 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Network DVR I hope these lawsuits will scare Comcast away from a network DVR. I would really hate to lose my DVR.
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time. | |
|
 | rcdumont
join:2006-05-23
New York, NY | Re: Network DVR Me too  | |
|
| 
DPain
Premium
join:2004-02-19 | My WinTV-PVR-250 and Gbpvr ftwwwwwwwwwwwww.  | |
|
majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY | This si not to replace the dvr This was to allow people who dont have the right box for dvrs to be able to have dvr like functionality. | |
|
| 
idjk
@sprintlink.net | Re: This is not to replace the dvr You don't think this will be free do you,set top box or network server they will get their coin, and then they will sell your profile to everybody for a little extra coin. NO FREE LUNCH! | |
|
| b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: This si not to replace the dvr said by majortom1981  :This was to allow people who dont have the right box for dvrs to be able to have dvr like functionality. Wrong, this is indeed intended to replace the set top DVR.
Using a network based system lowers the cost of the set top box. | |
|
sirsloop
Premium
join:2004-02-18
New York, NY | laggggged sounds slow as nuts. The IO Guide is slow enough WITHOUT DVR crap lagging it down. | |
|
| |
Brianv
Low Level Functionary
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Keyser, WV |  Different end of the cable matters?
--
More power never hurt anything. | |
|
| 
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Different end of the cable matters? said by Brianv :So we can record at our end of the cable, but not at the network end? Yeah, that makes sense! If you record at your end, you're covered by an extension of the Betamax SC case law.
If Cablevision records at their end without express consent from the content owner, then they are illegally rebroadcasting copyrighted content. | |
|
| Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
| another way to look at it, if you record it, that copy is viewed on ONE set.
If the head end stores it, one copy is being accessed and viewed by MANY sets. Hence the suit for re-broadcasting.
lol this is so backwards and straightforward at the same time. | |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| the networks are showing who they are... while this may seem like a positive event on the surface, consider this. there aren't more than a few big companies who have a hold on the TV Industry (catv/sat/iptv). they have a lot of say when, for example, TWC wants to add one channel. contracts are often drawn up that force TW to carry much more than the one channel; usually a few shopping channels in conjunction.
so while i applaud any effort to bring DVR functionality back to us, the customer, the bigger picture is getting more scary when the networks can have such power. what i think most all of us want is, unrestricted access to channels and content we pay for. i'd much rather have 5-10 channels for $10 each, with the ability to shift and store their content for my own use. every fight we allow the net's to wage on 'our behalf' hurts us in the long run. we as class of customers should be filing suit against both the providers and the net's for their many years of unfair business.
the net's would love to continue to control their content on this scale. TV providers want control too, but often they simply want to turn a profit (usually much more than what is fair however) by reselling the 'service'. there's a reason CATV companies are investing so much in ISP rollout; they must have the foresight to see that traditional broadcasting is nearing extinction... their only hope for profit is IP-based services. the problem is, why buy from TW when if things go right, (and by 'right' i mean we need much more broadband bandwidth in this country, like full duplex 10Mb at minimum!) google or 'sharing sites' will have higher quality and more selection of programming... there's an awesome future ahead if we are to understand where we stand as customers- we now have the ability to become mini-TV-providers for ourselves if only the net's loosen their grip on content.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|
|
hmm_
@swbell.net | Re: the networks are showing who they are... Strikes me as odd that TW is suing then their cable division is making the same plans. | |
|
| | |
| | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: the networks are showing who they are... how could consumers not like this? provided the techonolgy is in place... How could anyone in their right mind say.. Gee.. i wish i had to buy all the bundeled channels of crap that i don't want and sit at home all night for my program to be on?
Consumers want this, the problem is another outdated business model that forces crappy channels on users (and makes them pay for access to a bunch of channels they don't want either) | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Drop them from the line up... The cable operators should get together and drop TW programming from the line up. When TW Cable is the only provider for CNN, they'll quickly change their tune.
And given CNN's sorry ratings, they need Cablevision a whole hell of a lot more than CV needs CNN. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| Re: Drop them from the line up... This is one of the reasons why I am a fan of Dish Network/Echostar. Last year Time Warner tried to force Dish into just such a deal as mentioned above. You WILL in addition to the channels you already carry you will also put on this, this, and this Channel and we will charge you a bunch more, take it or leave it. Echostar told Time Warner to stick where the sun don't shine, and took off OLN and the Man's network. The latter is one I never watched as it seemed all they did was sell penis plumper pills, and orgasm oil, and Outdoor Channel was better then OLN anyway. It seems it was Time Warmer that blinked because OLN is back and there is none of the other channels which Time Warner tried to make Dish swallow.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Drop them from the line up... E* also had a run in with ABC and Cox did this a while back with Fox Sports West.
These networks think they're God's gift and they're not...99% of them suck ass. Cable and DBS need to smack the network bitches up and put these 0-ratings loser channels in their place. | |
|
| | | 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Drop them from the line up... Problems occur when cable companies are confronted with "must carry" channels. For example Disney owns ABC which is a broadcast network and therefore covered by the "must carry" laws that are part of franchise agreements. This is why Disney channel is no longer a premium channel in many places (like my area).
And then there was this case of Yes Network vs Cablevision where YES sued Cablevision to force them to carry the YES network. The State of NY stepped in and forced Cablevision to carry YES.
With the laws favoring the networks, the cable and DBS companies don't have much of a chance.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Re: Drop them from the line up... Sure, they'll carry them, but they won't pay for them. It's not so much denying access, but simply refusing to pay. It may exist but I haven't seen a case where a DBS or cable operator was compelled by a court to pay a certain amount while forced to carry non-OTA programming. | |
|
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs:  | Who cares about network DVR anyhow? Things like on demand and network DVR are just excuses for the cable company to raise your rates. There is no point for those things when you can go out and buy your own DVR or VCR. | |
|
| iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
edit:
May 31st, @06:23PM
| Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow? said by Transmaster :... there is none of the other channels which Time Warner tried to make Dish swallow. ... said by damonlab :Things like on demand and network DVR are just excuses for the cable company to raise your rates. There is no point for those things when you can go out and buy your own DVR or VCR. Some things do NOT belong together.
Like freedom AND a gun pointed to one's head .
The Internet is a great technology.
The cable or fiber run on OUR public and private land should be a transport system ONLY.
Like the highways.
Imagine a highway owned by a private HIGHWAY COMPANY that dictated, and sold, what cars you were allowed to drive on it.
There is NO constitutional right for these cable, and now fiber, operators to run wires across our lawns and streets. The franchise contracts can be re-negotiated at renewal time. The laying of new cable/fiber should be by public contract. So should the yearly management of such plant.
The bandwidth necessary to support ALL on demand content would evolve much quicker if the fox was removed from being in charge of the hen house.
Get rid of the bastards. Tell them to either remove "their" wire at their expense, or sell it at reasonable cost to the new way of doing business, i.e. the wires that run on our public and private property will be built and managed by a company that does only that and nothing more. The wire is just a conduit for OTHERS to use. Equally, democratically, on demand. | |
|
| | Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN | Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow? that is extreme to me, but I can't disagree with the basic concept. | |
|
| | | iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
edit:
May 31st, @06:47PM
| Re: Who cares about network DVR anyhow? said by Fluker :that is extreme to me, but I can't disagree with the basic concept. Hey Flurker, glad someone agrees with my post above and a new model that the Time Warners, Verizons, and Cablevisions MUST follow in order to string wires across our private and public lands. | |
|
voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY
edit:
May 31st, @06:15PM
| Advantages Anyone ever had their cable-provided DVR go bad?
What happens when the friendly cable technician replaces it?
That's right - you lose everything!
With network-based storage, you could swap boxes and still have your content. You could also record from a box in one room and watch on another. | |
|
| iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
edit:
May 31st, @06:36PM
| Re: Advantages said by voipguy :Anyone ever had their cable-provided DVR go bad? What happens when the friendly cable technician replaces it? That's right - you lose everything!With network-based storage, you could swap boxes and still have your content. You could also record from a box in one room and watch on another. Except when you swap your TV provider, you loose ALL your recorded programs. When people ask you to prove the METS actually won a world series, your carefully recorded proof will have disappeared. What a crock this DVR is. Whether home based box, or network/head end box. What you record is owned by the Cablevisions of the world, and can disappear at their whim. I guess a sucker is born every day. | |
|
sandman9r
join:2003-11-09
Bronx, NY | Simple Misunderstanding The executives, not surprisingly, just don't get it. Recording a program, whether on a hard drive or on a network, is still a recorded program.
No one is rebroadcasting anything. This is a frivolous suit borne by a misunderstanding. | |
|
napstervscableblindn
@verizon.net
| Why pay for cnn pipeline? Now all we need is for the RIAA and MPAA to say that cablevision is violating copyright laws because they only pay content providers for the "BROADCAST RIGHTS" and not time-shifting rights exclusive of that contract.
Boo hoo... what's the difference between a NAPSTER and a cableco?
Napster made content file trading a national past-time. Cable companies make file hosting a boondoogle for pre-emptive strike against the telcos, not realizing they need consent of the intellecutal property owners, Cablevision is not SONY/Betamax, people. They are a FOR PROFIT content reseller.
Which is to say, if they can clone the perfect apple and resell it millions of times over and profit, why not. | |
|
| 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Why pay for cnn pipeline? So its actually timewarner cable that is sueing cablevision if u look at it that way. Timewarner owns them all. | |
|
bronxlcsw
join:2005-09-21
Bronx, NY | Hope this bankrupts cv and they have to sell the knicks Wishful thinking but i hope this forces sale of the knicks. | |
|
| SeekHelp
join:2006-05-27
New York, NY | Re: Hope this bankrupts cv and they have to sell the knicks Then your mother would lose her job as the Team Mascot. Why would you want that? | |
|
bhorow
join:2004-05-17
Forest Hills, NY
| Re-Broadcast ETC The law regarding retransmission is really clear. If you ever listen to a baseball game they tell you that its illegal to do that...Its the disclaimer that announcers all love to say.
Time Warner has gotten consent from those companies that wish to do this and its not really DVR service as much as it is starting over if you miss part of a show.
This will probably go to a court even maybe the supreme court. Cablevision is doing this without consent of the content providers, therefore as i look at it , its inherently illegal.
I'm not so certain how much Time Warner wishes to pursue the lawsuit. I think that its just a function of testing to see where the courts position is on this matter.
I just can't see how Cablevision winning a case here, since this flies in the face of rebroadcasting.
Time Warner and other content providers have a lot to loose in this case. However, I think that the law suit, is a mere method of testing the current laws to see what a broadcaster can do. | |
|
| 
ITGuy72
Permanently Disco
Premium
join:2001-11-01
New York
| Re: Re-Broadcast ETC said by bhorow :Time Warner and other content providers have a lot to loose in this case. However, I think that the law suit, is a mere method of testing the current laws to see what a broadcaster can do. That's why this lawsuit will go on for YEARS and YEARS! | |
|
| backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| ah, but what about the fact that the consumers who whould likely have access to this would have paid for access to watch it at the time of orginal broadcast?
I find it hard to believe that cablevision would be giving away access to these shows for free. Access would likely be granted to people who have already PAID for the channel, thereby making it a simple time shift which has already been deemed legal. | |
|
| |
ITGuy72
Permanently Disco
Premium
join:2001-11-01
New York
| Re: Re-Broadcast ETC said by backness :I find it hard to believe that cablevision would be giving away access to these shows for free. They're not, that's the point of their stance in this. The networks however claim foul play because in effect they are perceiving them to re-broadcast content across the network without their consent, paid for or otherwise. | |
|
| | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Re-Broadcast ETC ok.. but the fact remains that only people who have paid for the content have access to it. The content providers are trying to have a double dip on the cable co. who in turn charges the consumer for access. I would agree if they were selling the product to a different customer, but servicing the same market with the same product, imo, the value of damage in this case is nill.
One would think that the opportunity to increase the following of this content would be embraced by the people who create it.
Or maybe they just think we are a bunch of sheep | |
|
|
|
|
CNN Sues Cablevision Over Network DVR
·
·
·