# Comcast to discontinue analog in Chicago



## greygoose (Dec 24, 2005)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704050706apr06,0,2945392.story?coll=chi-business-hed

We will be forced to get a digital box since only local broadcast channels will be provided on the coax input (1st paragraph). I hope that the digital tuner being provided is dual tuner. Otherwise, I will not be able to watch another program with my TV's tuner while my series2 is recording.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

If you're getting stuff from a cable box you won't be able to watch ANYTHING with your TV's tuner.


----------



## greygoose (Dec 24, 2005)

gastrof said:


> If you're getting stuff from a cable box you won't be able to watch ANYTHING with your TV's tuner.


That's why I hope the box that they are forcing us to use will be dual tuner.


----------



## oopy493 (Apr 22, 2002)

My building has expanded basic analog service included in the assessment. Comcast just came around and handed out 1 free cable box per unit. After the digital upgrade (sometime in the next few weeks), we'll only get the networks and public access channels (and FX for some odd reason).

It really sucks, my analog picture was excellent and I have four cable jacks that are now kind of useless without paying an additional $4.24/month/box for more cable boxes.

The only silver lining is that ~3/4 of my SPs are on networks so my S2DT isn't really useless. 

Anyone know if the HD broadcasts of the network will continue once they do the switchover? 
(I watch some of my favorites and some sports live on HD, I might need to go buy an antenna now.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

This is what some of us have believed would be happening over the next few years with cable. Many people have bashed the thought that cable would go all digital before OTA did, but as the article points out the benefits of digital over analog are great. 

What would be interesting to find out is how many of the digital channels are not scrambled and would be available to someone who had a TV with a digital cable tuner in it (QAM). 

Thanks,


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

"The vast majority of our Chicago customers already have digital service, but for the customers with basic service, they will get a new box," he [Eric Schaefer, vice president of business development (for Comcast)] said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704050706apr06,0,2945392.story?coll=chi-business-hed

'While a simple1 "majority" is more than 50% of any total, a "vast majority" is harder to define. The phrase "vast majority" is most often used to exaggerate the size, relevance, or importance of some statistic.'

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=vast majority

24.2 million cable customers
12.7 million digital cable customers

http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-homeprofile

Wow, assuming Comcast has about the same digital penetration in Chicago as it does nationally (52.5%), I wouldn't call that a vast majority at all.

'And finally, the third possibility is that a "vast majority" is a majority which is "vast" compared to other majorities. In this meaning, it isn't clear where exactly to draw the line -- maybe at 80%? -- but it really isn't a useful descriptor. The only useful descriptor is data.'

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=vast majority


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I haven't heard of actual dual tuner/dual output cable boxes. the only Dual tuner Cable boxes I've hrard of are DVRs that have one output.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

bilbo said:


> "The vast majority of our Chicago customers already have digital service, but for the customers with basic service, they will get a new box," he [Eric Schaefer, vice president of business development (for Comcast)] said.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704050706apr06,0,2945392.story?coll=chi-business-hed
> 
> ...


An additional wrinkle in this is how many of the "digital" subscribers have a SINGLE digital box but have their 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, etc) TV (and/or Tivos) connected to analog? A better statistic would be the actual number of digital boxes compared to all CE devices connected to cable.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

classicsat said:


> I haven't heard of actual dual tuner/dual output cable boxes. the only Dual tuner Cable boxes I've hrard of are DVRs that have one output.


not cable, but there was one (I think only one?) DISH DVR that output two separate shows, for another room for example.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

greygoose said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704050706apr06,0,2945392.story?coll=chi-business-hed
> 
> We will be forced to get a digital box since only local broadcast channels will be provided on the coax input (1st paragraph).


The other responses seem to have skipped this part. This sounds like the local broadcast channels WILL still be analog. (Presumably the HD variants will still be unencrypted QAM too.)

While I have cable, and watch various cable channels, the MAJORITY of what I watch is "network stuff". (In fact, I originally got cable to get better reception overall of the network stations.. we had a rotor antenna and having to rotate the antenna 180 degrees to get the best reception on one of the channels is not conducive to unattended VCR recording.) Though more reminiscing, I was able to be a premium channel subscriber for a long time and had NO cable box.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

If this happens here, and I bet it will within the next few years, I'm gonna drop cable and just go with OTA. They're pissing me off already, and this would just be the last straw. It's just TV after all.


----------



## PhillyGuy (Mar 12, 2006)

greygoose said:


> That's why I hope the box that they are forcing us to use will be dual tuner.


Dual tuner boxes do not put out both pictures simultaneously. You can only display one or the other.


----------



## scroos (Jun 7, 2006)

I live in Rockford, Il. where Comcast is about to take over from Insight.

I am about to purchase my first Tivo, to connect to my cable box. With the absence of an analog signal, does this mean that there is no point in using an S2 DT in this set-up?

Am I correct in my understanding that an analog AND digital signal are necessary to utilize dual tuners on the Tivo? 

Thanks in advance...

OO


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

scroos said:


> I live in Rockford, Il. where Comcast is about to take over from Insight.
> 
> I am about to purchase my first Tivo, to connect to my cable box. With the absence of an analog signal, does this mean that there is no point in using an S2 DT in this set-up?
> 
> ...


You can use two Analog or analog on one input and a Cable Box (with analog outputs) for the other TiVo input. The DT can only control one cable box so if your system went all Digital with just the OTA networks on Cable analog you could use the DT with one cable box and record two channels at the same time if one of those channels was part of cable analog offering. If the Cable stopped offering any analog then you could only record one channel at a time as the DT can't use an outside antenna as one of the inputs


----------



## pokegol (Feb 24, 2003)

MickeS said:


> If this happens here, and I bet it will within the next few years, I'm gonna drop cable and just go with OTA. They're pissing me off already, and this would just be the last straw. It's just TV after all.


I live in the suburbs of Chicago and they said in the article that we can expect to be forced to digital by the end of 2008. I've been thinking exactly the same thing as you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

greygoose said:


> I hope that the digital tuner being provided is dual tuner. Otherwise, I will not be able to watch another program with my TV's tuner while my series2 is recording.


Do they even make dual tuners which are not DVRs (themselves)? I don't remember reading about any.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RBlount said:


> A better statistic would be the actual number of digital boxes compared to all CE devices connected to cable.


Better _for whom_?

If folks want cable to be regulated, then they should have the balls to elect leaders to government who will do it, definitively and absolutely -- pro-economy Republicans and Democrats be damned. If folks want cable to be a vibrant, healthy market, with ever-improving service offerings, then they should have the balls to trust the market to provide the best offerings that are most profitable.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Better _for whom_?
> 
> If folks want cable to be regulated, then they should have the balls to elect leaders to government who will do it, definitively and absolutely -- pro-economy Republicans and Democrats be damned. If folks want cable to be a vibrant, healthy market, with ever-improving service offerings, then they should have the balls to trust the market to provide the best offerings that are most profitable.


Maybe cable TV isn't the highest priority for people when they vote, so they end up stuck with whatever policy their candidate endorses.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> Do they even make dual tuners which are not DVRs (themselves)? I don't remember reading about any.


The only dual tuner Non DVR STBs I have seen are dishnetwork's no reason cable could do the same thing but so far I haven't seen it.



> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> trust the market to provide the best offerings that are most profitable.


Well you have half of it correct - I trust the cable companies to do what is most profitable. As for providing what people want there isn't enough competition yet for the "market" (the consumer) to get the cable companies to do what we want, if there was we wouldn't all be bit*** about them all the time.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Maybe cable TV isn't the highest priority for people when they vote, so they end up stuck with whatever policy their candidate endorses.


Yes, indeed, and in the grand scheme of things, I think that's the way it should be, and the end-result is the way it should be.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Well you have half of it correct - I trust the cable companies to do what is most profitable.


They better or else I'll sue. 



atmuscarella said:


> As for providing what people want there isn't enough competition yet for the "market" (the consumer) to get the cable companies to do what we want, if there was we wouldn't all be bit*** about them all the time.


People always *****, regardless of how well the offerings meet their needs. It satisfies some sort of need, I suppose. As it is, there is enough competition in the market at this point to do what the cable companies should do. If you want them to do what you "want", then you have to make doing that the MOST profitable thing for them to do. I don't think that many customers are willing to put their money where their mouths are. The folks on these forums are pretty unique in that regard, but too small of a group to have much impact. We're overruled by J6P.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> People always *****, regardless of how well the offerings meet their needs. It satisfies some sort of need, I suppose. As it is, there is enough competition in the market at this point to do what the cable companies should do. If you want them to do what you "want", then you have to make doing that the MOST profitable thing for them to do. I don't think that many customers are willing to put their money where their mouths are. The folks on these forums are pretty unique in that regard, but too small of a group to have much impact. We're overruled by J6P.


I think we have a differing view of what market forces are. When there is sufficient competition the market is driven by the consumer - either you produce what the consumer wants or someone else will and you go out of business. When there is inadequate competition the market is driven by the producer who because of inadequate competition is allowed to have a take it or leave it attitude in regards to the product they are providing the consumer. Cable companies have more competition now than they ever had but they are still pretty much in the drivers seat and still pretty much have a take it or leave it attitude. So in my book there still is inadequate competition in this market sector.

Thanks,


----------



## Corran Horn (Feb 12, 2002)

It's a shame, since I've never liked cable boxes. I'm glad I have my S3. I'll keep my S1 to record 'backup copies' of my network SPs.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Other areas may follow suit if the FCC has it's way.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Too bad there isn't an in-line converter. Would seem it could keep both parties happy.


----------



## wolflord11 (Jan 17, 2007)

bicker said:


> Do they even make dual tuners which are not DVRs (themselves)? I don't remember reading about any.


Yes. Dish network has the Model 322 that is a Dual tuner, and not a DVR. 322

It comes with two remotes, and has Two feeds, to 2 different TV's. You can watch Two different shows on Two different TV's.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I think we have a differing view of what market forces are. When there is sufficient competition the market is driven by the consumer - either you produce what the consumer wants or someone else will and you go out of business.


Not what EVERY customer wants. Competitors will compete over the HEART of the customer-base. Niche interests, such as those you're pursuing, will not be a hot-bed of competitive interest. J6P drives what competition will drive suppliers to provide, not the leading edge. The leading edge will always pay a high price for moderate value, if they even can get ANY suppliers interested in serving them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> Other areas may follow suit if the FCC has it's way.


That's the "the FCC" -- that's the FCC chairman -- one person (so far).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wolflord11 said:


> Yes. Dish network has the Model 322 that is a Dual tuner, and not a DVR. 322
> 
> It comes with two remotes, and has Two feeds, to 2 different TV's. You can watch Two different shows on Two different TV's.


Okay, so nothing that isn't for satellite service, then, right?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes, indeed, and in the grand scheme of things, I think that's the way it should be, and the end-result is the way it should be.


I've never understood why you always defend the local cable monopolies. Do you work for a cable company?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Better _for whom_?
> 
> If folks want cable to be a vibrant, healthy market, with ever-improving service offerings, then they should have the balls to trust the market to provide the best offerings that are most profitable.


Great news - it seems Bicker is saying I can now choose between comcast and TWC and etc... without being forced to use just one and deal with whatever crap they shove my way. The competition should be great once they really do compete with each other for my dollar


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I've never understood why you always defend the local cable monopolies.


Typically because I believe the criticisms against them are outrageously off-target, and nothing more than self-serving. I think it better to keep discussions grounded in reality rather than stewing in what someone wants.



MickeS said:


> Do you work for a cable company?


No. That's really the magic of it: My contributions are based on what I believe to be true, not because I have any vested interest in the perspective I'm providing. Indeed, I'm outlining reality that *I wish was not true*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Great news - it seems Bicker is saying I can now choose between comcast and TWC and etc...


Why not argue against what I really *did* say instead of making up stuff that is easier for you to argue against? It's called intellectual integrity -- you should check into it. 

Rather, what I said was that people can now choose between OTA, cable companies, satellite broadcasters, and IPTV broadcasters, depending on what's available in each municipality. I haven't said anything about YOU personally -- you don't matter, not at all, and neither do I. People who think their own personal situation ("I'm behind a tree"  ) matters need to check their self-centeredness at the door. It does not serve them well -- it does NOTHING other than foster their dissatisfaction.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

MickeS said:


> I've never understood why you always defend the local cable monopolies. Do you work for a cable company?


Others have thought so.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10249388&&#post10249388


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

Back to the original topic of this post.

I don't see how Tivo could still sell any DT Series 2's in these markets. Since the analog would only carry local stations, Tivo would have to educate the public too much (ie set proper expectations) to make it worthwhile.

I don't know if many people would buy a product (Tivo DT S2) whose main trump is the ability to record two channels at once....when one of those channels can only be probably one of 4 stations.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> My contributions are based on what I believe to be true, not because I have any vested interest in the perspective I'm providing. Indeed, I'm outlining reality that *I wish was not true*.


So you're defending something you don't like, for the only reasons that

1) it's decided by politicians, and thus must be the will of the people, and
2) since it is currently like this, we shouldn't do anything to change it

That's how I understand it. Makes very little sense to me. Do you think people only vote for politicians they agree 100% with?



bicker said:


> People who think their own personal situation ("I'm behind a tree" ) matters need to check their self-centeredness at the door. It does not serve them well -- it does NOTHING other than foster their dissatisfaction.


So what DOES matter? Should I put the cable company's needs before my own? I can't interpret that statement to mean anything else in this context.



bicker said:


> Rather, what I said was that people can now choose between OTA, cable companies, satellite broadcasters, and IPTV broadcasters, depending on what's available in each municipality.


OTA: very few channels, can not compete with the offerings from cable

cable: no choice of provider, you have to take what's given

satellite: basically only 2 available, consumer can not use third-party equipment such as TiVo Series 3, will not broadcast local HD channels

IPTV: this I don't know enough about yet, except that it's not available in most areas.

So really, you're saying that the cable subscribers should shut up and stop complaining, or drop cable, only to have no other alternative available to them unless they invest in new equipment or drastically change their channel line-ups.

Yeah, that seems like a much better solution than opening up the cable networks to multiple providers, where the CONSUMER would be the one who could choose between providers, knowing that they would NOT have to invest in different equipment, or have new installation work done...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> So you're defending something you don't like, for the only reasons that 1) it's decided by politicians, and thus must be the will of the people, and 2) since it is currently like this, we shouldn't do anything to change it


No. Rather, based solely on principle -- because it is their RIGHT to operate as they see fit. I wouldn't want anyone telling _me_ that I cannot operate in a manner which is both 1) legal and 2) is in my company's best long-term interest.

If you have such animosity towards your representatives in government, then replace them. There is no massive conspiracy. There is no underground power base that oppresses you.



MickeS said:


> That's how I understand it. Makes very little sense to me.


No doubt, but is that perhaps just because you don't care to defend principles, and only want to defend what serves your own best interest? Just asking. You're surely entitled to do so. However, if that isn't it.... if you want me to show respect for your perspective, you had better show respect for mine.



MickeS said:


> Do you think people only vote for politicians they agree 100% with?


I think people vote for representatives who they feel will represent them the best. No question that our sensationalistic media has made politics into a grand cesspool, but they didn't do it alone. We did it to ourselves. Now we have to live with the consequences instead of belly-aching and whining about them.

It's all a matter of accepting our own responsibility instead of trying to blame others.



MickeS said:


> So what DOES matter? Should I put the cable company's needs before my own?


No -- in terms of "right" and "wrong" you put them on the same level as your own, and grant them the right to make the best decisions for themselves, among the available legal alternatives, as you would want to be able to make the best decision for yourself, among the available legal alternatives.



MickeS said:


> I can't interpret that statement to mean anything else in this context.


Perhaps because to do so would undercut your objection to what I'm saying, and you don't want to undercut your own argument, so you refuse to see the rational explanation that clearly exists there.



MickeS said:


> OTA: very few channels, can not compete with the offerings from cable cable: no choice of provider, you have to take what's given satellite: basically only 2 available, consumer can not use third-party equipment such as TiVo Series 3, will not broadcast local HD channels IPTV: this I don't know enough about yet, except that it's not available in most areas.


You respond to this as if your own personal situation and personal preferences matters. They don't. Mine don't either. What matters is that every municipality in the country has more than one choice. And what we see even here in Burlington, with four or five choices, is that extra choices don't affect what's offered much -- because competition is already doing its job.



MickeS said:


> So really, you're saying that the cable subscribers should shut up and stop complaining, or drop cable, only to have no other alternative available to them unless they invest in new equipment or drastically change their channel line-ups.


Put up or shut up, sure -- you can put it that way if you wish. Either accept what you're offered or reject it. What the heck makes you think you have a right to have any more power than REJECTING???? Not even the President of the United States has the line item veto. Rejecting an offer is an incredible amount of power, and granting consumers any more power than that would be utterly unfair to business. But that's what you want, evidently... you don't want a fair market -- you want the advantage. And that's your right to want, and our government's solemn obligation to deny.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Yawn. I think I've heard this record before.

Maybe it's time for a change.


----------



## wolflord11 (Jan 17, 2007)

Stu_Bee said:


> Back to the original topic of this post.
> 
> I don't see how Tivo could still sell any DT Series 2's in these markets. Since the analog would only carry local stations, Tivo would have to educate the public too much (ie set proper expectations) to make it worthwhile.
> 
> I don't know if many people would buy a product (Tivo DT S2) whose main trump is the ability to record two channels at once....when one of those channels can only be probably one of 4 stations.


Tivo still sells the Series 2 ST and DT for us Sat users, since the Series 3 is only for you Cable users.

As for another question, there is NO Cable receiver (Non DVR) that has Two Feeds to two different TV's and has independant viewing.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> No. Rather, based solely on principle -- because it is their RIGHT to operate as they see fit. I wouldn't want anyone telling me that I cannot operate in a manner which is both 1) legal and 2) is in my company's best long-term interest.


 Bull **** The cable industry is still a regulated monopoly - whatever the FCC rules require is the law - and that's the terms these companies agreed to when they went into the cable business.

All of your arguments only applied to unregulated industries. If you would like to a argue that the cable industry should no longer be regulated fine, that maybe the direction we are headed - but the cable industry is still regulated so most of what you are saying doesn't apply to these companies.

Thanks,


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> No. Rather, based solely on principle -- because it is their RIGHT to operate as they see fit. I wouldn't want anyone telling _me_ that I cannot operate in a manner which is both 1) legal and 2) is in my company's best long-term interest.


When they buy the land over which their plant traverses (or the airwaves cease to be a public resource which they use in the case of OTA and Satellite companies), they can stop being subject to public regulation beyond safety issues. As long as they are using our common property to provide their service, they are subject to any restrictions we choose to place on their use of said property.

Perhaps you would like them to be able to use your land/airwaves without any sort of compensation, whether monetary or in the form of rules regarding their operation, but I think you're in a distinct minority there.

Similarly, I'm in a minority of people who think public access channels are awesome.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Why not argue against what I really *did* say instead of making up stuff that is easier for you to argue against? It's called intellectual integrity -- you should check into it.
> 
> Rather, what I said was that people can now choose between OTA, cable companies, satellite broadcasters, and IPTV broadcasters, depending on what's available in each municipality. I haven't said anything about YOU personally -- you don't matter, not at all, and neither do I. People who think their own personal situation ("I'm behind a tree"  ) matters need to check their self-centeredness at the door. It does not serve them well -- it does NOTHING other than foster their dissatisfaction.


the quote from Bicker I was talking about


bicker said:


> Better _for whom_?
> 
> If folks want cable to be regulated, then they should have the balls to elect leaders to government who will do it, definitively and absolutely -- pro-economy Republicans and Democrats be damned. If folks want cable to be a vibrant, healthy market, with ever-improving service offerings, then they should have the balls to trust the market to provide the best offerings that are most profitable.


hmm, looks like cable was being specifically discussed to me. but I guess talking about free markets just gets harder when cable is indeed regulated adn the fine folks on Comcast in Chicago can just deal with digital cable only or else move to Satallite or OTA or IPTV - yah that sounds like great solutions for those who want to stay on analog cable, but Iguess they are just self centered to want a provider able to compete who sees an oppurtunity to make a profit from offering such service. Of course without any fear of such a competitor cable companies can say, here is how your cable will work - deal with it since this is your only cable option

Media services in this country arer anything but free market and I think it is indeed consumers who have suffered as a result. But if you wnat me to cry for cable and Sat companies who openly work to restrict open access standards for fear of having to compete than the delusion is not mine.


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

bicker, your user name certainly does describe you well.

1.	to engage in petulant or peevish argument; wrangle

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bicker

weirdo hit it dead on the head. Comcast lays down cable on/under public and private land. I have a Comcast box that is either partially on my property or wholly on my neighbor's property (it is very close to the line). If my neighbor cancels Comcast service (which I have already done because I have Verizon FiOS), he/we do not have the right to remove Comcast's box even though it is on our collective property.



wierdo said:


> When they buy the land over which their plant traverses (or the airwaves cease to be a public resource which they use in the case of OTA and Satellite companies), they can stop being subject to public regulation beyond safety issues. As long as they are using our common property to provide their service, they are subject to any restrictions we choose to place on their use of said property.
> 
> Perhaps you would like them to be able to use your land/airwaves without any sort of compensation, whether monetary or in the form of rules regarding their operation, but I think you're in a distinct minority there.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Bull **** The cable industry is still a regulated monopoly


And a for-profit business with an undeniable right to operate as they see fit within the confines of those regulations. Did you miss the word "legal" in my message? Or did your vision get blurry from having uttered an expletive. 

Also, businesses have an undeniable right to oppose regulation where it is no longer relevant.



atmuscarella said:


> All of your arguments only applied to unregulated industries.


No. What I wrote applies to all businesses.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wierdo said:


> When they buy the land over which their plant traverses (or the airwaves cease to be a public resource which they use in the case of OTA and Satellite companies), they can stop being subject to public regulation beyond safety issues.


That's irrelevant to what we're discussing. Has anyone in this thread complained about them not carrying the public access channel for the high school? People are complaining about them doing things that the regulations ALLOW them to do.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> but I guess talking about free markets just gets harder when cable is indeed regulated


And that's the incredible unfairness of it: They're regulated, yet their competitors are not. I worked for AT&T back in the mid 1980s. What an incredible bit of unfairness: We were regulated, and had to financially support our competitors, while they could do whatever they wanted. Some really messed-up logic there.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Iguess they are just self centered to want a provider able to compete who sees an oppurtunity to make a profit from offering such service.


If there is enough profit to be made, then fine. People aren't morally entitled to extract a pound of flesh from service providers just because life is tough. If the people think there is enough profit to be made, let the city start its own service provider, playing on the same level playing field as the rest, and see how well it does.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Media services in this country arer anything but free market and I think it is indeed consumers who have suffered as a result.


Regulation doesn't create a free market. It stifles innovation.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bilbo said:


> weirdo hit it dead on the head. Comcast lays down cable on/under public and private land.


And so the government has the right to set standards for use of rights-of-way, and even get a few freebies, but the rampant abuse of those privilege is despicable. States must take that right away from municipalities, because municipalities can no longer be trusted.

And the People have a vested interest in allowing commercial enterprises rights-of-way, allowing both sustenance level regulated offerings and a wide array of premium unregulated offerings.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the quote from Bicker I was talking about


And the quote from you I was talking about was


> it seems Bicker is saying I can now choose between comcast and TWC and etc...


 I never said that. You just made something up that was easy to argue against.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> And the quote from you I was talking about was I never said that. You just made something up that was easy to argue against.


I was poking a sarcastic comment at your free market comment.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Too bad you missed the mark, then, eh?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker: 

I am not going to quote the statements you made but the cable industry and thus cable companies are not allowed to operate like an unregulated industry/company. The cable industry/cable companies are allowed to exist/operate under law to benefit the public, not just the stock holders/owners. This is fundamentally different than unregulated industries/companies. 

From you statements, I can only surmise that you do not believe the cable industry should still be heavily regulated and that there is sufficient competition to allow market forces to drive the industry instead of government regulations. If this is the case we do not agree as I do not see the amount of competition to be any ware near sufficient to remove government regulations and over site. However I do believe the industry is moving in the direction that may allow the market to drive the industry instead of the government at some point in the future. Of course we could also discuss if the FCC/the current administration does anything to benefit the general public or if it actually exists to serve the needs of a very narrow segment of the population by screwing the general public  but that is another conversation. 

Thanks,


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> <free market rules>


You really manage to say a lot without saying anything at all.

I asked specific questions, about this specific situation, and you go on about the free market and bla bla. I take back my question about you working for the cable company - you must be a politican. 



> You respond to this as if your own personal situation and personal preferences matters. They don't. Mine don't either. What matters is that every municipality in the country has more than one choice. And what we see even here in Burlington, with four or five choices, is that extra choices don't affect what's offered much -- because competition is already doing its job.


So when you want to use your Series 3 to record the 4 big networks high-definition programming, you have 4 or 5 choices of providers?

When you see ads for competing cable companies, other than the one who happens to provide service to your house, then you can just switch cable company?

Great, but I can't.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Bicker seems to have a strong opinion in favor of telecommunications deregulation. That's fine, his opinion is just as valid as anybody else's, but doesn't that almost necessarily imply that any opinion he has on regulation be formulated with an eye toward getting rid of the regulation, rather than how to best and most fairly use regulation of the industry?

It's kind of like asking someone who thinks Social Security should be dismantled how best to keep it going...

Also, bicker, even if nobody else was, I'm arguing in favor of the regulations being changed in a way that the public gets what they want.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

wierdo said:


> Bicker seems to have a strong opinion in favor of telecommunications deregulation. That's fine, his opinion is just as valid as anybody else's, but doesn't that almost necessarily imply that any opinion he has on regulation be formulated with an eye toward getting rid of the regulation, rather than how to best and most fairly use regulation of the industry?
> 
> It's kind of like asking someone who thinks Social Security should be dismantled how best to keep it going...
> 
> Also, bicker, even if nobody else was, I'm arguing in favor of the regulations being changed in a way that the public gets what they want.


That's the thing - I am in favor of "de-regulation" if you can call it that, that will open up competition in the local cable markets on the consumer level, not just on the municipal level. Today, the cable companies just have to please the local politicians, and then they get their little monopoly. I know they are competing with satellite - but why should that be MY problem? I want to make the choice of cable provider - I don't want the politicians to make that choice for me.

I don't know bicker's position on this - but I don't see how why he would be against it.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

I'm in favor of more competition (U-Verse, FiOS, whatever), but not in favor of deregulation. Regulation doesn't mean monopoly.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Well how can this be? After all the Tivo Die Hards kept telling us that the Dual Tuner was all wonderful and that Analog would never go away.

Ha!

(Yes, I have a DT and it is nice, but if they think Comcast is the only one who's gonna do this, I think they're in for a rude awakening).


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

To be fair, it's unlikely that the analog broadcast stations will go away before the OTA cutover, and probably longer if the FCC allows the cable companies to downconvert ATSC to NTSC.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

MickeS said:


> That's the thing - I am in favor of "de-regulation" if you can call it that, that will open up competition in the local cable markets on the consumer level, not just on the municipal level. Today, the cable companies just have to please the local politicians, and then they get their little monopoly. I know they are competing with satellite - but why should that be MY problem? I want to make the choice of cable provider - I don't want the politicians to make that choice for me.
> 
> I don't know bicker's position on this - but I don't see how why he would be against it.


Keep in mind that overbuilding is always an option. Look at WOW in Denver. It's just expensive to run new lines and build a plant, but no one seems to realize this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I am not going to quote the statements you made but the cable industry and thus cable companies are not allowed to operate like an unregulated industry/company.


For that which they're regulated, of course not. For premium services, they should indeed be allowed to.



atmuscarella said:


> The cable industry/cable companies are allowed to exist/operate under law to benefit the public, not just the stock holders/owners.


And the provision of basic cable, lifeline cable, more than satisfies that requirement.



atmuscarella said:


> If this is the case we do not agree as I do not see the amount of competition to be any ware near sufficient to remove government regulations and over site.


Luckily, more and more people disagree, and now whole states will be relieving cable operators of the sometimes-corrupt control of small municipalities, and allow them to compete for premium services in a reasonable manner.



atmuscarella said:


> However I do believe the industry is moving in the direction that may allow the market to drive the industry instead of the government at some point in the future.


Absolutely, and long-time-coming.



atmuscarella said:


> Of course we could also discuss if the FCC/the current administration does anything to benefit the general public or if it actually exists to serve the needs of a very narrow segment of the population by screwing the general public  but that is another conversation.


No, I don't think it is a different conversation. I think that's the problem with the arguments against my perspective: too much of a sense of entitlement on the part of some customers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> You really manage to say a lot without saying anything at all.


No. I say a lot without saying things in a manner that makes it easy for people to take cheap pot-shots at what I say, without resorting to arguing against things I didn't say, or just resorting to personal attacks. I'm sick and tired of people making up stuff that they claim I said and then bashing me for having said those things.  So I don't make that possible. I word my messages to make it very clear when people are doing that. If you don't like it, you don't need to reply.



MickeS said:


> I asked specific questions, about this specific situation


In other words, you asked me loaded questions attempting to trap me into saying something that you would find easier to argue against.

I'm here to make MY points, not YOURS. 



MickeS said:


> So when you want to use your Series 3 to record the 4 big networks high-definition programming, you have 4 or 5 choices of providers?


I have at least four, and my neighbors across the fence have five, services they can subscribe to that will support recording of HD programming.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wierdo said:


> It's kind of like asking someone who thinks Social Security should be dismantled how best to keep it going...


That's actually a great analogy.



wierdo said:


> Also, bicker, even if nobody else was, I'm arguing in favor of the regulations being changed in a way that the public gets what they want.


In other words, socialism. I say that because what folks are advocating in this thread are NOT things that the public wants, it is things that consumers want. BIG difference.

Anyway, that's your prerogative. I vote for capitalism. May the best perspective win come next November. (Oh wait! All the candidate running for President next year, from BOTH parties, are pro-business!!!  Oops.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I want to make the choice of cable provider - I don't want the politicians to make that choice for me. I don't know bicker's position on this - but I don't see how why he would be against it.


As long as you don't force the incumbent to support the new entrants, either financially or via requiring the incumbent to carry the new entrants' service on their facilities, then I'm all in favor of what you're suggesting. :up:


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker, 

I dont actually think there are many people on this forum that support true socialism, sum of use just dont trust capitalism as much as you do. 

I trust capitalism to be innovative, socially beneficial and the best economic system when there are open markets, the potential for true competition, and sufficient government oversight. I also trust capitalism to be potentially evil, inefficient, or corrupt when markets are not open, competition is insufficient, or government oversight is lacking, corrupt or over burdensome. 

I think what the right mix of open markets, competition and government oversight is or even means makes for a good discussion. I also believe that if everyone on an opinion forum agreed, the forum would be fairly boring and useless. So thanks for your differing views. 

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> As long as you don't force the incumbent to support the new entrants, either financially or via requiring the incumbent to carry the new entrants' service on their facilities, then I'm all in favor of what you're suggesting. :up:


and that is the problem. Cable companies were given monopoly control in an area as it was expensive to build out the cable plant and the cable company needed that ability to derive as much revenue as possible from the build out. This is the same reason Ma Bell had a regulated national monopoly for so long. A legal monopoly requires regulation to make sure the monopoly status is not used against the consumer of that service. 
I now have a small choice of phone companies but I can only choose TWC for cable service, or else DISH or DirectTV. No FIOS or Uverse options where I live now. Since there is no cable competition I want the cable company to be regulated on how they provide service. The Satellite competition has indeed made the cable companies change some policies (like installation charges) but there are still many issues like cable cards, analog vs digital, fees, customer service, etc.. that the cable companies simply do not compete on and why I think they need regulation on these areas still.

so Bicker,if you want deregulation then we need a level of good choices in more than just your local area. That was behind my sarcastic comment and you need to show how many areas with just one cable choice would benefit from deregulation. And simply saying they can switch to a sat company is just not good enough


----------



## BrianEWilliams (Apr 15, 2002)

In the long run, regulation doesn't create optimal conditions. Let's say Microsoft were allowed to run wild with its Windows monopoly. Eventually, people would become so dissatisfied that a true alternative would emerge. By crippling Microsoft's predatory behavior, people end up more likely to use Windows 20 years down the road than they would be otherwise.

Similarly, if cable companies were allowed to charge whatever they want and change service anyway they want, eventually people would demand and receive alternatives faster than will happen under regulation.

This is a subtle argument, and I don't expect everyone to grasp it. I don't believe it has been advanced before, but I could easily be wrong.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BrianEWilliams said:


> In the long run, regulation doesn't create optimal conditions. Let's say Microsoft were allowed to run wild with its Windows monopoly. Eventually, people would become so dissatisfied that a true alternative would emerge. By crippling Microsoft's predatory behavior, people end up more likely to use Windows 20 years down the road than they would be otherwise.
> 
> Similarly, if cable companies were allowed to charge whatever they want and change service anyway they want, eventually people would demand and receive alternatives faster than will happen under regulation.
> 
> This is a subtle argument, and I don't expect everyone to grasp it. I don't believe it has been advanced before, but I could easily be wrong.


uumm - Microsoft is allowed to run wild with its hold on the majority of PCs used. any attempts at curbing it have basically failed saved for fines that Micorosft just chalks up in the cost of business column.

So you argue to let cable companies just do whatever they want with their business model and people will have enough of it after a time. I think it would just be the microsoft model again where people would just take whatever they get or else steal service in some form. Competiton would have to find a new way into the home because building out their own cable infrastructure is way too costly. That is Satellite or FIOS currently.


----------



## pokegol (Feb 24, 2003)

I just want my analog cable. Its going to suck for me when they switch us out in the burbs at the end of next year. How the heck am I going to hook up 3 TiVo's to 3 boxes in one room? If I could even do it, I don't have room for 3 cable boxes.

It just sucks.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

Here's the other part of the analog issue -- viewer control and subscription fees.

Back in the wild old days, you had to have the cable box from the cable company so you could see your pictures on that TV. You were beholden to the company to get that box, and had to pay them for it.

Years go by, and you start getting analog cable tuners in TV's (they were cheaper/FCC demanded it/whatever). Soon, you could go buy a cheap TV, put it in another room, run a splitter in your attic, and people could watch more than one TV. Now, the cable company wasn't fond of this at all, but they really could do f-all about it if you were running your own cable. (Specifically because they will STILL try to hit you with, at least in my area, a $19 "port activation fee" for each room if you aren't careful)

Then they ushered in the digital age.

And what we've seen is thus:
(a) You are again beholden to the cable company to get your tuner boxes (...or cablecards...or activate a digital tuner box in the future, etc).
(b) They *will* cheerfully return to charging you as much as possible, whether for each box or under a "digital access fee" or other name, in this case even though you may be watching on the _same TV_. (S3 hooked up to a CC-ready TV, fo rinstance)

And we're back to Square One, TiVo or not.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *BrianEWilliams*
> In the long run, regulation doesn't create optimal conditions. Let's say Microsoft were allowed to run wild with its Windows monopoly. Eventually, people would become so dissatisfied that a true alternative would emerge. By crippling Microsoft's predatory behavior, people end up more likely to use Windows 20 years down the road than they would be otherwise.
> 
> Similarly, if cable companies were allowed to charge whatever they want and change service anyway they want, eventually people would demand and receive alternatives faster than will happen under regulation.
> ...


I guess we see the world differently, one of Microsoft's worst offences was forcing PC manufactures to purchase and install windows for/on every PC they made. If Microsoft has been allowed to truly run wild and continue this process the only software you would be running on a PC now would be from Microsoft and there wouldn't ever be a company with enough time and money to develop and sell a complete software and hardware platform to complete with them. The cable industry is a little different in that there actually are potential competitors.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> I guess we see the world differently, one of Microsoft's worst offences was forcing PC manufactures to purchase and install windows for/on every PC they made. If Microsoft has been allowed to truly run wild and continue this process the only software you would be running on a PC now would be from Microsoft and there wouldn't ever be a company with enough time and money to develop and sell a complete software and hardware platform to complete with them. The cable industry is a little different in that there actually are potential competitors.
> 
> Thanks,


Microsoft did that with license agreements - and while it has gotten slightly less expensive for PC makers in that they only pay for PCs that windows is installed on - note how few PCs have anything else. Also note how Winodws MCE adn now Vista quickly ended up on the new PCs and you are the odd man out if you want an older version of Windows for some reason - like your apps will run on it 

anyhow this is bout digital cable in Chicago - I just think the argument of letting cable companies go wild is not proven by how Microsoft has been allowed to won the desktop and not much has changed


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

pokegol said:


> How the heck am I going to hook up 3 TiVo's to 3 boxes in one room?


Either serial or IR tents.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

classicsat said:


> Either serial or IR tents.


If consumers were going to need STBs for each TV then they will likely use the cheapest STB possible to tune digital signals. It looks like the Moto DCT-700 does not have a serial connection on the back.

http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

bilbo said:


> "The vast majority of our Chicago customers already have digital service, but for the customers with basic service, they will get a new box," he [Eric Schaefer, vice president of business development (for Comcast)] said.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704050706apr06,0,2945392.story?coll=chi-business-hed
> 
> ...


I have always thought the words, 'most' and 'majority' are too vague, yet they are used repeatedly. IIRC, Comcast Chicago has a higher than average number of Digital subs, possibly ~2/3, although I wouldn't call that vast, if that is the case, but maybe it is even more; of course, vast is subjective, as you said.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

RBlount said:


> An additional wrinkle in this is how many of the "digital" subscribers have a SINGLE digital box but have their 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, etc) TV (and/or Tivos) connected to analog? A better statistic would be the actual number of digital boxes compared to all CE devices connected to cable.


So true; I bet almost everyone will need at least one Digital Box.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

ah30k said:


> If consumers were going to need STBs for each TV then they will likely use the cheapest STB possible to tune digital signals. It looks like the Moto DCT-700 does not have a serial connection on the back.
> 
> http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/dct700/


That is right. Last I heard, in Motorola areas, the only simple STB they would deploy would be the DCT-700.


----------



## greygoose (Dec 24, 2005)

QZ1 said:


> That is right. Last I heard, in Motorola areas, the only simple STB they would deploy would be the DCT-700.


Wow, something on topic.


----------



## bilbo (Dec 7, 2004)

wow, that dct-700 looks like a turd. the only outputs are coaxial output or composite audio & video? will comcast give you a free rental of a vcr with it, too?

come on, s-video has been around for about seven years, and it looks like motorola designed a sleek looking box that looks like it might only be a year or two old, but it should be on the clearance shelf at radio shack.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

bilbo said:


> wow, that dct-700 looks like a turd. the only outputs are coaxial output or composite audio & video? will comcast give you a free rental of a vcr with it, too?
> 
> come on, s-video has been around for about seven years, and it looks like motorola designed a sleek looking box that looks like it might only be a year or two old, but it should be on the clearance shelf at radio shack.


Yes, but imagine the scene between Motorola and Comcast. It would go something like this...



> Comcast: We want to buy a billion digital STBs that will go with every TV in our viewing area. It must have RF input, composite output and remodulated RF output. Period.
> 
> Moto: Great, we'd love to bid on it.
> 
> Comcast: We only want to pay $5.37 for the whole unit (totally made up, but you get the point) and we really don't care what it looks like. Take it or leave it?


So far, with just RF and composite outputs, you are sitting at BOM costs of $5.30 and looking at a miserable margin that is going to ruin your yearly bonus. Would you put in an S-Video output?

If consumers want higher end STBs, they can get them (for a fee).

I know this unit is not the greatest, but it serves its purpose. It receives digital cable, can use a guide app, can tune PPV and on-Demand, and almost everything the higher end HD and HD-DVR units can do (except the obvious HD and DVR functions). I'd guess that most homes don't use SVideo anyway. Hell, I was just helping a neighbor out who had two inputs connected together and the cable feed lying on the floor behind the entertainment center. He wondered why the cable wasn't working.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I dont actually think there are many people on this forum that support true socialism, sum of use just dont trust capitalism as much as you do.


In for a penny, in for a pound.



atmuscarella said:


> So thanks for your differing views.


Ditto. :up:


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and that is the problem. Cable companies were given monopoly control in an area as it was expensive to build out the cable plant and the cable company needed that ability to derive as much revenue as possible from the build out.


Yet they still had to pay for the build-out. It's their physical plant. It uses public rights-of-way so the people have that service option -- the public is thereby served. Subsequent competitors should also pay for their own physical plant, and the public allow it rights-of-way so that the people have additional service options.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I now have a small choice of phone companies but I can only choose TWC for cable service, or else DISH or DirectTV.


_Three_ choices. :up: And in many towns, many of their residents have even more choices -- and benefit from even more competition. :up: :up:



ZeoTiVo said:


> The Satellite competition has indeed made the cable companies change some policies (like installation charges) but there are still many issues like cable cards


Yeah! Why aren't you ragging on the satellite companies about their refusal to open their networks to privately-owned CE? Why aren't you trying to get them to be required to support CableCard-like standards?



ZeoTiVo said:


> analog vs digital


Please explain how cable and satellite differ in this regard, given that my cable company doesn't compress its HD signal, while the satellite providers do.



ZeoTiVo said:


> fees, customer service, etc.. that the cable companies simply do not compete on and why I think they need regulation on these areas still.


Fees? Customer service? You mean that the satellite companies don't have fees? and they don't provide customer service? So the cable companies have no competition in either regard????? I think that's silly. I bet you *simply don't like* the cost or the level of service you get -- prices and a level of service that are commensurate with what is normal and reasonable in today's marketplace. Look around. Every forum about every topic complains about prices and customer service, as if low prices and great service were Constitutional rights, instead of reflections of what the market is willing to reward companies for providing. Fees and customer service are such red herrings in this discussion.



ZeoTiVo said:


> so Bicker,if you want deregulation then we need a level of good choices in more than just your local area.


You already have three choices. That is one choice more than enough.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BrianEWilliams said:


> Similarly, if cable companies were allowed to charge whatever they want and change service anyway they want, eventually people would demand and receive alternatives faster than will happen under regulation.
> 
> This is a subtle argument, and I don't expect everyone to grasp it.


It is a shame, but I bet you're correct about that. I suspect you'll encounter resistance to what you're suggesting here because it requires consumers to be accountable for their own actions as consumers. It cuts the legs out under the blame mentality that many use to ignore the consumer's own responsibly with regard to getting what they want. It is easier to blame than to acknowledge reality.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yet they still had to pay for the build-out. It's their physical plant. It uses public rights-of-way so the people have that service option -- the public is thereby served. Subsequent competitors should also pay for their own physical plant, and the public allow it rights-of-way so that the people have additional service options.


 yep, the cable company paid for the build out and that is why they, the cable company asked for regulation. In order to invest that kind of money they needed to be able to count on a certain subscriber base. Thus they made deals that turned into regulation to ensure they had monopoly in the build out areas. If you unregulated things there would be no new competition in the cable provider rank and Satellite and FIOS are in the mix becuase they circumvent such a build out of a cable plant. unless deregulation meant more *cable company choices* I have no interest in it and your argument does not hold water.


> _Three_ choices. :up: And in many towns, many of their residents have even more choices -- and benefit from even more competition. :up: :up:


 3 choices? I can get cable and deal with whatever they decide to do or support them being regulated to protect consumer interests. Or I can choose among 2 Sat companies that are even more closed off and can do whatever they choose to do including making an HD DVR many spent good money on, non functioning. As you note below sat companies dodged making there access an open standard for 3rd parties and I have no interest in that choice. My only rational choice is to support regualtion of the cable company industry and push for Sat to open up. You make the argument for me  


> Yeah! Why aren't you ragging on the satellite companies about their refusal to open their networks to privately-owned CE? Why aren't you trying to get them to be required to support CableCard-like standards?
> 
> Please explain how cable and satellite differ in this regard, given that my cable company doesn't compress its HD signal, while the satellite providers do.


 see above


> Fees? Customer service? You mean that the satellite companies don't have fees? and they don't provide customer service? So the cable companies have no competition in either regard????? I think that's silly. I bet you *simply don't like* the cost or the level of service you get -- prices and a level of service that are commensurate with what is normal and reasonable in today's marketplace. Look around. Every forum about every topic complains about prices and customer service, as if low prices and great service were Constitutional rights, instead of reflections of what the market is willing to reward companies for providing. Fees and customer service are such red herrings in this discussion.


 fine enough. I am fine with paying 45$ for extended basic cable. along with my S2 DT TiVo DVR's it gives me a great value and flexibility vs digital cable or sat provider. Why then am I just selfish to want to keep that?


> You already have three choices. That is one choice more than enough.


 you yourself in the post I quote show that to be wrong.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It is a shame, but I bet you're correct about that. I suspect you'll encounter resistance to what you're suggesting here because it requires consumers to be accountable for their own actions as consumers. It cuts the legs out under the blame mentality that many use to ignore the consumer's own responsibly with regard to getting what they want. It is easier to blame than to acknowledge reality.


if you truly thought that deregulation would mean other cable companies would be able to provide service to my house and thus had to compete with each other than I would see your argument. 
if instead you mean deregualtion would just speed up the spread of Satellite providers and FIOS then what is the point? Why would I wnat to endure the pain of my cable company having free reign while I wait for FIOS since Satellite providers would have to do even less to compete and could continue there totally closed off proprietary setup?


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

bilbo said:


> wow, that dct-700 looks like a turd. the only outputs are coaxial output or composite audio & video? will comcast give you a free rental of a vcr with it, too?
> 
> come on, s-video has been around for about seven years, and it looks like motorola designed a sleek looking box that looks like it might only be a year or two old, but it should be on the clearance shelf at radio shack.


Yes, the DCT-700 has been around for about a year. Actually, they wanted a small box so it could be placed in any and all locations in the home. One could argue it could have been dark silver like the HD and DVRs, but so be it.

As for S-video, it been around a lot longer, we have a Mitsubishi TV from 17 years ago with S-video!
Granted it was one of the first with it, but others followed fairly soon.

Heck, they could put Component on an SD box, but S-video would have sufficed.
They look at it as RF is the standard for this box, and Composite/Stereo are the upgraded connections.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

ah30k said:


> So far, with just RF and composite outputs, you are sitting at BOM costs of $5.30 and looking at a miserable margin that is going to ruin your yearly bonus. Would you put in an S-Video output?
> 
> If consumers want higher end STBs, they can get them (for a fee).


Exactly, for a fee; but in Motorola areas, the only choice above a DCT-700 SD box is the 6200 HD box, or 6412/16 & 3412/16 for HD/SD DVR. (I was told actually that they are supposedly giving HD non-DVR subs, a 6400 or 3400 series HD DVR with DVR functions disabled, rather than a 6200.) The point is there are no other SD box choices anymore.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Isn't there a FCC requirement that all new cable STBs use cable card after a certain date - I think some time this summer? If so the manufacture of all existing cable STBs & DVRs sound be coming to an end. 

Thanks,


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Isn't there a FCC requirement that all new cable STBs use cable card after a certain date - I think some time this summer? If so the manufacture of all existing cable STBs & DVRs sound be coming to an end.


Yes, as of 1 July all new STBs must use removable security, thus CableCard. 
Somebody said, once a box is deployed and returned, they can re-issue it, but I don't know if that is true.
I do know that boxes in homes can stay in use by a given customer.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> unless deregulation meant more *cable company choices* I have no interest in it and your argument does not hold water.


Good thing that less regulation will encourage competition. Whew! That was close. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> 3 choices?


Yes. Three choices.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Or I can choose among 2 Sat companies that are even more closed off


Ask yourself why.

This is all about reality Z. Reality, not personal preference. You want it all, of course -- but that's not a reasonable expectation.



ZeoTiVo said:


> As you note below sat companies dodged making there access an open standard for 3rd parties


Ask yourself why.

Again, it is about reality, not personal preference.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> if you truly thought ....


Are you channeling the Amazing Kreskin?



ZeoTiVo said:


> if instead you mean deregualtion would just speed up the spread of Satellite providers and FIOS then what is the point?


More choices, more competition, more innovation, etc.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Why would I wnat to...


It isn't all about you.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yep, the cable company paid for the build out and that is why they, the cable company asked for regulation. In order to invest that kind of money they needed to be able to count on a certain subscriber base. Thus they made deals that turned into regulation to ensure they had monopoly in the build out areas. If you unregulated things there would be no new competition in the cable provider rank and Satellite and FIOS are in the mix becuase they circumvent such a build out of a cable plant. unless deregulation meant more *cable company choices* I have no interest in it and your argument does not hold water.
> 3 choices? I can get cable and deal with whatever they decide to do or support them being regulated to protect consumer interests. Or I can choose among 2 Sat companies that are even more closed off and can do whatever they choose to do including making an HD DVR many spent good money on, non functioning. As you note below sat companies dodged making there access an open standard for 3rd parties and I have no interest in that choice. My only rational choice is to support regualtion of the cable company industry and push for Sat to open up. You make the argument for me
> see above
> fine enough. I am fine with paying 45$ for extended basic cable. along with my S2 DT TiVo DVR's it gives me a great value and flexibility vs digital cable or sat provider. Why then am I just selfish to want to keep that?
> you yourself in the post I quote show that to be wrong.


Um, most areas do not have exclusive franchise agreements. You could walk into Seattle and get a franchise agreement and build your plant.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Good thing that less regulation will encourage competition. Whew! That was close.
> 
> Yes. Three choices.
> 
> ...


the reality is you are not even answering anymore - just going for personal attacks. Guess that shows the reality of your argument.

Like smark says - even in places where you can come and build your own cable plant - no one really wants to do that, there is better ROI elsewhere.

So again I ask just exactly in reality what kind of competition is deregulating the cable industry going to get us??????


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the reality is you are not even answering anymore - just going for personal attacks. Guess that shows the reality of your argument.
> 
> Like smark says - even in places where you can come and build your own cable plant - no one really wants to do that, there is better ROI elsewhere.
> 
> So again I ask just exactly in reality what kind of competition is deregulating the cable industry going to get us??????


In my county,there's a choice of 3 "cable" companies (Comcast, RCN, Verizon), 2 satellite companies, and I can receive OTA from both Baltimore and Washington. Competition is coming, though as always it will come slowly and unevenly.

And to complain about only one supplier by arguing that another supplier coming in won't make any money contradicts your other arguments. It implies the monopoly community is currently being fairly well served by its one supplier, else that wouldn't be true.

Bicker did not start the personal attacks. I find it very unlike you, ZeoTiVo, to complain about his attacks while giving a free pass to those who rather viciously attacked him first.

I don't agree with all of Bicker's arguments, and have had a least one heated discussion with him in the past, but he doesn't deserve the personal abuse he's gotten in this thread.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Actually I was more supporting Bicker. There is generally nothing stopping another company from coming in and overbuilding besides them not wanting to spend money.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bicker, - so little time and so many responses needed I think I will pick this one:


> I suspect you'll encounter resistance to what you're suggesting here because it requires consumers to be accountable for their own actions as consumers.


First lets look at an industry were the market is actually working correctly. I will use the production of TVs.

There are many competing manufactures and technologies
The consumer is offered a broad range of products and options at many price points. 
Producers are innovative, continually developing better products at reduced costs.
Large dominant producers can easily be displaced if they do not produce what the consumer wants - think Sony a few years back trying to push CRTs when the consumers wanted LCD/Plasma/DLP HD sets. 

In the TV manufacturing business the consumer is driving the market - the TV manufactures are focused on one thing producing a product the consumer wants at a price point the consumer is willing to pay for it - if they do it well they make money if they don't they go out of business.

Does the cable/satellite business look anything like this? Not from where I sit. The cable/satellite industry really serves the entertainment industry ahead of the end consumer. I understand their desire to use their core product (programming) to leverage other products, however if a company can force this, it clearly means to me there is inadequate competition.

So now we can get to what I quoted from you, just exactly what actions should the consumer be taking to be accountable? Not purchase any programing? In my opinion the only action a consumer has to be willing to take to expect a producer to produce the product they want is to pay for it. As an example I want Dishnetwork to sell me programing - I am willing to pay for the programing no problem - what I don't want is to be force to use their STB/DVR to view the programing.

The problem with cable/satellite companies and the entertainment business in general is that don't just want us to pay for their product they also want to tell us how and when to use it. Just think about this absurd example; you go an buy a box of tissues and then the company that made the tissues tells you when and how you can blow your nose.  Well that is exactly the way cable/satellite companies operate, until this stops I will not believe there is adequate competition.

Thanks,


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

smark said:


> Um, most areas do not have exclusive franchise agreements. You could walk into Seattle and get a franchise agreement and build your plant.


sorry to drag this more off topic but since this seems to be the competition thread at the moment....

was that how it was originally years ago?

Or did cable get an initial exclusive in exchange for covering the whole town (or the whole town above a certain density)?

I was under that impression that originally they got an exclusive so they could be relatively assured of getting enough business to make their capital outlay worth the time and effort- was that not the case?

One thing that I don't totally understand is overbuilding- what is the big barrier? Verizon is essentially rebuilding their entire network. They are abandoning their twisted pair and running a new fresh fiber line to each and every premise so they can offer triple play. So how is that any different from RCN running a new coax to each and every house in a town and then offering triple play over coax?

It SEEMS that the holdup isn't actually running the physical wires but it's more of creating a presence.

As an example I am in NJ but by a twisted bit of fate I'm served by the armpit of phone company's- embarq (nee sprint before they dumped it when they merged with Nextel). My area is affluent to the point that comcast just paid our local rinky dink cable company the second highest price per sub to buy the cable system. So there's money to be made here . The next town over has Verizon and is getting fios. So by all logic why wouldn't verizon just run fiber to my town and serve me too? They aren't so what's the big hold up? That's what I don't totally understand.

If the problem is they lack a local Central office then just expand the one in the next town and run the fiber from here to there- no?

If the problem is we aren't wealthy or dense enough- then what stops Verizon from say just wiring from scratch a wealthy town served by others- like Scottsdale AZ or something?

If it makes sense for verizon to overbuild their own network then why doesn't it make sense for someone else (coax, fiber, whatever) to do the same in the verizon territory?

So clearly there is some sort of barrier- or mix of minor barriers that add up and keep people out. It's an interesting situation....


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Comcast has a new very simple extremely small (portable CD player sized) digital set-top box that really works great and even displays the live program in PIP with the EPG. Up to two, in addition to the already free primary box, are available free, for a year in my area. 

The major shortcoming of this new box, for me, is that it has no capability for selectively controlling one such box if a user wants two in the same location. But it works great with a dual tuner Series 2. 

What the DT Series 2 still needs is the capability to control an OTA digital/analog tuner using its coax (Channel 3) input.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

And to wander back on topic-

I wouldnt doubt that Comcast in the big city has a much higher penetration rate for digital cable than other places- that makes this a reasonable choice for them.

First theres the fact there will be more affluent people in a tighter area.

Second is the fact that in urban areas where piracy is rampant (the less effulent end of the spectrum) cable is at times already 100% BOX required for all but the broadcast locals. Certain areas of New York City for example are like that- its been that way for years as a way to combat piracy. I have a friend that lives in the south Bronx and without a box you dont get squat. Not sure if they hand out old ananlog boxes for basic cable in those areas or if its all digital. But if people are used to a box on each tv its no big deal to hand them a digital box at each TV.

Next what is VERY INTERESTING is the timing of this. I didnt see it mentioned earlier- sorry if Im repeating. But its not just the FCC chairman that someone pointed out that wants cable to go all digital. IN FACT in some of the rulings shooting down Comcast and others requests for excerptions to the July 1 integration ban (requiring separable security- or cablecards in most areas)- the FCC specifically said they would consider exemptions for systems that offered to go all digital by the OTA shutdown date. Now- notice that Comcast says they want this done by July. Makes me wonder if perhaps they dont plan to get done on June 1 or something and then go to the FCC and say Our Chicago system is now 100% digital more then a year in advance of the deadline you proposed in your earlier rulings in order to secure a waiver of the integration ban- we submit our Chicago system is 100% digital so we intend to take advantage of your generous offer and not deploy cablecards in that footprint but continue with our integrated boxes That would save them PILES AND PILES of cash. They could continue to hand out the cheap vanilla box and the old DVRs to a savings of around $40-100 a box (depending on whos estimate you believe). Something to wonder about.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BrianEWilliams said:


> In the long run, regulation doesn't create optimal conditions. Let's say Microsoft were allowed to run wild with its Windows monopoly. Eventually, people would become so dissatisfied that a true alternative would emerge. By crippling Microsoft's predatory behavior, people end up more likely to use Windows 20 years down the road than they would be otherwise.
> 
> Similarly, if cable companies were allowed to charge whatever they want and change service anyway they want, eventually people would demand and receive alternatives faster than will happen under regulation.
> 
> This is a subtle argument, and I don't expect everyone to grasp it. I don't believe it has been advanced before, but I could easily be wrong.


I don't think you have to assume that people are too stupid to get your point.

Sometimes it's just more complicated that that.

Assuming that is correct- I don't know that I want to get abused for 20 years before pay tv does what the market prefers...

Right now it's still NOT unregulated- there's all sorts of people in everyone's business. Sat needs permission to launch sats, wired people need permission to put up wires/cables/fiber, verizon has fiber yet still needs to get permission from someone to turn on video. The FCC, FTC, etc etc like to place limits on what the various players can or can not do with content they own. There are the stipulations for retail availability of boxes. There's regulations about pricing that cable has to comply with. If Sprint/Nextel decides to run video on their new nationwide wimax network I'm sure the NAB and NCTA will object based on some regulation. Some states regulate hold times and appointment windows for cable. And on and on and on.

So the government at all levels would have to completely deregulate it and then we'd have to sit around and get annoyed for 20 years till the optimal thing occurred. So it gets more complex because cable was regulated and now is quasi-regulated so the question would be what's the most efficient way to get to the optimum- 1) drop all regulation and wait it out. Or 2) Regulate something more than we do today? I'm not impressed the government can do anything fast (it's been 11 years now since congress told the FCC to get 3rd party boxes in retail and still overwhelmingly people use cable rentals )- but on the other hand I'm not sure I want to put up with another 20 years of poor service.

But what I am pretty sure of is that if the market would take 20 years to correct, that this quasi regulated status quo would take much longer if left as is. So status quo bites- question is do we throw all caution into the wind and drop all the rules or do we tighten the screws...

Interesting concept for sure.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> And to wander back on topic-
> 
> ...But if people are used to a box on each tv its no big deal to hand them a digital box at each TV.


Especially if it's a free li'l box about the size of a portable CD player with a coax Channel 3 ouput (and a composite line out too)!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

If bicker's ilk had had his way, there would be one telephone company, and they would argue that we'd all be better off for it. We're all supposed to put our "personal preferences" (meaning, consumer interests) aside so that the monopolies can continue with as little competition as possible. Hardly a "free market".


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> Bicker did not start the personal attacks. I find it very unlike you, ZeoTiVo, to complain about his attacks while giving a free pass to those who rather viciously attacked him first.


no he didn't but then neither did I really. My point was simply one of he was just not answering the questions in my posts but just running off a bunch of stuff about selfish people. No big deal to me except that I did point it out as a non-answer.

Still wondering what competition he forsees when cable companies are deregulated and how letting them tell me how and when I will view the content I suscribe to through them is a rational thing for me to want


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

well if we are perpetuing the bickering over competition- I just want to point out that the FCC basically found that DBS as a competitor is not the same as a second wire line carrier.

from page 5 of their December report on cable pricing:



> 14. Cable prices decrease substantially when a second wireline cable operator enters the market.
> It does not appear from these results that DBS effectively constrains cable prices. Thus, in the large
> number of communities in which there has been a finding that the statutory test for effective competition
> has been met due to the presence of DBS service, competition does not appear to be restraining price as it
> does in the small number of communities with a second cable operator.


So for whatever reason dbs is not as effective a competitor as an overbuilder/telco. I guess enough people have an anti-sat bias that cable just ignores what dbs does?

report is here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-179A1.pdf

lots of interesting tidbits there.

If my quick read is correct- not only does a second wired provider force lower pricing but people in those markets also get more channels and more HD channels....

Average programming cost increases are like just over a buck ....

have to go back and look like I'm working- sorry can't glean any more...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> well if we are perpetuing the bickering over competition- I just want to point out that the FCC basically found that DBS as a competitor is not the same as a second wire line carrier....


thanks for the info and that is my point. DBS is just not an option for many as they are closed systems and you bring extra equipment onto the premises. 
The fees are one thing but I am happy for now with my analog cable and Series 2 DT DVRs. that is what got me started in this thread is the idea of going all digital bt TWC. If they did that what choices do I have 
- loose two tuner finctionality on my DTs
- use a S3 TiVo and loose my TiVoToGo and MRV that I use now
- use whatever DVR they provide with whatever size hard drive.
- use a sat provider and whatever DVR they provide (though I would find an old DirectTiVo unit - no lazy consumer on this one)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I would have a little more empathy for the cable companies if they had actually been required to wire to every existing house that had telephone/electric service but they were not. I remember when cable came into my town (all most 20 years ago) - we asked if it was going to be run up our road (about 1/2 mile with about 10 houses from where the cable actually ends) and we were told "not right away" and still no cable today. That's why when ever I hear them talk about combining dish and direct I cringe, at that point I would be down to one provider. Same with High speed Internet - I am lucky to get DSL (near the end of where it works) with the speeds I get, its never going to carry video.

So for all of you that actually have multiple providers consider yourselves lucky. But I guess it's still allot better than when I was a kid we had 3 channels + PBS and sometimes those didn't come in very well. 

Thanks,


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> Comcast has a new very simple extremely small (portable CD player sized) digital set-top box


It is the Motorola DCT-700.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Makes me wonder if perhaps they dont plan to get done on June 1 or something and then go to the FCC and say Our Chicago system is now 100% digital more then a year in advance of the deadline you proposed in your earlier rulings in order to secure a waiver of the integration ban- we submit our Chicago system is 100% digital so we intend to take advantage of your generous offer and not deploy cablecards in that footprint but continue with our integrated boxes That would save them PILES AND PILES of cash.


Chicago is not going Digital-only, they are keeping Locals (Basic) simulcasted in Analog, according to a Comcast spokesperson quoted in the Tribune's article.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

QZ1 said:


> It is the Motorola *DCT-700.*


Thanks.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

I wonder how much *this* costs, and why the concept wouldn't be cost effective if utilized by a TiVo DT Series 2?


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> I wonder how much *this* costs, and why the concept wouldn't be cost effective if utilized by a TiVo DT Series 2?


Well, Comcast in Motorola areas doesn't deploy SD DVRs like DCT-3080, (only Comcast in Sci. Atl. areas do), so I would think it is a moot point.
Maybe you are asking if they will?
If so, I haven't heard of them planning to do so.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

QZ1 said:


> Chicago is not going Digital-only, they are keeping Locals (Basic) simulcasted in Analog, according to a Comcast spokesperson quoted in the Tribune's article.


sorry poor choice of words-

the analog will be simulcast so you can use that digital only box quoted above. As required by current regs/laws/must carry situation the analog locals will continue to be in analog (and I assume what ever public access channels that have demanded that)

I'd have to go read the fcc coments for the specifics but basically that's what the fcc said people should do to get waivers. They want cable to get rid of analog "cable" channels and that's exactly what comcast Chicago seems to be doing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> I wonder how much *this* costs, and why the concept wouldn't be cost effective if utilized by a TiVo DT Series 2?


basically for tivo to make such a box it would be a series 3 without the analog encoders (which might be built into the main broadcom "dvr on a chip"?), the 2 OTA rf tuners, and the HD output.

Tivo would still need to have cablecard slots. And once you have SD there's very little to be add HD (the main chip is the same I think you just add an HDMI chip and the next generation broadcom "dvr on a chip" might have that built in). Plus by year end the CEA is estimating like 35-40% HD penetration (that's wishful thinking that tivo gets a low cost HD box done by then) . So in another year it will probably be over 50% or maybe 60% for HD- so you sort of have to include HD to have a long shelf life.

And so what do we get-> the new "low cost HD DVR" that tivo is talking about as a priority.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's the info about wiavers for "all digital"

from dt_dc's thread here:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=335852

you can find the rulign for bendbroadband at the fcc here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.pdf

page #9 item 24 states:



> 24. We conclude that BendBroadbands plan to migrate to an all-digital network, if
> accomplished within the timeframe set forth in the Waiver Request (i.e., by 2008), would be sufficient to
> show good cause for a waiver under Sections 1.3 and 76.7. First, in the 2005 Deferral Order, the
> Commissions basis for developing the low-end, limited capability waiver was the impending DTV
> ...


so you see- if you commit to go "all-digital" "by 2008" then the FCC will allow a waiver for the DCT-700 which just happens to be the box comcast us using in Chicago to go all digital by July 2007.....

THey should at least try for a waiver to continue to deploy the Dct-700 for SD non DVR subs- they would be stupid not to....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

QZ1 said:


> Chicago is not going Digital-only, they are keeping Locals (Basic) simulcasted in Analog, according to a Comcast spokesperson quoted in the Tribune's article.


I guess the FCC is looking for "all-digital" and so analog simulcast of locals (and probably anything you want) is allowed as long as everything is also digital.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

QZ1 said:


> Well, Comcast in Motorola areas doesn't deploy SD DVRs like DCT-3080, (only Comcast in Sci. Atl. areas do), so I would think it is a moot point.
> Maybe you are asking if they will?
> If so, I haven't heard of them planning to do so.


No, what I'm curious about is how the cost of a digital, standard-def only, dual tuner DVR compares with a digital hi-def dual tuner DVR.

I already have a Comcast dual tuner hi-def DVR (DCT 6412); the only cable STB I pay for ($11.95). I also have two single tuner standard-def digital STB's; one of which (a now discontinued DCT 2000, similiar to the 2500) is free with digital extended basic @ $50.25 ($1 more than analog extended basic), the other (DCT700) free for a year on a promo. I could get another DCT700 free for a year if I wanted. There supposedly are $5 charges for hi-def and $1.50 for a Series 3 second CableCARD but neither has ever been billed.

The DCT700 has a PIP of the program when viewing the EPG as does the 6412; the 2000 doesn't.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I'd have to go read the fcc coments for the specifics but basically that's what the fcc said people should do to get waivers. They want cable to get rid of analog "cable" channels and that's exactly what comcast Chicago seems to be doing.


Nope, the FCC's definition of "all digital" means ... "all digital", "no analog". No analog "cable" channels ... no analog "local" channels ... no analog "PEG" channels ... all digital.

More preceisely, it means digital reception ability on every TV that is hooked up to cable service.

To get the FCC's "carrots" (integration ban waiver, dual must-carry waiver) ... they want "all digital", "no analog".


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> Nope, the FCC's definition of "all digital" means ... "all digital", "no analog". No analog "cable" channels ... no analog "local" channels ... no analog "PEG" channels ... all digital.
> 
> More preceisely, it means digital reception ability on every TV that is hooked up to cable service.
> 
> To get the FCC's "carrots" (integration ban waiver, dual must-carry waiver) ... they want "all digital", "no analog".


where were you an hour ago when I was fumbling around?



Can you legally turn off analog locals before the analog shutdown in FEB 2009?

I'm guessing from your answer as long as you put the digital ones up you can?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the reality is you are not even answering anymore - just going for personal attacks. Guess that shows the reality of your argument.


There are no personal attacks in the message you quoted, so let's start with that one.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Like smark says - even in places where you can come and build your own cable plant - no one really wants to do that, there is better ROI elsewhere.


Ask yourself why!!!!!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I guess the FCC is looking for "all-digital" and so analog simulcast of locals (and probably anything you want) is allowed as long as everything is also digital.


and so just to be of two minds here - we can see that cable companies can seek ways to not open up their system to 3rd party hardware while looking as if they are innovative. Still the customer gets pushed to digital and his nice setup of analog DVRs being able to move content around for the consumer's fair use be damned.

so the trade off is more digital channels and more HD but then you are trapped in a digital lockdown just like the DBS providers have managed to maintain from the start. Seems the FCC has already answered the deregualtion question by not regulating anything with the consumer's interests in mind.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> No, what I'm curious about is how the cost of a digital, standard-def only, dual tuner DVR compares with a digital hi-def dual tuner DVR.
> 
> I already have a Comcast dual tuner hi-def DVR (DCT 6412); the only cable STB I pay for ($11.95). I also have two single tuner standard-def digital STB's; one of which (a now discontinued DCT 2000, similiar to the 2500) is free with digital extended basic @ $50.25 ($1 more than analog extended basic), the other (DCT700) free for a year on a promo. I could get another DCT700 free for a year if I wanted. There supposedly are $5 charges for hi-def and $1.50 for a Series 3 second CableCARD but neither has ever been billed.
> 
> The DCT700 has a PIP of the program when viewing the EPG as does the 6412; the 2000 doesn't.


these people in Canada charge $300 (not sure if that's real money or funny money)

http://www.compton.net/digitaltv.html

I'm not sure what the regs are in canada- I know they sell boxes to their customers but I dont know if they can sell them for profit or how all that works.

for reference apparently the DCT 6412 goes for $600 at best buy's Canadian site:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodd...d=0926INGFS10055888&catid=20229&test_cookie=1

6416 is $750
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10078936&catid=20229


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> So now we can get to what I quoted from you, just exactly what actions should the consumer be taking to be accountable? Not purchase any programing?


That is surely one option, but another is to purchasing programming from the best of the available options, providing special reward (read: pay more money) when one of the suppliers offers something better from your perspective, instead of sitting on the sideline because it costs more, like most customers do. Better choices come from customers rewarding a supplier for offering something better. Once one does, and gains significant market share for their higher-priced product, all suppliers will join the game and offer the better product for the higher price.

If all you care about is low prices, then expect to have the market driven to the lowest common denominator.



atmuscarella said:


> As an example I want Dishnetwork to sell me programing - I am willing to pay for the programing no problem - what I don't want is to be force to use their STB/DVR to view the programing.


The supplier offers, and the buyer either accepts or rejects. The buyer doesn't get to dictate BOTH sides of the transaction.



atmuscarella said:


> The problem with cable/satellite companies and the entertainment business in general is that don't just want us to pay for their product they also want to tell us how and when to use it.


Probably because that's the most profitable way to sell their product. That's their right as a for-profit business.



atmuscarella said:


> Just think about this absurd example; you go an buy a box of tissues and then the company that made the tissues tells you when and how you can blow your nose.


Your logic fails (at least) twice here.

1) With regard to "the entertainment business in general" (i.e., the content producers), their product is intellectual property, so it it subject to diametrically different market forces than _tissues_! Tissues aren't intellectual property.

2) With regard to cable/satellite companies, their product is a service, and the folks who sell tissues can AND DO tell you that you cannot buy individual tissues -- you have to buy a whole box. Sometimes, they even tell you that in order to save money, you have to buy three boxes.

Beyond that, comparing cable television to tissues is like comparing airline travel to peanuts. The difference in complexity and scale is so large that there is no constructive result from comparing the two.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> basically for tivo to make such a box it would be a series 3 without the analog encoders (which might be built into the main broadcom "dvr on a chip"?), the 2 OTA rf tuners, and the HD output.
> 
> Tivo would still need to have cablecard slots. And once you have SD there's very little to be add HD (the main chip is the same I think you just add an HDMI chip and the next generation broadcom "dvr on a chip" might have that built in). Plus by year end the CEA is estimating like 35-40% HD penetration (that's wishful thinking that tivo gets a low cost HD box done by then) . So in another year it will probably be over 50% or maybe 60% for HD- so you sort of have to include HD to have a long shelf life.
> 
> And so what do we get-> the new "low cost HD DVR" that tivo is talking about as a priority.


So essentially digital standard-def DVRs are viable for cable and satellite program providers but not for TiVo which only records program from other sources. Makes sense!

But it also would make sense for Series 2 TiVos to control digital ATSC STB's, AND for a next generation of standard-def TiVo which controlled two different STB's (for cable, satellite, or OTA) as well as one internal analog cable only tuner which shared an encoder with a STB input (for two simultaneous recordings).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> If bicker's ilk had had his way,


Don't assign me to an ilk -- you know nothing about me.

It makes me wonder when people complain about the non-existent "personal attacks" from me, when they seem to have no problem with this blatant personal attack on me. In the end, it just goes to prove that those people really just simply disagree with me, and just making up stuff to say against me instead of trying to defend their objections to what I'm saying. 



MickeS said:


> there would be one telephone company


That's silly. I'm the one saying get RID of the regulations. That's what FACILITATED going from one telephone company to many in the first place!!!!!!



MickeS said:


> We're all supposed to put our "personal preferences" (meaning, consumer interests) aside so that the monopolies can continue with as little competition as possible. Hardly a "free market".


I'm not saying anything against you personally, but this is such a clueless perspective I'm wondering where did you develop it?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZEO said somthing about the ROI stinks to overbuild and then-



bicker said:


> ...
> 
> Ask yourself why!!!!!


Repeating my question from above- (as in I dont know the answer)- did cable get an "assured" ROI years ago becasue they got exclusive franchises? Or is it as simple as a pizza shop- first guy in sells all the pizza's in Town- next guy in sells half while first retains half- third guy has to decide if a third of the pie is worth his investment?

Also- why does Verizon think the ROI IS there- while others balk? ANd why does Verizon only thein the ROI is there where they currently have a CO? EVen RCN doesn't seem to be consistant where they overbuild at first blush. It seems there's some complexities going on here that aren't so clear....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no he didn't but then neither did I really. My point was simply one of he was just not answering the questions in my posts but just running off a bunch of stuff about selfish people.


So in other words, I made a NON-person attack, so you replied by making a personal attack on me. Ooooookay.



ZeoTiVo said:


> No big deal to me except that I did point it out as a non-answer.


It isn't a "non-answer". It is simply an answer you don't like, because its ramifications direct the blame for your dissatisfaction on people you can't feel good about discrediting.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Still wondering what competition he forsees when cable companies are deregulated


Bell System. Deregulated. Result: Lots of telephone companies.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's silly. I'm the one saying get RID of the regulations. That's what FACILITATED going from one telephone company to many in the first place!!!!!!


Thankfully, you are incorrect. What led to more than one phone company was increased regulation requiring the ILEC to provide unbundled loop elements to third parties. Eventually, 10 years later, the cable companies got into the act, too.

Besides, there was more than one phone company in many cities long before 1996, you just usually had to be a business for them to consider it worthwhile to serve you.

Thanks to continued telco regulation, I pay less than $10 a month to keep a telephone line in my house. Of course, I only get 200 minutes a month of outgoing calling, but I don't care, I have my cellphone and VoIP for that.

Since they're not required to, none of the other telephone companies, facilities based, or using at&t's lines, provide any sort of service for less than $20 a month. Funny enough, that's more than a basic unmetered line costs from at&t. That competition..doing me a fat lotta good.

Edited to add: Rather than deregulation, what would have made more sense would be to split the business into two separate parts, which the Telecom Act did do, but only partly. The first part should be the regulated business that runs lines to your home or business. That business should only build and maintain the physical network. Then there should be other companies which purchase the right to provide service over that network.

The concept of a natural monopoly exists because it makes sense. There's no point in five different companies running copper, fiber, or whatever to my home or business, any more than it makes sense to have five different electric companies, water companies, or gas companies do the same. It's a waste of money and effort that makes all of them have to charge more to provide me service.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> these people in Canada charge $300 (not sure if that's real money or funny money)
> 
> http://www.compton.net/digitaltv.html
> 
> ...


*Compton* charges CAN$550 for the 6412 and CAN$300 for the standard-def 3080. It appears that a Compton cable sub. can choose to buy or rent a STB but if s/he buys there's no additional monthly fee except programming.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> If all you care about is low prices, then expect to have the market driven to the lowest common denominator.
> 
> The supplier offers, and the buyer either accepts or rejects. The buyer doesn't get to dictate BOTH sides of the transaction.
> 
> Probably because that's the most profitable way to sell their product. That's their right as a for-profit business.


 so again if cable goes all digital and does not have to use cable cards - which is essentially what cable wants and would do if deregulated.
and I am willing to pay 65$ a month for the analog service I have now so I can continue MRV and TiVoToGo.

who in this free market will I transact with for that and just how did this free market or approach by the FCC make for more innovative offerings?

I get that I am one consumer and what you may want is more HD and be happy to watch it only in your living room and are even ready to pay 100$ a month for that. Still all this "free market" did was let the "intellectual property owners lock up their content even tighter and make me pay for digital cable and then again say 1.99 a show for the privilege of loading it on a portable player. All of which I can do right now except for the part about paying for digital cable and 1.99 a show. That is not free market by a monopoly of a digital fortress allowed by the FCC and our current representatives. You may say oh but you should be willing to pay more for the same things you do today but at better quality picture - all I can say is WHY 

you say the cosnumer should not be lazy and take action - where here is a small piece of action - that is not my ideal of a better and more innovative product or service offering at all and I will continue to state as such.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> So essentially digital standard-def DVRs are viable for cable and satellite program providers but not for TiVo which only records program from other sources. Makes sense!
> ...


problem is 2 (3) fold-

1) cablecard has to get added to the tivo box to record digital cable- depending on who you want to listen to that's between 40-100 dollars a box. (on the 3s it's double that for 2 slots but now with the M-cards actually starting to appear in the wild a new tivo box would need just one card slot and it's hardware) So it the moto costs 300 a tivo version would cost 350 or 400 without subsidies.

2) satellite seems to subsize their boxes. Cable has some limits on subsidizing hardware- they are supposed to break even- BUT they can apparently group things together so they can under charge for a DVR and over charge for plain STB's and make out. For example- the DCT-700 above apparently costs about 70 and cable charges usually in the ballpark of 5 bucks for a "digital Box" so that means they break even at 14 months- those boxes last much longer than that so they can use some of that to subsidize the DVR's.

3) cable uses their boxes for years, Directv at least has moved to a lease model also so they too get several years of use out of the boxes. Tivo I suppose has to worry that boxes wont last that long and so they can't write off subsidies over such a long period.



TiVo Troll said:


> ..But it also would make sense for Series 2 TiVos to control digital ATSC STB's, AND for a next generation of standard-def TiVo which controlled two different STB's (for cable, satellite, or OTA) as well as one internal analog cable only tuner which shared an encoder with a STB input (for two simultaneous recordings).


I assume once the "official coupon" ATSC converter boxes come out at year end that tivo will update the IR database to control them- but that's just my humble opinion. There probably will be less than 10 or 20 models so one would think that would be simple to add.

Controlling 2 boxes at once always seems to make tivo cringe- I think the prospect of telling people about IR "tents" and the like freaks them.

BUT some have argued that they could just make a dual cable box controlling tivo that used 1394 (required upon request) from the cable box to the tivo. I'm not sure of all the details but I wonder if such a box couldn't be made for around the price of the current S2's?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> Bell System. Deregulated. Result: Lots of telephone companies.


not true.

it's LESS regulated.

I guess for long distance all bets are off but the states sure do regulate local companys. Move to the middle of no where- call the local company and ask for service- they have to provide it. There's lots of other ways.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ...I assume once the "official coupon" ATSC converter boxes come out at year end that tivo will update the IR database to control them- but that's just my humble opinion. There probably will be less than 10 or 20 models so one would think that would be simple to add.


I agree.



> Controlling 2 boxes at once always seems to make tivo cringe- I think the prospect of telling people about IR "tents" and the like freaks them.


It's gotta' be two DIFFERENT (models of) STB's (with different control codes.)



> BUT some have argued that they could just make a dual cable box controlling tivo that used 1394 (required upon request) from the cable box to the tivo. I'm not sure of all the details but I wonder if such a box couldn't be made for around the price of the current S2's?


Who would make such a box, TiVo? Why?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> *Compton* charges CAN$550 for the 6412 and CAN$300 for the standard-def 3080. It appears that a Compton cable sub. can choose to buy or rent a STB but if s/he buys there's no additional monthly fee except programming.


I saw a thread in another forum that says best buy canada pays 547 for the 6412. So it appears that those are right around the wholesale costs and the Canuck cable companys dont try to profit on the sale of boxes.

Yahoo finance says 300 ca is about 265 US. So add in cablecard and the wholesale price for an SD digital only tivo COULD be around 300.

To be honest I think tivo could do a bunch better than that- maybe 200- just becasue they seem to focus on integrating and cutting costs on each board revision. But the question becomes how much more to add in the HD output as they want in the new "low cost HD DVR"? If it costs tivo only 50 bucks more to slap in the HDMI chip- then is there much point to making an SD only version? I guess time will tell what they do.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> It's gotta' be two DIFFERENT (models of) STB's (with different control codes.)


I beleive tivo cringes at writing that advertising and instructions-

"you can record from 2 differnt boxes at once but they can't both be cable boxes or satellite boxes or if they are you need to get 2 differnt models from your cable/sat provider. If they cable company only deploys one model like DCT-700's and the Sat company only deploys D11's then sorry you can't use 2 boxes. Or you can use tents. Remember making paper ariplanes in 3rd grade- it's really very similar...."



TiVo Troll said:


> ..
> Who would make such a box, TiVo? Why?


"such a box"?

You mean the firewire outputting cable boxes? 
Moto and SA make them becasue the FCC requires cable to hand them out if asked.

or do yyou mean why would tivo make a dual input firewire box? 
Becasue perhaps for less money (no tuners, no encoders required) then an S3 with its cablecards they could have a box that could record 2 streams at once- and not just the "cablecard" avaiulible streams but any 2 streams availible to a cable sub, like Switched video, vod, or whatever new stuff came along. Unlike the S3 it would be future proof as long as the FCC keeps the firewire rule.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I beleive tivo cringes at writing that advertising and instructions-
> 
> "you can record from 2 differnt boxes at once but they can't both be cable boxes or satellite boxes or if they are you need to get 2 differnt models from your cable/sat provider. If they cable company only deploys one model like DCT-700's and the Sat company only deploys D11's then sorry you can't use 2 boxes. Or you can use tents. Remember making paper ariplanes in 3rd grade- it's really very similar...."


"Designed by geniuses to be operated by idiots!"



> "such a box"?
> 
> You mean the firewire outputting cable boxes?
> Moto and SA make them becasue the FCC requires cable to hand them out if asked.
> ...


So you're back to talking about a TiVo box which would control two cable boxes, no? Right on! But it should also be capable of controlling satellite or OTA boxes as well, with perhaps NO analog tuners at all.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Can you legally turn off analog locals before the analog shutdown in FEB 2009?


Yes.


MichaelK said:


> I'm guessing from your answer as long as you put the digital ones up you can?


Well ... not quite that simple ... gets a little more complicated than that.

Transmission consent stations - governed by contract (transmission consent agreement). Quite frankly, most (any that have been negotiated any time recently) probably already have the terms / conditions for when / if / how the analog local can be dropped for digital only. Even most PBS stations on most cable plants are carried under their NCTA / PBS digital carraige agreement ... not must carry.

PEGs - governed by contract (franchise agreement). Quite frankly, most (any that have been negotiated any time recently) probably already have the terms / conditions for when / if / how the analog PEGs can be dropped for digital only. All my local franchise agreements that I've checked have provisions for going all-digital and dropping the analog PEGs.

Must carry stations - The only sticky part. Must carry stations can demand carriage for their analog signal, or digital signal, but not both. Obviously, right now, the vast majority choose analog. Heck, alot even get (voluntary) dual-carraige when the cable company goes ADS (although, technically, you could argue that deploying digital-only boxes requires dual-carriage for any analog must-carry stations). But ... a (currently) analog must carry station can always agree to (or be bullied into) digital-only carraige ...

Phone call between Comcast Regional Director and local PAX Station Manager:

Comcast - "We're going all-digital. NBC, CBS ... MTV, ESPN ... PBS, the local government channel ... everything is going all-digital / no-analog. However, we still have three analog must-carry stations (you, WB, and Telemundo) and we'd like to carry your digital signal instead."

PAX - "Our digital signal and analog signal? Sure ... that would be great. I though you already did that?"

Comcast - "No, just your digital signal. Yes, we currently carry both your analog and digital signal ... but ... technically we only have to carry one. Here's the thing ... when we go all-digital and deploy all-digital Motorola DCT-700s to those 50,000 customers we have that currently don't use an STB, at that point the only customers that will be able to get your analog signal will be the ones that take the time to split their cable, run one side to the TV, and switch inputs between the cable box and coax. So ... do you want digital or analog?"

PAX - "Don't you have to carry a digital signal if you're deploying all-digital boxes? And, the FCC is talking about dual must-carry ..."

Comcast - "Yes, unless we go all-digital which is what we're trying to do. You really want to bring that up? Also, the FCC wants us to go all-digital by Feb 2009 ... when you won't have an analog signal for us to be forced to carry anyway."

PAX - "Ummm ..."

Comcast - "BTW, we've got alot of cable theft in the area too. Technically we could make a case for dropping analog and going all-digital encrypted if you'd like."

PAX - "Err ..."

Comcast - "Tell you what I'll do. Here's a fruit basket, some Comcast T-Shirts, and a couple free 2:00 AM - 4:00 AM commercial slots on The Ocho that we haven't been able to sell and have been running PSAs and adds for our VOD services that you can have. Hey, to prove I'm a nice guy I'll even agree to keep simulcasting analog and digital for you after we take all the cable channels all-digital. We'll keep simulcasting for you untill we take all the other locals digital-only (which will be xx/yy/zz).

PAX - "Ok, fine, whatever ... digital only."

All that aside ... I would expect some sort of "cable companies may elect to carry digital versions of any analog must-carry station before Feb 2009 if (and only if) they are otherwise digital-only, have provided notice to customers, have enough boxes on-hand, etc." in Martin's propsed Dual Must-Carry rulemaking (AFAIK, the full / formal propsal hasn't come out yet). Not _really_ needed but, it'll probably be in there to address the must-carries.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> There supposedly are $5 charges for hi-def and $1.50 for a Series 3 second CableCARD but neither has ever been billed.


Second CC should be yes, $5 for 'HD' no, because there is no HD service per se, just an HD box, and since you don't have one, there should be no fee; you are billed already for the HD DVR. Some people with DVRs in Motorola areas are erroneously billed for a HD, though, usually can get it removed.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

dt_dc said:


> Nope, the FCC's definition of "all digital" means ... "all digital", "no analog". No analog "cable" channels ... no analog "local" channels ... no analog "PEG" channels ... all digital.
> 
> More preceisely, it means digital reception ability on every TV that is hooked up to cable service.
> 
> To get the FCC's "carrots" (integration ban waiver, dual must-carry waiver) ... they want "all digital", "no analog".


Yes, I guess that is why they call Comcast's current config. as 'All-Digital Simulcast', with 'All-Digital' to follow; 'Digital-only' would have been clearer, though, to many people, but we get the definition.

Regardless, Comcast is leaving Locals in Analog Simulcast for the forseeable future, so, once they pass 1 July, they won't be getting box waivers anywhere; am I understanding this correctly?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wierdo said:


> Thankfully, you are incorrect.


Hey wierdo. I was THERE. I actually *know* what happened.  Your equivocations don't have any impact on the reality: Deregulation led to competition.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> who in this free market will I transact with for that


Whoever finds offering you what you want to be the most profitable use of their capital assets. You, as customer, are not entitled to dictate both sides of the transaction: the offer and the acceptance.



ZeoTiVo said:


> and just how did this free market or approach by the FCC make for more innovative offerings?


Competition breeds innovation.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Still all this "free market" did was let the "intellectual property owners lock up their content even tighter


Which has NOTHING to do with cable regulation. Intellectual property owners have had those rights all along, and our nation has only sought to strengthen those rights. That's a Republican and Democratic priority, because our nation's intellectual property is one of our most valuable exports. Cable regulation has absolutely nothing to do with the content, and never has, and never will.



ZeoTiVo said:


> That is not free market by a monopoly of a digital fortress allowed by the FCC and our current representatives.


That's insane. You can get your television from an array of content owners. The fact that they ALL want to protect themselves from having their property STOLEN is just a reflection of how untrustworthy the general public is. BLAME THEM, not the people who are just trying to protect their property. But again, that is an answer you don't like, because its ramifications direct the blame for your dissatisfaction on people you can't feel good about discrediting. And, with respect, it is that misdirection of blame, that you repeatedly exhibit, that I object to especially.



ZeoTiVo said:


> you say the cosnumer should not be lazy and take action - where here is a small piece of action - that is not my ideal of a better and more innovative product or service offering at all and I will continue to state as such.


And I'll continue to contradict you. The action a responsible customer takes is declining offers that the customer finds unacceptable, and heavily rewarding offers that the customer finds to be superior.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> not true.
> 
> it's LESS regulated.


Yes, Michael, you're correct. Less regulation, more competition. Thanks for that correction.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's insane. You can get your television from an array of content owners. The fact that they ALL want to protect themselves from having their property STOLEN is just a reflection of how untrustworthy the general public is. BLAME THEM, not the people who are just trying to protect their property. But again, that is an answer you don't like, because its ramifications direct the blame for your dissatisfaction on people you can't feel good about discrediting. And, with respect, it is that misdirection of blame, that you repeatedly exhibit, that I object to especially.


if you can explain how MRV and TiVoToGo are stealing then you might have something there. However I think you are referring to people hooking up to analog cable without subscribing to service, and that is indeed stealing, or perhaps people loading up bit torrent with premium content shows and that is also stealing. 
Perhaps you misunderstand my objection to all this then. Having to get a cable card and decrypt the signal would be fine by me. Allowing premium content like HBO or VOD to enforce never copy rules is fine by me as well. I have the alternative of renting the DVDs for my own time and place shifting and use it. I have not even used my free credits on UNBOX because I do not wish much to buy TV shows at 1.99 and do not like the 24 hour viewing period on a rental. Thus have never used HBO, VOD or paid out of pocket for a downl;oad under those terms.
What I do not like is that the requirement for cablelabs certification to have Cable companies support a 3rd party device like TiVo has stymied thier efforts to get MRV and TTG available on the S3. Except for TVs who else wants to try and make a cable card device under such heavy handed control. This round of innovation to an all digital delivery system is just handing the keys to content providers and they will lock down their cable systems just as hard as DBS providers have. Sure that will slow cable theft and good for that - I do not wish to benefit such as that either - but it also slows down fair use to what I feel is an unacceptable level. 
And there are no acceptable alternatives to be available in the digital age until some how the content owners and providers are forced to reverse this trend of a total digital lockdown.

ETA - an anology occurrs to me here as well -
if Stores started requiring you be certified to enter their store and you could not touch anything in the store but just look while your hands were in a restraining device that would reduce shoplifting and clearly keep those horrid stupid lazy thieves from trying to steal from them. They do not because of competition and realize they need to make shopping a pleasent experience. Free market works for the shopper and theif in that case alike.

Yet even in areas with 4 or more choices I have not heard of anyone making it EASIER to use the media you get from the subscription. Competition in the cable or DBS business does not seem to have the full effect that we want.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> if you can explain how MRV and TiVoToGo are stealing then you might have something there.


No, I have something there anyway. There is nothing wrong with them doing what they do to protect themselves from theft even if it also prevents other use of their content. People seem to think that content owners owe them something -- content owners owe you nothing more than WHAT THEY EXPLICITLY PROMISE YOU. (Remember, this STILL has nothing to do with cable. Cable is merely dutifully complying with the demands of its vendors as is their legal and ethical responsibility.)



ZeoTiVo said:


> And there are no acceptable alternatives to be available in the digital age until some how the content owners and providers are forced to reverse this trend of a total digital lockdown.


I think you'd be more successful getting people to stop stealing. Face it: We live in a world with selfish people and as long as we do we all have to pay for their selfishness.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Yet even in areas with 4 or more choices I have not heard of anyone making it EASIER to use the media you get from the subscription.


Precisely. This isn't a cable or satellite issue. This is a loss prevention issue.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> There is nothing wrong with them doing what they do to protect themselves from theft even if it also prevents other use of their content. People seem to think that content owners owe them something


I don't think they owe me something but I also don't think I want to say "Oh excuse me for letting OTHERS steal from you, please digitally lock everything down." If your argument is that I should not be selfish and give up analog because some steal the second rate SD content then that is just nuts.

So it may be a reality as the FCC is clearly coming down on the side of the cable companies and have left DBS virtually untouched by any 3rd party access rules but I just do not buy your free market will spur innovation useful to the customer argument. given that scenario we would not even have a choice of a cable card TiVo to at least have a decent DVR to record HD with and would indeed be stuck with whatever the cable and DBS companies threw our way and I bet they would have not worried so much about making their DVRs better.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I don't think they owe me something but I also don't think I want to say "Oh excuse me for letting OTHERS steal from you, please digitally lock everything down."


Again, you're speaking as the purchaser dictating both sides of the transaction: offer and acceptance. You only get to control the one side -- the acceptance. The point is that it is their right to digitally lock everything down, and then your right to either accept what they offer or reject it.



ZeoTiVo said:


> If your argument is that I should not be selfish and give up analog because some steal the second rate SD content then that is just nuts.


My argument is that you cannot give up what isn't yours to start with. It isn't yours until the content owner grants you license to have it, and they determine under what conditions they'll license their property.

And remember, as long as we're talking about the content, we're NOT talking about the cable companies, who have no choice but to offer content as per the license the content owners are willing to grant.

So going back to talking about cable companies...



ZeoTiVo said:


> ... I bet they would have not worried so much about making their DVRs better.


I disagree. Making their DVRs better would be one aspect of the service that the various service providers would compete with each other over.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> So going back to talking about cable companies...
> 
> I disagree. Making their DVRs better would be one aspect of the service that the various service providers would compete with each other over.


so what about cable cards and the S3? Where does that innovation fit in your free market for cable companies?


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Again, you're speaking as the purchaser dictating both sides of the transaction: offer and acceptance. You only get to control the one side -- the acceptance. The point is that it is their right to digitally lock everything down, and then your right to either accept what they offer or reject it.


Where do you get this idea from? Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but it seems that if a consumer is not happy with the terms that the supplier is giving him that he has a lot more to do than just reject the offer. They call it supply and demand for a reason. I'd argue that it is practically the consumers responsibility to try and get as much as possible for as little as possible, while the supplier is trying to do the opposite. In perfect competition you will eventually reach something akin to an equilibrium where the market is being supplied the optimum amount of product at the optimum price.

Now in a natural monopoly (or duopoly) that equilibrium will never occur. By the nature of a monopoly it makes the best business sense to charge a higher price and have less demand than would exist in an area where there is perfect competition. Hence many economists will say that in industries with a monopoly that the consumer is underserved. (of course they probably say it a little more eloquently and with lots of pretty graphs too).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so what about cable cards and the S3? Where does that innovation fit in your free market for cable companies?


I don't understand what your question actually is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dylanemcgregor said:


> Where do you get this idea from?


Capitalist economics.



dylanemcgregor said:


> Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but it seems that if a consumer is not happy with the terms that the supplier is giving him that he has a lot more to do than just reject the offer.


We're talking about mass-market. One individual customer, in one individual transaction, can do nothing more than accept or reject. Through that action, and that action alone, customers can hope to gently nudge suppliers in one direction or another. The more customers reward suppliers for doing something, the more they'll do that. The less customers reward suppliers for doing something, the less they'll do that. But the customer doesn't get to dictate both sides of the transaction, the details of the offer, and whether or not they'll accept the offer they themselves crafted. 



dylanemcgregor said:


> They call it supply and demand for a reason. I'd argue that it is practically the consumers responsibility to try and get as much as possible for as little as possible, while the supplier is trying to do the opposite. In perfect competition you will eventually reach something akin to an equilibrium where the market is being supplied the optimum amount of product at the optimum price.


Indeed, but it isn't but Z doesn't get to accomplish what he specifically wants in a single transaction. Indeed, the fact that millions of other customers are focused on price instead of the technical aspects that Z is focusing on in his messages would lead to his input to the equilibrium of the system being pretty-much drowned out by Average Joe.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so what about cable cards and the S3? Where does that innovation fit in your free market for cable companies?





bicker said:


> I don't understand what your question actually is.


if the Cable companies had this no regulation free market of perfect competition you speak of then yes they would indeed already be on an all digital platform and competing with other suppliers over price and digital offerings.
You can further bet that they would be just a closed off and proprietary as the DBS systems are and indeed customers could either accept their terms and access equipment/DVRs or reject it.
There would be no cable cards and the S3 would have no way to hook up and record. This is a case where some regulation actually opnes things up to a larger free market competition. if you are big on free markets then the Consumer Electronic makers should be allowed to compete for the end users dollars as well.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I can't believe I agree with Bicker here... I must be sick.  

If Windows or Internet Explorer or standard DVRs were really that horrible, people would complain to their government and it would start to impose restrictions of some type. Since everybody uses all three things on a daily basis, and they're not beating Anna Nichole Smith in news coverage, they can't be THAT bad. 

Satellite may not lower the price of your cable bill, but it forced your cable co. to add an electronic program guide, more channels, music channels, PPV, and all-digital signals. Have you forgotten what cable was like 12 years ago?

Plus, you are not comparing the entire system to another entire system. If DirecTV had a superior DVR, people who wanted a superior DVR would switch to DirecTV. That would force the cable co. to improve their DVR in order to attract or keep customers. This is what Verizon is doing right now, and they have a monopoly in the fiber TV business.

The main complaint in this thread is that within each system, there aren't more choices for DVRs. Well, the DVR market sucks. It's not profitable. There isn't exactly a long list of companies beating down the door to make these things. They either have to be paid to make them, or they just post a loss every single quarter and acquire a rabid fan base that ignores this fact. You can't sell the DVR all by itself and make money, you have to bundle it with the entire system and sell the entire system.

I realize some people don't think they have a choice. Of course they do. I have three (soon four) choices in content providers -- DirecTV, Dish, TWC, and Verizon FIOS next year. If you don't have more than one choice, and you feel that strongly about it, please just MOVE already. Some people move for the schools, some for the neighbors, some for the job, and some so that they can get a clear southwest view. Others look for that bright orange cable. It was actually a item I checked before buying my current house.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

So back on topic... is Comcast going to provide free cablecards to customers that don't want their stupid box??


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Plus, you are not comparing the entire system to another entire system. If DirecTV had a superior DVR, people who wanted a superior DVR would switch to DirecTV. That would force the cable co. to improve their DVR in order to attract or keep customers. This is what Verizon is doing right now, and they have a monopoly in the fiber TV business.


oh yah, I forgot that directTV went with the NDS DVR because it was superior and had such better features


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by* BobCamp1*
> The main complaint in this thread is that within each system, there aren't more choices for DVRs. Well, the DVR market sucks. It's not profitable. There isn't exactly a long list of companies beating down the door to make these things. They either have to be paid to make them, or they just post a loss every single quarter and acquire a rabid fan base that ignores this fact. You can't sell the DVR all by itself and make money, you have to bundle it with the entire system and sell the entire system.


I think many people are missing the point - it is the STB/DVR market that needs to be opened up to competition. Unless content providers are forced to allow users to use any STB/DVR they want the competition can not happen. There has been numerous references to the Telephone industry in this thread - well at one time you had to rent your phone from your local telephone company - no option to use another - part to he telephone industry deregulation was forcing the local telephone company to open up its system and allow its users to use any phone they wanted. Deregulation of the cable/satellite industry was similar in that part of the requirement for deregulating the industry was opening the STB market to competition and forcing the cable/satellite companies to allow the user to use any STB they wanted. Competition in the STB market was expected to increase innovation - guess what a Series 3 TiVo is - an universal STB with innovative addition features. All most of us want to happen is what was supposed to have happen. Unfortunately the FCC has not had the balls to enforce the law.

Thanks,


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think many people are missing the point - it is the STB/DVR market that needs to be opened up to competition. Unless content providers are forced to allow users to use any STB/DVR they want the competition can not happen.


There has to be a market first, and there isn't money to be made here. The FCC can try to open up the doors, but how hard should they try when very few people are really demanding this?

I agree that the real monopoly is in the content holders. Time Warner owns content and the means to distribute it. So does Rupert Murdoch. Sony owns content and makes the devices used to access it. As long as this continues, do you really think innovations which allow content to be more easily distributed will occur?

Getting back to the original topic, perhaps Comcast will offer a free cable box for those with low income. Otherwise, if you can afford it, I expect them to charge you for it. Living in a city costs more, this is one of the many reasons. Satellite is all digital. FIOS is mostly digital. Why can't cable companies go all digital too?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

again to rumage back on topic -

seems Time Warner did the same thing already in there part of NYC.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6435282.html

looks like the big boys are making room to deal with directv's "100 channels"....


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> There has to be a market first, and there isn't money to be made here. The FCC can try to open up the doors, but how hard should they try when very few people are really demanding this?
> 
> I agree that the real monopoly is in the content holders. Time Warner owns content and the means to distribute it. So does Rupert Murdoch. Sony owns content and makes the devices used to access it. As long as this continues, do you really think innovations which allow content to be more easily distributed will occur?
> 
> Getting back to the original topic, perhaps Comcast will offer a free cable box for those with low income. Otherwise, if you can afford it, I expect them to charge you for it. Living in a city costs more, this is one of the many reasons. Satellite is all digital. FIOS is mostly digital. Why can't cable companies go all digital too?


Because just switching would cause the largest backlash since most people are used to not having to have a box on all their TVs.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

But if the largest backlash isn't very big at all, why not do it? They need all the bandwidth they can get.

Plus, not everyone would have a box on all their TVs. My parents just have the one box in the living room. They use the bedroom TV to watch local channels -- no box needed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> But if the largest backlash isn't very big at all, why not do it? They need all the bandwidth they can get.
> 
> Plus, not everyone would have a box on all their TVs. My parents just have the one box in the living room. They use the bedroom TV to watch local channels -- no box needed.


ummm - you are not getting this *all* digital concept quite right


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> There has to be a market first, and there isn't money to be made here. The FCC can try to open up the doors, but how hard should they try when very few people are really demanding this?


so because the cable companies were able to drag their feet for years and muck about over what the standard should be for what they the cable company proposed as a the way to meet the FCC ruling - we should just let them have a closed system.

perhaps if the cable companies started using cable cards 2 years ago and had a 2 way standard that consumer electronics group agreed was useable - then we would see as many different DVR options on the shelf as we do VCRs or DVD players.

sorry but saying no one has made boxes yet while true open access has not happened is just kind of chicken and egg while rewarding the fox


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I think many people are missing the point - it is the STB/DVR market that needs to be opened up to competition.


I disagree completely. My need, and I believe the need of most people, is for television SERVICE, i.e., the provision of (time-shifted) televised entertainment and information (time-shifted to account for the SERVICE provided by the DVR, as opposed to the DVR itself). Lotta good a box does me... I care about what the box does for me. The market that needs to be opened up to competition is the service market: More DBS providers, more land-line providers, more IPTV-type providers, and so on. And if we can provide better incentive for that competition by getting rid of regulations that prohibit them from only supporting their own boxes, then that's what we should do, as well as any other deregulation that will help spike competition in the SERVICE market.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I disagree completely. My need, and I believe the need of most people, is for television SERVICE, i.e., the provision of (time-shifted) televised entertainment and information (time-shifted to account for the SERVICE provided by the DVR, as opposed to the DVR itself).


and there it is - you are arguing for what you want. You are defining the transaction as much as any of us are. All well and good to say "the need of most people" and maybe you luck out on the side of what most EXPECT since they do not know any better. Innovation has never been about the mass market but about finding something new the mass market is not aware of yet. 
So thanks for finally just being honest and saying you just want more choices of TV service packages to choose from. I am fine with that as long as it does not stifle other forms of service or innovation at the same time.
Let them all compete, let it be a level playing fieldand allow for open access via an agreed upon standard and let ALL the companies keep innovating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and there it is - you are arguing for what you want


No, I'm stating what I NEED. Not what I want. I WANT free cable. 

And I'm stating it also as what I believe *Average Joe* needs... that's really the critical aspect of all these discussions. I find myself in the enviable position of reflecting what the vast majority of customers need, which is why I find myself generally satisfied by the marketplace. You find yourself in the unenviable position of reflecting what a small niche needs, which is why you find yourself generally dissatisfied by the marketplace. And you'll continue to be bitterly disappointed as long as you continue to hold unfounded expectations.



ZeoTiVo said:


> You are defining the transaction as much as any of us are.


Not at all. The supplier specifies the offer; I accept or reject. I rejected the Series 3. I accepted Comcast's DVR service. In both cases, they offered, and I got ONLY to accept or reject.

"Defining the transaction" isn't that hard of a concept to understand.



ZeoTiVo said:


> All well and good to say "the need of most people" and maybe you luck out on the side of what most EXPECT since they do not know any better.


Are you really claiming to know what other people need better than they do? Talk about arrogance!!!!!!!! :down:



ZeoTiVo said:


> Innovation has never been about the mass market but about finding something new the mass market is not aware of yet.


AND MAKING A MARKET FOR IT. (See THIS link for an example of how to make a market for something.) You have to find something innovative THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY FIND WORTHY TO BUY.



ZeoTiVo said:


> So thanks for finally just being honest and saying you just want more choices of TV service packages to choose from.


I've never said anything different.  I've always argued strongly FOR competition through deregulation.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ummm - you are not getting this *all* digital concept quite right


And everyone here is overreacting. Comcast said they would leave 34 channels in analog. Did anyone actually read the link provided, or just assume the worst because it's the big bad cable company?

Here's another link everyone can ignore: http://www.answers.com/topic/all


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> And you'll continue to be bitterly disappointed as long as you continue to hold unfounded expectations.


 umm - these are posts in an online forum - not really bitterly anything  you make it very difficult to have a back and forth dialog as you seem to focus on the forth part and just ignore any back like the S3 cable card question that does not suit you - have fun with that forth part though since I do not seem to suit you .................


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> And everyone here is overreacting. Comcast said they would leave 34 channels in analog. Did anyone actually read the link provided, or just assume the worst because it's the big bad cable company?


sorry - had forgo9tten the article after having it read it so many days ago. You are right though that many will just deal with the 34 channels for now instead of get a box.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and there it is - you are arguing for what you want. You are defining the transaction as much as any of us are. All well and good to say "the need of most people" and maybe you luck out on the side of what most EXPECT since they do not know any better. Innovation has never been about the mass market but about finding something new the mass market is not aware of yet.
> So thanks for finally just being honest and saying you just want more choices of TV service packages to choose from. I am fine with that as long as it does not stifle other forms of service or innovation at the same time.
> Let them all compete, let it be a level playing fieldand allow for open access via an agreed upon standard and let ALL the companies keep innovating.


bicker loves to argue that everyone is selfish and only wants whats best for them. But it seems he believes what he argues is what's best for the world.

_edit- just inserting his quote that basiclly affirms my observation-_



bicker said:


> ..
> 
> And I'm stating it also as what I believe *Average Joe* needs... that's really the critical aspect of all these discussions. I find myself in the enviable position of reflecting what the vast majority of customers need, which is why I find myself generally satisfied by the marketplace. ....


which by the way I find kind of funny that he thinks it's arrogant when anyone BESIDES him things he knows what's best. It's not too arrogant to think he's THE ONLY ONE that knows what's best for everyone....


----------



## tazzftw (Mar 26, 2005)

So basically, I'll be forced to use a cable box in order to get any reasonable show I watch. I can no longer just plug a coax into my DT and get dual tuners for all 72 channels.

Well that sucks.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

tazzftw said:


> So basically, I'll be forced to use a cable box in order to get any reasonable show I watch. I can no longer just plug a coax into my DT and get dual tuners for all 72 channels.
> 
> Well that sucks.


pretty much is sucks for analog folks like S2 users while it helps the digital folks like the S3 users.

Expect similar things to continue as the digital transition slowly plods ahead...


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

Here is good article about Comcast's Digital Transition, it is clearly written, and _almost_ 100% accurate in it's terminology.  
They are indeed leaving 'Basic' in Analog Simulcast.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6433928.html


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> bicker loves to argue that everyone is selfish and only wants whats best for them. But it seems he believes what he argues is what's best for the world.


Not necessarily "best for the world" but rather just "real". I don't wallow in fantasy, nor allow others to justify their criticisms against others based on a foundation of their own fantasy about how things "should" be.



MichaelK said:


> which by the way I find kind of funny that he thinks it's arrogant when anyone BESIDES him things he knows what's best. It's not too arrogant to think he's THE ONLY ONE that knows what's best for everyone....


And here you demonstrate my point. The messages you're complaining about (as if such complaints really have any relevance to this thread) are not about what's best for me, but you only see it as being about what's best because you want things to be based on what's best for you.


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

After searching around the internet I see they are only eliminating 38 analog (not all) channels which were formally grouped as extended basic cable. This will give 228 Megahertz of spectrum bandwidth to use for HD and faster internet. 

I hate to say it guys but Bicker has a good point, It's all about the benjamin's. They will make more money using that bandwidth to sell more HD and faster internet than to keep that bandwidth as extended basic (which is included for most customers). I looked up the lineup in my area and can't tell which channels will be eliminated from analog but I suspect MTV and BET will be.

What I would like to see them do as a comprimise is dump from the basic lineup crap no one looks at (they can tell what is viewed or not) and move viewed channels like MTV, BET, TBS and TV Land from extended basic over to the basic lineup. This will allow them to still offer analog basic without the extra cost of giving digital boxes to low paying customers for free. The only benefit these low paying customer will see is On Demand which is also free so Comcast will see no additional revenue.

I think with changes to the basic analog lineup they can make this change and keep the "Vast Majority" content and save a few bucks by not giving out free digital boxes...


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

How many digital HD channels can you fit in the bandwidth from 38 analog SD channels? Any one know what the ratio is?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

10:1 for SD

1:1 for HD

38 Analog = 380 SD Digital or 38 HD Digital


edit - missed a decimal place.


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

ah30k said:


> 10:1 for SD
> 
> 1:1 for HD
> 
> 38 Analog = 380 SD Digital or 3.8 HD Digital


Now that's odd, why would they spend all that money on rent free digital boxes to add 4 HD channels??? You think HD is about to get a new compression or something?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Soapm said:


> Now that's odd, why would they spend all that money on rent free digital boxes to add 4 HD channels??? You think HD is about to get a new compression or something?


Those numbers are incorrect.

The elimination of one analog channel frees up 38.4Mbps with 256QAM modulation. Maximum bitrate ATSC HDTV (ex: a local with no subchannels) requires 19.4Mbps, however most channels require less.

Only a handful of high-definition channels actually exceed 18Mbps video -- those include CBS and NBC (in areas without multichannels), Discovery, Hdnet, and MTV. No FOX-HD broadcast uses more than 15Mbps. HBO-HD and Showtime-HD average ~11Mbps, with peaks of 14.5Mbps. Some of the other 720p channels require even less.

In summary, a cable provider can fit at least two 1080i channels in the space of a single analog channel, and in many cases, they can mix and match 1080i and 720p HD channels to fit three (i.e. 2x 720p + 1x 1080i), without any quality loss. Some cable providers like Charter, Cox, and Time Warner apply additional compression -- known as rate shaping -- to fit up to four HDTV channels in the same space as every analog, at the expense of some quality.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Ditto what bkdtv said.

Moving 38 analog channels over to digital (assuming they weren't already being simulcast in digital ... which they probably were) would take up 4 6MHz slots at most ...

Leaving 34 new 6MHz slots free ...

Which would let you add at least 68 HD channels (rather easily) ... and with a little bit of tweaking ... that's room for a little over 100 new HD channels.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> Those numbers are incorrect.
> 
> The elimination of one analog channel frees up 38.4Mbps with 256QAM modulation. Maximum bitrate ATSC HDTV (ex: a local with no subchannels) requires 19.4Mbps, however most channels require less.
> 
> ...


If you were to take the typical number of subscribers per node in the cable systems, compare it to the number of potential analog channels (120? 150?) would it be more or less?

Given nearly 40mbps of capacity per analog channel being far more than enough to stream HD, would it be possible to someday stream individually to each subscriber, making the cable network a virtual switched network that could provide everything On Demand?


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> If you were to take the typical number of subscribers per node in the cable systems, compare it to the number of potential analog channels (120? 150?) would it be more or less?
> 
> Given nearly 40mbps of capacity per analog channel being far more than enough to stream HD, would it be possible to someday stream individually to each subscriber, making the cable network a virtual switched network that could provide everything On Demand?


You've just described switched digital video in a nutshell.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

Soapm said:


> After searching around the internet I see they are only eliminating 38 analog (not all) channels which were formally grouped as extended basic cable. This will give 228 Megahertz of spectrum bandwidth to use for HD and faster internet.
> 
> I hate to say it guys but Bicker has a good point, It's all about the benjamin's. They will make more money using that bandwidth to sell more HD and faster internet than to keep that bandwidth as extended basic (which is included for most customers). I looked up the lineup in my area and can't tell which channels will be eliminated from analog but I suspect MTV and BET will be.
> 
> ...


Not all ondemand is free. There's WWEVOD HowardTVand others

ajwees41


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

bicker said:


> I disagree completely. My need, and I believe the need of most people, is for television SERVICE, i.e., the provision of (time-shifted) televised entertainment and information (time-shifted to account for the SERVICE provided by the DVR, as opposed to the DVR itself). Lotta good a box does me... I care about what the box does for me. The market that needs to be opened up to competition is the service market: More DBS providers, more land-line providers, more IPTV-type providers, and so on. And if we can provide better incentive for that competition by getting rid of regulations that prohibit them from only supporting their own boxes, then that's what we should do, as well as any other deregulation that will help spike competition in the SERVICE market.


So you're also opposed to "Net Neutrality"?


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

ajwees41 said:


> Not all ondemand is free. There's WWEVOD HowardTVand others
> 
> ajwees41


I guess I would have to know the firgures of Basic cable customers who are able to buy Movies or PPV. I know some people have only basic because they don't watch much TV so video on demand may be a good thing. I would think some don't have more viewing in their budget. The question is would they get back the cost of providing everyone a box?

The flip side to this is they are forcing homes with multiple sets to rent a box for every set in their home. We have 5 TV's but only one box. It would not be worth it to rent a box for every set in our house because most are their just for noise. I mean we don't really watch TV in the Kitchen, it is just there for noise. I turn on the TV in the bedroom then go to sleep. Can't see renting a box to sleep to???


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Soapm said:


> I guess I would have to know the firgures of Basic cable customers who are able to buy Movies or PPV. I know some people have only basic because they don't watch much TV so video on demand may be a good thing. I would think some don't have more viewing in their budget. The question is would they get back the cost of providing everyone a box?
> 
> The flip side to this is they are forcing homes with multiple sets to rent a box for every set in their home. We have 5 TV's but only one box. It would not be worth it to rent a box for every set in our house because most are their just for noise. I mean we don't really watch TV in the Kitchen, it is just there for noise. I turn on the TV in the bedroom then go to sleep. Can't see renting a box to sleep to???


In my area (NW Washington State) Comcast is offering two free digital boxes for a year to every customer in addition to the box that is included with digital service. Also, we just got a mailing that offered a HD DVR and two free boxes for a year to every new digital customer, plus the box that comes with the service.

_Edit: *My Error!*

Comcast's offer to new digital customers includes a HD STB, not a DVR._


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

TiVo Troll said:


> In my area (NW Washington State) Comcast is offering two free digital boxes for a year to every customer in addition to the box that is included with digital service. Also, we just got a mailing that offered a HD DVR and two free boxes for a year to every new digital customer, plus the box that comes with the service.


I saw an ad here in Denver for the DVR. Is this that service they offer on the cable or is this a seperate DVR box? I would probably go for the service if I could upload the shows to my PC but the service they offer via the cable won't allow that...

Anyway to tell when they will be converting my area? I may have to return this DT Tivo since I'm still in the 30 period.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> So you're also opposed to "Net Neutrality"?


Not as a principle, no. Anyone who wants to build a "neutral net" should be able to do so -- if that's what they want to do with their capital asset, more power to them. No one should be forced to operate their network that way against their will.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

I suppose the same logic applies to electricity. Anyone who wants to build electricity generation infrastructure should be able to do so. But those in business should be able to charge whatever they want and not offer service to whomever they want. If they want to switch over to 180 volts and require that only devices approved by the local electrical company can be attached to electricity provided by them, they are free to do so.

Anyone that doesn't like it can put up or shut up. This isn't socialism- if they don't like it, grumblers can start their own electricity company or leave the country.

Have I got that about right Bicker?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

bicker said:


> Not as a principle, no. Anyone who wants to build a "neutral net" should be able to do so -- if that's what they want to do with their capital asset, more power to them. No one should be forced to operate their network that way against their will.


"Net Neutrality" basically is a government regulation issue regarding internet "gateway admission" fees. Your last sentence conflicts the one before it with regards to the way potential gov. regulation would be applied.

I'll have to pay more attention to your rants! It's likely that we're on opposite sides of many, but not all, issues.


----------



## QZ1 (Mar 24, 2003)

Soapm said:


> The flip side to this is they are forcing homes with multiple sets to rent a box for every set in their home. We have 5 TV's but only one box. It would not be worth it to rent a box for every set in our house because most are their just for noise. I mean we don't really watch TV in the Kitchen, it is just there for noise. I turn on the TV in the bedroom then go to sleep. Can't see renting a box to sleep to???


Only if you want Expanded service on those TVs, like many areas have had without a box. If you just want the TV for noise, then locals in Basic service should suffice, and that will continue to be available without a box.


----------



## Soapm (May 9, 2007)

QZ1 said:


> Only if you want Expanded service on those TVs, like many areas have had without a box. If you just want the TV for noise, then locals in Basic service should suffice, and that will continue to be available without a box.


Good point but as an Andy Griffith man I usually watch TVLand for noise. I've seen all the episodes so many times I can say them from memory. TVLand is on expanded. Seems like the networks have switched to talk shows etc... which is not the kind of noise I need.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Soapm said:


> I saw an ad here in Denver for the DVR. Is this that service they offer on the cable or is this a seperate DVR box? I would probably go for the service if I could upload the shows to my PC but the service they offer via the cable won't allow that...


It's a separate DVR but it can't transfer shows to a PC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> I suppose the same logic applies to electricity.


Yes and no. Electrical distribution is fundamentally different than subscription television: Competitors cannot just "beam" electricity down from satellites. Also, electricity is a necessity, and has always been a state-regulated utility.

By the same token, it was unquestionably socialistic when the state "nationalized" the local grid. Luckily, the electric utility that actually built the grid is being compensated sufficiently, in terms of transmission fees which are cost plus profit, not judicially-imposed heavily discounted rates (as was the case when Judge Greene gutted the Bell System). The electrical supply companies now have to compete, not on the backs of draconian sweet-deal discounts they get to impose on the transmission companies, but rather on the relative efficiencies they're able to achieve in the power generation itself, if any.

Capitalists wouldn't have too much of a problem with the state doing something similar with cable, as long as the cable company was allowed to charge a high-enough rate to competitors using their wires. That rate would have to be high-enough so that the service provider-competitors' profit, if any, comes only from efficiencies from their own operations and not at all from the volume discount they get from the owners of the wires. All profits _on transmission_ must go to the cable company, in perpetuity.

However, there is no reason for the state to ever consider doing so. The cost of entry to the market is sufficiently low. RCN has proven that. That's a reflection of the fundamentally difference I mentioned earlier. Between building their own networks, and being able to use satellite technology, there is no need for subscription television to go the same route as electricity.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> "Net Neutrality" basically is a government regulation issue regarding internet "gateway admission" fees.


Not necessarily. It's more of a slogan regarding a concept than specifically a regulation issue.



TiVo Troll said:


> Your last sentence conflicts the one before it with regards to the way potential gov. regulation would be applied.


That assumes that you only believe there is one way to achieve net neutrality. That's a terribly myopic view IMHO. Government regulation is more often the problem, not the solution.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Practically speaking there will either be one set of laws or another. So, IOW, you're stating that unless they vote against the set of laws which supports the concept described by the slogan "Net Neutrality", Congress would be myopic.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> Government regulation is more often the problem, not the solution.


bicker - hows it going?

What I have found is that people generally think that regulations that benefit them are good (part of the solution) and those that don't are bad (part of the problem).

The reality is that Government is always part of the solution, because without Government you can not have a economic system. Government regulations just define the rules of the "game". As you like to state people can either buy a product/service or not - well it is the same for companies, no one says they have to be in business but if they are they have to play by the rules set by the Government (or try not to get caught). Seems like things have gone pretty well with this system up to this point.

Thanks,


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Anyone who wants to build a "neutral net" should be able to do so -- if that's what they want to do with their capital asset, more power to them. No one should be forced to operate their network that way against their will.


Discussing network neutrality, your mention of satellites is meaningless. If there were 4 or more companies competing for last mile broadband service, that would be one thing. But in most communities there is only one or for the lucky, two choices of broadband provider.

Sorry, but this monopoly/duopoly situation is the same as that of electrical companies.

In this context, the time tested response is to regulate these monopolies. It's a good system, and if it ain't broken, then we should apply the same principle to broadband internet access.

If cablecos are allowed to deny users the bandwidth necessary for alternative video distributors accessed via Tivo and other DVRs/PCs, then we are simply falling for libertarian rhetoric used to justify thuggery.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> Practically speaking there will either be one set of laws or another. So, IOW, you're stating that unless they vote against the set of laws which supports the concept described by the slogan "Net Neutrality", Congress would be myopic.


No, you're wrong. I'm stating that believe there is only one way to achieve net neutrality is terribly myopic.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> What I have found is that people generally think that regulations that benefit them are good (part of the solution) and those that don't are bad (part of the problem).


I think that that's really a symptom of a lack of integrity. Some of the regulations that folks are advocating in this thread would benefit me, personally, but I advocate against them because they're simply unfair and unwarranted. You're correct though in that I see them as nothing more than self-focused projections of the folks supporting them.



atmuscarella said:


> The reality is that Government is always part of the solution, because without Government you can not have a economic system.


Yes, but government's role is to create the foundation, not regulate it to support a myopic consumeristic view, and thereby removing much of the incentive to offer products and services to the marketplace. Government's role is to foster a free market, wherein product and service offerings are fostered by suppliers being able to determine what to offer and able to command prices based on what the market is willing to pay.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Sorry, but this monopoly/duopoly situation is the same as that of electrical companies.


It serves your preferred side of the argument to say so, but you've provided no foundation for your assertion. You just want things to work YOUR way, because you would personally get what you want. Sorry, no sale.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It serves your preferred side of the argument to say so, but you've provided no foundation for your assertion. You just want things to work YOUR way, because you would personally get what you want. Sorry, no sale.


and yet still I have just one choice of cable provider who owns the cable pipe into my house and controls my on ramp to the internet.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> I think that that's really a symptom of a lack of integrity.





> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> Yes, but government's role is to create the foundation, not regulate it to support a myopic consumeristic view,


bicker, now we are getting someplace:

The correct conversation really is what should the role of government be in the cable/satellite industries and why.

This country was founded on several concepts that were (and still are in some places) very different than the norm. One of which is the concept of a government controlled by it's citizens instead of citizens controlled by their government.

The reason capitalism is the basis of our economic system is because it is in the best interest of the majority of our citizens. We have also implemented many types of socialistic programs/controls again because the majority of our citizens believe it is in their/societies best interests. We do have a strong belief in personal freedoms/rights and temper government to reflect those beliefs, however very few people associate personal freedoms/rights with faceless corporations.

Basically people will support government regulations that benefit them and if the majority agree that's the way it will go. You may feel this is a lack of integrity, but I would say it's just the way our society works.

So any discussion about what the role of government should be in an industry, needs to keep the above in mind and has to address the pros and cons to society as a whole. Any position that can not be shown to benefit society on the whole is not likely to be supported.

Thanks,


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

bicker said:


> No, you're wrong. I'm stating that belie(f) there is only one way to achieve net neutrality is terribly myopic.


All well and good in theory. But practically speaking, should Congress vote...

*LEFT*?; or *RIGHT*?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

TiVo Troll said:


> All well and good in theory. But practically speaking, should Congress vote...
> 
> *LEFT*?; or *RIGHT*?


Somewhat outmoded labels. How useful are they in understanding the world or complex issues that face us.

If you want to pose it as a general question it would be more like, "Should Congress vote on the side of the consumer, or on the side of monopolists?"


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> Somewhat outmoded labels. How useful are they in understanding the world or complex issues that face us.
> 
> If you want to pose it as a general question it would be more like, "Should Congress vote on the side of the consumer, or on the side of monopolists?"


Yes. That is the question and to choose just one does get myopic. I have one cable provider and do not like the sat choices I have. I personally would want legislation to force analog so my S2 TiVo's would work . Obviously that does not foster innovation or advances in features for all the customers. I think though a provider that would offer just basic cable could perhaps make money but certainly not make any if they had to provide the whole infrastructure - how could they get accessto the pipe that is fair to both some new company and the company that spent the capital to put the pipe in. How in the world do you divvy up a cable pipe? if the FCC gets involved can they regulate what is seen on any content coming through such a pipe (for the public good) ?

What about a company that made a cable card box that converted digital to analog and spread that around the house. Should a cable company be allowed to prevent that since it would undermine fees for additiional outlets or should they just compete on compelling digital services you want on more than one TV?

and that is just a couple of things that could come out of people wanting a choice of the old analog just hook it up and make your own cable runs world. Digital competing services could add in way more layers of decisions.

the bottom line becomes how can you have competing serices over the cable infrastructure without regulation?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

It used to be called the information superhighway. OK, let's use that metaphor. What would commerce be like if there were a gatekeeper that controls competitor access to neighborhood streets? Maybe you would have to buy cars from Ford to travel in Ford neighborhoods.

For very good reasons, potholes and street expansions are dealt with by gubmints, not corporations. Why should it be any different for last mile service? The main answer I see is that the technology is not yet stable. But that's not a permanent condition. At some point, sufficiency is reached. A telephone system has sufficient capability for acceptable voice quality. 40MPH is sufficient for automobile traffic, and asphalt is sufficient for heavy trucks needed for commerce. At some point, adding thicker glass fiber to homes is needless- whatever it is- 500TB/s or 500 PB/s, the home has enough bandwidth. 

At that point, the building boom is over. The investors take their profits over a period, and after that the infrastructure becomes a public asset for free communication. Just as with roads- there should be no gatekeepers and all competitors should have equal access to pathways to the customer. 

Ultimately, I see the last mile infrastructure in the hands of government entities or quasi public entities/ highly regulated corporations like local power companies.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> *LEFT*.......................................................*RIGHT*





Justin Thyme said:


> Somewhat outmoded labels. How useful are they in understanding the world or complex issues that face us.


A fair question! But the political process doesn't work by conducting a judicious search for the best theoretical solution to an issue. Rather it is an ongoing battle between conflicting special interest groups. Practically speaking, political options are often limited to a small number of pre-selected agenda's offering bundled solutions.



> If you want to pose it as a general question it would be more like, "Should Congress vote on the side of the consumer, or on the side of monopolists?"


*Nah!*

IMHO, it's better to ask a complex question with a limited number of practical solutions by continuing to employ perhaps partially outmoded traditional designations instead of using obviously slanted labels pandering to lowest common denominator prejudices.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

They are monopolies, and calling "network neutrality" a slogan indicates your point of view. If you wish to discuss the subject openly, please do. 

Zeo noted the key problem- there is one company owning the pipe into his home. 

What is your proposed solution to the problem?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> The correct conversation really is what should the role of government be in the cable/satellite industries and why.


It goes deeper than that, in this case, to: When government DOES interfere, at what level should it interfere. Some people here believe that municipalities know best, while I believe it is very clear that municipalities are far more corrupt than states, and therefore this should be exclusively a state issue.



atmuscarella said:


> This country was founded on several concepts that were (and still are in some places) very different than the norm. One of which is the concept of a government controlled by it's citizens instead of citizens controlled by their government.


And part of that is owning businesses free from control by the government.



atmuscarella said:


> The reason capitalism is the basis of our economic system is because it is in the best interest of the majority of our citizens.


I'm not sure "why" matters much in this discussion.



atmuscarella said:


> We have also implemented many types of socialistic programs/controls again because the majority of our citizens believe it is in their/societies best interests.


Fewer and fewer people believe that, and the trend is away from that sort of thing, especially in this sector.



atmuscarella said:


> So any discussion about what the role of government should be in an industry, needs to keep the above in mind and has to address the pros and cons to society as a whole.


And a growing number of people believe that smaller government is better; less government regulation is better. It used to be just a fringe of the GOP, then the whole GOP. Now it is a majority of BOTH of the major political parties.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

I hope Cablevision follows suit, and does away with analog channels. I would love to see the extra bandwidth devoted to more HD channels that are not deployed using switched technology.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> And part of that is owning businesses free from control by the government.


This hasn't existed for over 100 years and as far as I can tell government control via regulations has been steadily increasing for my whole life (50 years).



> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> I'm not sure "why" matters much in this discussion.


Because for people who believe and support open/unregulated capitalism or smaller/less government the only way they are going to get what they want is to show the majority of the people that it is in their (and societies) best interest. The same holds true for the narrow field of cable/satellite TV if you want less government involvement you are going to have to show the majority of the people who have an interest in cable /satellite TV that it is in their best interest to support less government involvement.



> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> And a growing number of people believe that smaller government is better; less government regulation is better. It used to be just a fringe of the GOP, then the whole GOP. Now it is a majority of BOTH of the major political parties.


The concept of "smaller" or "less" government sounds good to many people, but the reality is both political parties expand government just in different ways. Government has continually expanded throughout my whole life and I see nothing that is going to change that. I think you will find that most people have no problem regulating large industries or corporations and from what I can tell a large chuck of the left and right would have no problem highly regulating individual behavior.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It used to be just a fringe of the GOP, then the whole GOP. Now it is a majority of BOTH of the major political parties.


the whole GOP just spent last night explaining away the massive INCREASE in spending by the current GOP presidency. I do not see less government as a political reality. Ask any public personality on the airwaves if they think there is less government than just 2 years ago.

I like the highway approach instead - let the government concern itself with the infrastructure so that services can concentrate on services and not on infrastructure. Now I will agree to less government control of what content and services comes across those pipes, provided I can stop what I find objectionable to my family from coming in the house.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> They are monopolies, and calling "network neutrality" a slogan indicates your point of view. If you wish to discuss the subject openly, please do.
> 
> Zeo noted the key problem- there is one company owning the pipe into his home.
> 
> What is your proposed solution to the problem?


"Network Neutrality" IS a slogan.

The original reference to it in this thread came from an exchange I began with bicker, asking for his position on the issue, in which he described the phrase as a *slogan*. I replied in the very next post by incorporating his description: "Practically speaking there will either be one set of laws or another. So, IOW, you're stating that unless they vote against the set of laws which supports the concept described by the slogan "Net Neutrality", Congress would be myopic."

Personally I tend to favor the policy expressed by the slogan "Network Neutrality".

Although the issue of "Network Neutrality" tangentially affects TiVo, it basically is about hardcore politics completely OT on this board.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

TiVo Troll said:


> Although the issue of "Network Neutrality" tangentially affects TiVo, it basically is about hardcore politics completely OT on this board.


I see. So cable companies deciding that they can severely restrict video distribution via IP to Tivo boxes is tangential to Tivo and the Tivo community.

I think you need to study more.


----------



## RealityCheck (Feb 15, 2007)

DCIFRTHS said:


> I hope Cablevision follows suit, and does away with analog channels. I would love to see the extra bandwidth devoted to more HD channels that are not deployed using switched technology.


I for one hope Cablevision does NOT follow suit. iO sucks, I'm sorry. My analog cable signal looks sharper than my CableCARD decrypted channels, and never has an MSO caused breakup issue. Plus, I have 4 TVs connected via analog cable. Encrypted QAM means $$$ hikes (forced STB rentals and/or buggy CableCARDs), higher energy consumption, and STBs I simply don't want.

Unless Cablevision supports "clear QAM" extended basic, I will oppose the end to analog cable. I'm already drafting my letters to the FCC and local Congress people.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Justin Thyme said:


> I see. So cable companies deciding that they can severely restrict video distribution via IP to Tivo boxes is tangential to Tivo and the Tivo community.
> 
> I think you need to study more.


Perhaps. To me your quoted post puts the cart before the horse; assuming a problem before there is one.

Why not start another thread at the Coffee House specifically about "Network Neutrality"? The topic is definitely OT in this thread and I'll no longer post about NN in this thread.

The original question I *posted* about NN was asked to discover *bicker*'s libertarian view of such an issue more than it was about NN itself.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

TiVo Troll said:


> To me your quoted post puts the cart before the horse; assuming a problem before there is one.


I suppose we should wait until there are fires before we buy fire extinguishers. Or buy weapons after we are invaded. Or set rules of commerce after thugs destroy all competitors in a space.

When will the libertarians learn that they are merely apologists for thugs, not defenders of liberty.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> This hasn't existed for over 100 years and as far as I can tell government control via regulations has been steadily increasing for my whole life (50 years).


No. It reached a peak in 1980, and has been decreasing slowly since then, with minor perturbations. The biggest indication of the downturn starting was the take-over of the Democratic Party (the party that was typically behind onerous government regulation of business) by the relatively pro-business DLC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the whole GOP just spent last night explaining away the massive INCREASE in spending by the current GOP presidency.


We were talking about government regulation of business, not spending. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> I do not see less government as a political reality.


I agree. Again, spending is not the same as regulation. Spending continues to increase; while regulation over business moderates. They're independent variables.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> When will the libertarians learn that they are merely apologists for thugs, not defenders of liberty.


What an incredibly self-centered and abusively inflammatory statement. Get over yourself, son.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *bicker*
> No. It reached a peak in 1980, and has been decreasing slowly since then, with minor perturbations. The biggest indication of the downturn starting was the take-over of the Democratic Party (the party that was typically behind onerous government regulation of business) by the relatively pro-business DLC.


I have no way of proving or disproving this. It maybe true for large businesses/Industries but is certainly not true for anything I can see or have involvement in.

In the 1980's I was involved in a family dairy farm - I can tell you the amount of regulations a dairy farm has to deal with now is significantly larger than what we dealt with. In the 1980's if someone wanted to build big box store or strip mall you built it now it takes an act of God and you have to agree to build it the way the town wants or it won't happen even with an act of God. In the 1980s I built a new house - all I had to due was draw a sketch on a piece of paper indicating what I was going to build - try that now and see what happens.

I do not see any business or industry that is less regulated - just because Government Officials are "Pro Business" doesn't mean less regulation - it just means regulation that favors what ever business they support and given that so many people have bought into global warming I only see more regulations coming not less.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> We were talking about government regulation of business, not spending.
> 
> I agree. Again, spending is not the same as regulation. Spending continues to increase; while regulation over business moderates. They're independent variables.


well the specific issue of the thread is govt. regulation of media providers, that is true but your statement was 


bicker said:


> "And a growing number of people believe that smaller government is better; less government regulation is better. It used to be just a fringe of the GOP, then the whole GOP. Now it is a majority of BOTH of the major political parties."


 I was reacting to both smaller govt. and less Govt. regulation. All the less govt. regulation amounts to is that politicians are coming from corporate backgrounds and removing regulations that control corporate governance and market actions. A less explosive way to say what Justin is saying. So yes both parties think that letting corproations expand and giving the impression that the economy is doing better is great. It is also a time that the gap between rich and poor gets wider. That is not a coincidence.

but that is all the politics I wish to delve into on this forum.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> I was reacting to both smaller govt. *and* less Govt. regulation.


Careless typing on my part; nothing more. I meant "smaller government through less government regulation, without precluding larger government through more government spending." 

Regardless of how you spin it, that's the way our society is these days, and the trend is in THAT direction for practically everything we discuss here on this forum.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Regardless of how you spin it, that's the way our society is these days, and the trend is in THAT direction for practically everything we discuss here on this forum.


Sorry. The pendulum swings both ways. Guess which way it is going now. I apologize if you personally felt abused. Perhaps the point struck a little too close to home.

It is sad that those espousing this particular philosophy are at best naive about corporate activities, and at worst cynical flunkies of the corporate thugs who abuse small companies such as Tivo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

So your best contribution to the discussion is to come back a week later to launch yet another personal attack. 

There is no swinging back, Justin. Just yesterday we got news that the bill to reform cable franchising in TN was withdrawn -- the cable companies have again won the support of the people's representatives. One of the biggest complaints was the fact that the legislation imposed operating guidelines on existing cable companies. While consumer protection was also an issue, look what they decided to do: NOTHING. So consumers are protected more by doing nothing than by reforming the industry. Oooookay! Yes, that pendulum is swinging, Justin... just not in the direction you want it to. If you refuse to acknowledge the reality of this industry, Justin, get used to being wrong.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh? Libertarians have disinvented the pendulum? Government involvement and regulation in industry goes back and forth from the time of farm management of the Pharoahs of Egypt through to the present. Roman regulation of open road network fosterred strong trade, but gave way to a more libertarian turnpike approach run by local thugs. More recently, industry enjoyed little regulation in the 20's and again discovered the hard way in the 30's what thugs will do in the power vacuum.

FDR brought a number of new institutions we have today which thankfully have not been eradicated by the zealots in power today. Today, these same lunatics have brought forth the idea that even the military should be outsourced to right wing christian militias like Blackwater USA, or that political operatives with credentials of participating on Kenneth Starr's witchhunt and not technology should politicize institutions like the FCC.

But hey- go right ahead and think that is not a pendulum in full swing to the right.

Maybe you think that the American pulic is convinced that mammoth companies know what's best for us, and that they should not be restrained from using monopolistic practices to crush competition. Maybe they should be entitled by virtue of their monopoly power to control what technology choices that consumers have access to in their living rooms.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Oh? Libertarians have disinvented the pendulum?


No. Rather, simply not everything works the way you want it to work, and nothing ever works consistently. Inconsistency is a hallmark of reality. Sometimes trends just go in one direction for long periods of time. Some things, over the course of centuries, have only gone in one direction. Some things oscillate with no apparent pattern whatsoever. Everything is different. In this case, the trend is more like the former than the latter or like anything you're trying to assert.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> nothing ever works consistently. Inconsistency is a hallmark of reality.


Yah, Jack Sparrow is a Libertarian and I bet he would pirate TV service in a heart beat were he alive in these times


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> In this case, the trend is more like the former than the latter or like anything you're trying to assert.


Hold that murky thought, and check back later. An alternate congress has been in power for only 4 months. The Senate commerce committee is now in the hands of Inouye, original co sponsor of the Snowe-Dorgan net neutrality (Internet Freedom Protection) act. Hilary and Barack support it as well.

Get used to those last two names. The other shoe is about to fall, and though the act may be vetoed, Net neutrality is going to happen.

It might also be a good idea to start getting used to the concept of the FCC actually doing its job too.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You keep hoping, Justin. Remember that Hillary's husband chaired the DLC, and that Hillary is a member herself, and heads the DLC's American Dream Initiative, part of which is intended to ensure that, "Every business should have the opportunity to grow and prosper in the strongest private economy on earth..." There is nothing in the American Dream Initiative that supports the right-to-cable-television.  It focuses on really important things like education, health care, the opportunity to work and save, financial control. It is a strictly non-consumeristic initiative. 

As it is, if the Democratic party goes back to its tax-and-spend, Ralph Nader-liberal ways, they'll just hand the 2008 election to the Republicans.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

political discussion is not allowed here.


----------

