1850, and as punishment, the OP should pay more money to CV to resolve the issue. I would say you had a point if the OP hadn't already tried the Samsung replacement as offered by CV, but the OP did and was dissatisfied with the results. CV should now make every effort at this point to restore the OP's satisfaction in their service.