Maybe its because digital cable sucks? in

Maybe its because digital cable sucks? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r6436366 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:51:56 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:51:56 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6449917 murdok6100 :

said by pnh102 :
Let's see...

•You have to pay more per month for the base cost
•The picture isn't all that much better
•You have to pay to rent special converter boxes for each TV
•You have to have a separate remote from your TV remote
•All those extra channels they keep talking about are just different feeds of the same actual channel
•You have to have someone "professionally install" it

Do the works "F**k that" come to mind?

Yeah, and not to mention the "EXTRA" commercials that they expect us to pay for.

murdok610]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6449917 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:41:43 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6440353 dvd536 :

said by Karl Bode :
And amazingly, there's still not a lot on worth watching. :)

250 channels and still nothing on. my sentiments exactly. didnt really bother me that much when i went back to OTA (over the air) from satellite. why you ask? "DISHNETWORK Billing dept"
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6440353 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:28:51 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6439669 Karl Bode : Well, TW offers something they call the "Galaxy" package...it's basically everything they offer for a little over 100 bucks a month.....

Since I'm a big movie buff I went for that. You could pick and chose things to eliminate and probably get broadband, all digital channels w/ HBO only, and the DVR for around 70 bucks a month.....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6439669 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:34 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6437890 pnh102 : Do you still need to throw more money at it to get premium (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) channels? The last time I was over at a friend who had digital through Comcast, he told me he had to pay more to get those channels.

If this is indeed the case, it makes digital even more worthless. If the cable companies put on some content that I might be interested in and I might change my mind about it :)
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6437890 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:38:13 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6437082 vfpguy : They care for advertising rates. The cable companies can charge more for advertising if they can guarantee a certain viewership number and the channel provider can charge more for network advertising.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6437082 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:39:07 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436894 footballdude :

said by vfpguy :
Because then no one (or very few) would subscribe to channels like Oxygen, We, ABCFamily, etc. If a cable company wants to provide ESPN or Disney, they have to take the 'lesser' channels as well.

Agreed, but why does the cable or satellite company care what channels I watch, as long as I'm paying them?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436894 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:12:00 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436833 trparky : Yea, I have seen the pictures that they claim is quality digital picture over a friend's house. Quality my @ss. It looks horrible.

I have Dish Network and the picture quality is far far better. Dish Network gets the highest quality feeds from the networks, cleans up the already high quality feeds, then encodes them.

I don't even notice the digital artifacts unless I go up to the TV screen and be 5 or 10 inches away from it.
--
WedgeAntilles250]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436833 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:01:23 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436810 juilinsandar :

said by Karl Bode :
Yeah I agree.

Here in Time Warner Country we've recently gotten the DVR's, and they make all the difference. It's Tivo, but without the phone line, and it uses the digital program guide to simply let you click on a program name, and record....or pause live TV, etc....well worth it I think.

Though there's certainly still bugs.

Time Warner recently upgraded my area to digital cable, and I've currently got everything they offer except for Roadrunner. I've talked with some Time Warner reps, and they tell me that VoD and DVR services should be available by May at the latest. They already have some early adopters using a few of the new cable boxes that have come in to Time Warner for the new services. I'm looking forward to getting these services and hopefully a new upgraded cable box with a better IPG. :)
--
Always remember you're unique... Just like everyone else.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436810 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:58:21 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436660 stet : When I tried out Comcast Digital Cable a few years ago, I dropped it after a month because the digital channels actually looked worse then the analog. They just took they same low res feed they were using for the analog channels and introduced digital artifacts on top of it.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436660 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:50 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436589 vfpguy : I switched to digital cable because Cablevision was getting ready to add the Yankees and was going to switch the New York sports channels from family to premium. I was also able to get HBO without having to use a box and CV was getting ready to change that too. After doing all the math it was a toss-up between DirecTV and digital cable and a satellite install for me would definitely have been non-standard.

After I did the install I discovered that my HT remote wouldn't talk to the cable box and the cable box's remote wouldn't talk to the HT or the TV. Spent about $80 for a Sony programmable, learning remote. Now one button turns on the TV, cable box, and receiver and tunes to the news channel. Of course, I get off on the rocket science stuff.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436589 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:16:17 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436553 vfpguy : Because then no one (or very few) would subscribe to channels like Oxygen, We, ABCFamily, etc. If a cable company wants to provide ESPN or Disney, they have to take the 'lesser' channels as well.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436553 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:08:46 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436490 ehow :

said by pnh102 :
The picture isn't all that much better

For me this was the major turn off.

All of the lower channels, say below channel 80, were still analog with the digital cable from Adelphia. I was expecting every channel to be digital, but they weren't. Mostly just the movie and PPV channels that were digital. I canceled the cable service and kept my satellite service.

Previously I had both analog cable and satellite so I could keep some of the local programming, but now that is no longer a reason with the locals being carried by satellite. About the only local channels not available are the government access channels and a few other small networks that the cable carried.

Adelphia ran a free promotion for digital cable upgrade, so I tried it out. After a week I returned the box and at the same time canceled cable completely. Now that felt nice... since over the past 13 years, my cable bill has doubled with no notable improvement.
--
BJ -- Up Fixin' Der Porsche]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436490 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:53:39 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436457 footballdude :

said by rds24a :
Perhaps if they let me pick and choose which channels I want, then it might be worth messing with the box and the price. If I could drop the 20 channels of QVC in favor of Speed and the Fox Sports Nets, I might think about it....

I've always wondered about that. How about creating an ala carte system where you can pay maybe fifty cents a month for whatever channels you want? For providers that force channel bundles, just offer them as a bundle. Maybe the ESPN channels could all come together for five bucks a month? Certainly the hurdle to creating that kind of TV service can't be the technology. Anyone know why there's no provider anywhere that's doing that?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436457 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:46:24 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436454 Karl Bode : It's all based around that program guide, so you need to upgrade to digital....

I bundle it all, Cable, digital, DVR, for a little over $100 a month....

And amazingly, there's still not a lot on worth watching. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436454 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:45:33 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436446 Vericima : You don't always have to have someone install it, it's just like a VCR. It isn't really worth the money though. The only reason I subscribe at the moment is because that box boosts the signal a little so my husband can capture perfect shows with his TV tuner card. Before it was a little grainy.

What Comcast does with the pay per view movies is great though, the picture goes out at least once per movie so if you were recording it, it wont be perfect. If you ask me it just ruins the movie, I'd rather rent if they're going to be like that.
--
AHHH! You're wasting CPU cycles, Go crunch something!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436446 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:43:57 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436440 pnh102 :

said by rds24a :
* You can't program out the shopping channels, advertising channels, etc. from the flipper rotation on the cable box.

A friend of mine has DirecTV and he has a small group of "favorite channels" set up that he can jump to directly from the remote... I think its pretty cool. I stick with basic cable because for the number of watched TVs we have in the house, its actually worth the money (of course I've split the connection into oblivion, but that's a whole different story).

The major thing for me though is the necessity of a second remote. I can't explain to people how much I hate this. When I want to watch TV, I don't want to fumble through a bunch of remotes, and I don't want to use a universal remote that lacks the functionality of the original remote, I just want to sit down and watch TV. I do enough "rocket science" at work, I don't need to do it at home.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-31 09:46:58]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436440 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:43:27 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436428 rds24a : Add in:

* You can't program out the shopping channels, advertising channels, etc. from the flipper rotation on the cable box.
* I already have 75 channels....how the &^(*&^@ many channels do you think I need?
* What used to be unnoticeable static on the old analog system becomes video stalls and loud audio screeches on the less-than-perfect cable signal (which TWC classifies as "within normal operating parameters").

Perhaps if they let me pick and choose which channels I want, then it might be worth messing with the box and the price. If I could drop the 20 channels of QVC in favor of Speed and the Fox Sports Nets, I might think about it....
--
»www.brittanyrescue.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436428 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:40:12 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436420 pnh102 :

said by Karl Bode :
Here in Time Warner Country ...

Do you have to get digital cable if you want cable TV service at all or can you still get basic cable?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436420 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:37:52 EDT Re: Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436405 Karl Bode : Yeah I agree.

Here in Time Warner Country we've recently gotten the DVR's, and they make all the difference. It's Tivo, but without the phone line, and it uses the digital program guide to simply let you click on a program name, and record....or pause live TV, etc....well worth it I think.

Though there's certainly still bugs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436405 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:33:52 EDT Maybe its because digital cable sucks? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436366 pnh102 : Let's see...

Do the works "F**k that" come to mind?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6436366 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:27:18 EDT