 | | New network When you have a brand new network built from the ground up, the experience is just going to be better.
Cable companies are still stuck with aging infrastructure and legacy customers who will complain if you take away their analog. | |
|
 |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: New network said by fifty nine:When you have a brand new network built from the ground up, the experience is just going to be better. Cable companies are still stuck with aging infrastructure and legacy customers who will complain if you take away their analog. When you take away the analog, you effectively raise the customers bill because they are then required to rent a box or CableCard to continue receiving the programming they got with analog. Yes, analog $ucks when compared to QAM digital but the cable companies have made switching from analog a cost increase to the end user. My sister and brother-in-law have five TV's in their house (three QAM capable) and one digital box. They were happy that the channels they watched on their TV's did not require a box. Then CV started migrating their favorite channels to encrypted digital and they were told they would need four extra boxes at the cost of $12 each ($10 box/$2 remote) to keep receiving the programming they were paying for on their other TV's. While they have not yet done it, their plan is to downgrade the service level because they don't want to pay more to watch what they are paying for and they figure they should not bother paying for all the channels they cannot watch anymore except on the one box they have.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | | Re: New network I don't Know were you are getting your information CV charges 6.75 per box and it includes remote. A $10 charge is only charged for DVR service, and in that case it will coast $ 16.75 a month with remote. | |
|
| |
1 edit | said by n2jtx:When you take away the analog, you effectively raise the customers bill because they are then required to rent a box or CableCard to continue receiving the programming they got with analog. Yes, analog $ucks when compared to QAM digital but the cable companies have made switching from analog a cost increase to the end user. My sister and brother-in-law have five TV's in their house (three QAM capable) and one digital box. They were happy that the channels they watched on their TV's did not require a box. Then CV started migrating their favorite channels to encrypted digital and they were told they would need four extra boxes at the cost of $12 each ($10 box/$2 remote) to keep receiving the programming they were paying for on their other TV's. While they have not yet done it, their plan is to downgrade the service level because they don't want to pay more to watch what they are paying for and they figure they should not bother paying for all the channels they cannot watch anymore except on the one box they have. Not necessarily. Our cable company gives you the first digital box free. Additional boxes are $2.95/month and 50 cents additional outlet fee. But if your TV has a QAM tuner (like most TVs these days) you don't need a box.
Comcast has the ideal solution for this - DTAs. DTAs are dumbed down cable boxes that are cheap/free for customers. | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | I think they should be either forced to provide unencrypted QAM transmissions similar to what they did for analog or they should be forced to provide a single point of decryption, a device that decrypts the signal before distribution to the various outlets in your home. | |
|
| |
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK
1 edit | A couple of rate increases later. That warm and fuzzy feeling will go away. Same goes for surveys that show cable company beating telco's regarding voice service. Once those promos are gone so goes the love that came with it.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: A couple of rate increases later. said by caco:tThat warm and fuzzy feeling will go away. Same goes for surveys that show cable company beating telco's regarding voice service. Once hose promos are gone so goes the love that came with it. You could be right. If someone signs up for a new type of service and don't have problems, they could be giving it higher marks even if it performs exactly the same as their old one. Essentially they'd be validating their own decision to switch.
That said, I've no experience with telco TV; it might (or might not) be better for all I know. | |
|
| | | Yes, U-Verse is so much more expensive than TWC. Hell, I have Comcast in another place and U-Verse is more expensive than THEM too. Bye bye uverse. | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Odd Incumbant telco is beating cable at TV satisfaction, and cable is beating telco at phone satisfaction. What an odd world. | |
|
| | | Re: Odd Kudos on that one.
--
Splat | |
|
|  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by baineschile:Incumbant telco is beating cable at TV satisfaction, and cable is beating telco at phone satisfaction. What an odd world. Not especially. There is a large percentage of people out there was just wanted another choice, any other choice, and are completely satisfied that they have that choice. I doubt a large portion of the people care about the quality of the service.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln | |
|
| | |
| | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Odd Cox did, the rest of the Cable Co finished below or on par.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Odd Weren't the 'winners' in each section a cable co? | |
|
| | | When you offer a service for so many years and there is little competition people build up a myriad of reasons to dislike you with little chance to go elsewhere.
When competition finally comes and knocks on the door it's always a breath of fresh air. | |
|
|  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Maybe the telcos should stick with voice and data, and the cables companies should stick with tv delivery. And all of them stay out of content!
I bet they'd be able to do their jobs well. | |
|
| | | | Re: Odd Why should cable companies stick with TV delivery? TV delivery IS data in the 21st century.
Satellite receivers that cable companies use now receive MPEG4 and MPEG2 streams and can put them on an ethernet port to send them to other ethernet enabled encoding devices that send the data down to the customer.
So if they have to deliver data that happens to hold television, why should they stop there and not deliver any other data that they can?
Really makes no sense. | |
|
| | | Yep however at the rate that people are disconnecting landlines, the video revenue is a much safer way to run a business! | |
|
|
| | | Re: Cable doing an end run around the cable protection act. said by Mr Matt:  Check out this link and look at section 17 of the Act. » en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cable_Tel···_of_1992The Cable industry are going back to the days when customers were required to rent descrambling converters for each television in order to watch extended basic and above tiers of service. Our regulatory corporate sock puppets are unlikely to protect their constituents. All companies offering Television entertainment including DBS service companies should be required to deliver their services in a manor compliant with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. With cable TV that's certainly possible.
But Satellite TV? Not possible. Satellite receivers are different from cable tuners. There were one or two sets with built in DirecTV tuners but those weren't all that popular. You'll still need equipment from the satellite company to view satellite TV for a long time to come. | |
|
| | | | Re: Cable doing an end run around the cable protection act. but they can make so any sat box will work with your smart card.
But thing is rent or mirroring is the same $5/m on direct tv for any box. box 1 free.
unlike comcrap cable $8-$10/m per hd box + $15-$20+/m per hd dvr.
cable cards with outlet + cable card rent + cable card HD fee (some systems) per card.
Why are you forced to rent the $50-$100 card and or full SD box?
I like the candida system rent / rent to own / easy pay or buy your choice. | |
|
| | I'm glad to see... ...the survey was concerning customer service and outages. The quality of U-verse video flat out sucks as far as I am concerned.
--
| |
|
| | ugh These surveys make it unfair for cablevision. Since its just east cablevision is only available in parts of 3 states in the north eats so of course verizon will beat cablevision because in thsi area they have like quadruple the service area. | |
|
| | | Re: ugh That makes no sense. It should be easier to provide better service in a smaller area.
However, in my opinion, Cablevision sucks!
--
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. | |
|
| | | | Re: ugh Yes it doe make sense. If verizon has say 20 million subscribers in the east and cablevision only has 4 million subscribers in total and verizon has 8 million of those 20 million who rate their tv as good then verizon would still come out on top because they have more area.
They didnt say in the north east they said the whole east coast. Even if every cablevision subscriber rated cablevisions tv as great it wouldnt matter because verizon covers a much bigger area . | |
|
| | | | | Re: ugh Somehow I think the JD Powers people know statistics better than that.  | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ugh If they do why then make it the whole easter seaboard instead of the north east and south east? | |
|
| | |
1 edit | cablevision has more TV subscribers in their small 3 states than Verizon has in their entire footprint. So your argument does not hold any weight. Verizon's latest quarterly earnings indicate they have a total of 2.5 million FiOS TV subscribers throughout their footprint. Please get your facts straight. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ugh First off its immature to call people names.
Second if you actually read the article they only surveyed 24,000 people. Now for a company like verizon whos subscribers are scattered through something like 26 states and the fact that the subscribers in say verizon fios new york will have a different fios experience then say in texas should not be lumped together.
Verizon fios should be compaired to cablevision via customers in cablevisions area only.
Ps 28,000 people only for a whole country is not enough people to survey to say verizon fios is the best. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by waiting4fios:cablevision has more TV subscribers in their small 3 states than Verizon has in their entire footprint. Look in the cablevision forums and see how many are happy with their VIDEO service.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | new provider: RSS, BITTORRENT i wonder if in upcoming surveys they will ask consumers about their satisfaction with obtaining their content via BITTORRENT & RSS feeds rather than the traditional overcharging triopoly that is cable & telco and satellite.
welcome to the end of 2 0 0 9 | |
|
|
| | Gee, I remember when... ...it was a given on DSLReports just a few years back that U-verse would NEVER work (FTTN was destined to be a failure) and that by EOY 2008 virtually all of the cable companies would have already deployed DOCSIS 3.0.
Now, U-verse has millions of customers and is winning JD Power awards year after year.
Makes me question some of the "givens" I read here today. | |
|
| | | Re: Gee, I remember when... Unless it were FTTH, I'd never get U-Verse, even if it was available.
The speeds they are offering are less than what I am getting now, and the limitation of only two HD streams is going to be a problem. | |
|
| | | | Re: Gee, I remember when... It's definitely a problem on Thursdays for me. Too many shows to record at the same time. I even have to resort to SD for a couple shows. It's better than TWC though.
I'm getting rid of Uverse as I'm going to be back East. I wish I could get Fios... | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by guardfrog:...it was a given on DSLReports just a few years back that U-verse would NEVER work (FTTN was destined to be a failure) and that by EOY 2008 virtually all of the cable companies would have already deployed DOCSIS 3.0. Now, U-verse has millions of customers and is winning JD Power awards year after year. Makes me question some of the "givens" I read here today. BANG. Bullseye.
If the usual poster here were actually running a provider business, it'd be dead in 6 months.
They can't distinguish between their own desires for a service, the actual market demand (of which their "demo" makes up a rather small part), and the needs of a business to have a workable strategy to remain competitive.
So, what the usual poster here longs for is simple:
Just give it all to the government, and have us all pay for it in taxes. That way it'll be EXACTLY what we want, and it'll be CHEAP, available EVERYWHERE, and it'll ALWAYS work.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Gee, I remember when... You are so correct. I am a U-verse subscriber and I love it. Yes, I know it has limitations and things about it that are not completely desirable, but they all do. From reading so many of the posts on this site, there could never be any such thing as a perfect service. Some smart @$$ is always going to have something snarky to say about the other guys. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·AT&T U-Verse
| One more thing, I love your sarcasm. This is more on what we should have to make the usual poster happy follows:
A government ran, fiber to the home service to cover every home the entire nation. It will offer 100/100 symmetrical service for just $10/month, and every TV channel available in HD for just $10/month also. It will never have service interruptions, and you can download all you want to from any file sharing service you want to without any monthly caps.
But wait a minute......we live in the real world. If my imaginary service existed, some one would still b!#ch about it on here because the speeds weren't faster or some other reason. My point is this, there is nothing perfect in the world. No one, especially the government, is going to make anything perfect. So, we just pick a provider that makes us the happiest. IN the case of this article, it seems that U-verse is doing that for a lot of people. | |
|
| | Waiting for the first price drop.. Then mi familia will switch to fios tv.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Naturally if fios. . . . . is in there its going to pump up the ratings for the whole industry because they're not as compressed as cable.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
