# OTA TiVo not released?



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Looked on tivo.com and can't find a single store with one for sale.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

They used to have in-stock dates, but it looks like they have been removed.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

One would think they would put something on their website stating the reason for all these delays, especially since potential customers are traveling to Best Buys, and calling them on the phone trying to find out when they can buy an OTA. Not very good marketing.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Well, its a limited release. So, supplies are limited.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

jrtroo said:


> Well, its a limited release. So, supplies are limited.


Limited to who? I don't see any store with product.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Banker257 said:


> I don't see any store with product.


I did...


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> One would think they would put something on their website stating the reason for all these delays, especially since potential customers are traveling to Best Buys, and calling them on the phone trying to find out when they can buy an OTA. Not very good marketing.


Meh, it's Best Buy. It's not like they have anything better to do, right?


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

davezatz said:


> I did...


Which Best Buy did you get yours from?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

This one was spotted in Sterling, Virginia (DC suburb) and wasn't even on the original list... but is on the newly revised list. Wonder if their distribution plans have already changed and all/more/different Best Buys will be getting this fall?


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

davezatz said:


> This one was spotted in Sterling, Virginia (DC suburb) and wasn't even on the original list... but is on the newly revised list. Wonder if their distribution plans have already changed and all/more/different Best Buys will be getting this fall?


Where cani find the newly revised list?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Banker257 said:


> Where cani find the newly revised list?


The list is up, but no more expected delivery dates, they have been removed.

http://www.tivo.com/discover/antenna


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> The list is up, but no more expected delivery dates, they have been removed.
> 
> http://www.tivo.com/discover/antenna


Wow. Several of the stores offering it on on my way to work. Although there are a couple in my area not listed as offering it which seems kind of surprising considering how much volume the best Buy stores do in Northern VA.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> The list is up, but no more expected delivery dates, they have been removed.
> 
> http://www.tivo.com/discover/antenna


Thanks. So it's not available today, right?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Banker257 said:


> Thanks. So it's not available today, right?


It depends on what the meaning of "today" is.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Saw a positive review on another forum & asked how he got his hands on one already.

Apparently he went straight to Best Buy as soon as he got the email from Tivo & convinced them to ship direct from their warehouse to his home.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Dates are back up on the Tivo Website for Best Buy dealers. Not an exact date, but the time of the month, at least. Most that I have seen are " Late September, late October, and Late November......


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

My local ones are all Late October, which, should I decide to proceed with the OTA, gives me time to get a good antenna setup figured out and a good overlap with the end of my Dish contract to get season passes setup, stuff we want to watch recorded, etc.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

ncbill said:


> Saw a positive review on another forum & asked how he got his hands on one already.
> 
> Apparently he went straight to Best Buy as soon as he got the email from Tivo & convinced them to ship direct from their warehouse to his home.


I was one of them. When I read the availability date I went to the local BB at 10:00 (when they opened) and talked with the supervisor of the home theatre department (its one of those BB with the upscale HT stuff and all 3 Roamios available) and with some figuring out with the Tivo rep he found the SKU and ordered one for me and I had it shipped to the store. Got it on a Tuesday

(there were a half dozen folks looking and ordering it when I was walking out)

I didnt convince anybody. The guy said it could be ordered and shipped to my house or the store. I opted for the store as its on my way home from work


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

unclehonkey said:


> I was one of them. When I read the availability date I went to the local BB at 10:00 (when they opened) and talked with the supervisor of the home theatre department (its one of those BB with the upscale HT stuff and all 3 Roamios available) and with some figuring out with the Tivo rep he found the SKU and ordered one for me and I had it shipped to the store. Got it on a Tuesday
> 
> (there were a half dozen folks looking and ordering it when I was walking out)
> 
> I didnt convince anybody. The guy said it could be ordered and shipped to my house or the store. I opted for the store as its on my way home from work


Sounds like they don't have to activate the service if you can have it shipped to your house.

I don't see how this is a money maker for TiVo. I think it's going to be nothing more than a cheap source for spare parts.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


Might as well ask "Why does anyone pay Tivo for monthly service?" or "Why wear clothes?" or "Why don't corporations care more about long-term relationships with customers than what their stock price will do over the coming quarter?"

It is human nature to try things out. This allows people to try out Tivo service with OTA channels at a low up-front cost. Yes, it will cost them more in the long run than a base Roamio with lifetime, but the short term cost is small, and, if it doesn't work out, they can bail after a year. After reading the AVS HD DVR forums, people are eager for Tivo quality with OTA service, without a huge up-front cost. That's just the way many people are.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


It doesn't make sense to me either, but people don't always behave rationally. Much to my surprise, there does seem to be a demand for this unit, and it's hard to argue with success.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Some people just don't twist themselves into a pretzel worrying about spending $15 a month. I'm one of them.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I have a backup of the webpage with dates. The new webpage just adds the word "Late" in front of each month. I take that to mean the whole thing is non-exact.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

I'll be buying at least one for spare parts and tinkering with things I wouldn't want to on any of my three lifetime base-Roamios.

1. Remote control w/batteries
2. Wall-wart power supply
3. 500GB hard drive (add to the others I've pulled out, and I can make a rudimentary NAS server for extra TiVo content storage).
4. Fan
5. All the onboard parts you can transplant between boxes, if equipped to, other than the cablecard bracket/slot.

If you don't have to activate it at POS (confirmed), this is a treasure trove of spare parts, and something you can try (things better left unsaid) on, if you like to reverse-engineer/modify things.


----------



## DEC2955 (May 3, 2009)

davezatz said:


> I did...


What is the UPC and or the SKU# so that others that wish to order this DVR can place an order!

avid


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


Doesn't seem such a rip-off. A four tuner HD box that you can use without a subscription to time shift content a half hour. That is what I plan to use it for to watch the news so I can fast forward through the commercials.



nooneuknow said:


> I'll be buying at least one for spare parts and tinkering with things I wouldn't want to on any of my three lifetime base-Roamios.
> 
> 1. Remote control w/batteries
> 2. Wall-wart power supply
> ...


Sounds like a great idea.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

UPC: 851342000254
Model: TCD846510
Tivo SKU: R84651

The BestBuy SKU is different.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

nooneuknow said:


> I'll be buying at least one for spare parts and tinkering with things I wouldn't want to on any of my three lifetime base-Roamios. 1. Remote control w/batteries 2. Wall-wart power supply 3. 500GB hard drive (add to the others I've pulled out, and I can make a rudimentary NAS server for extra TiVo content storage). 4. Fan 5. All the onboard parts you can transplant between boxes, if equipped to, other than the cablecard bracket/slot. If you don't have to activate it at POS (confirmed), this is a treasure trove of spare parts, and something you can try (things better left unsaid) on, if you like to reverse-engineer/modify things.


I agree, that's one hell of a nice parts list for only $50!


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

telemark said:


> I have a backup of the webpage with dates. The new webpage just adds the word "Late" in front of each month. I take that to mean the whole thing is non-exact.


The latest page this morning doesn't even say "late". They pulled all the expected delivery months like "end of October", off the Best Buy Dealer list "again" on the Tivo website. This has to go down as the worst roll out of any product I can ever remember being interested in. I truly suspect that they have discovered some major issues with the OTA, which make them impossible to sell in their present form , and they had to recall all the units that were to be shipped to Best Buys, to be reworked or modified some how. Either that, or the factory burned to the ground


----------



## DEC2955 (May 3, 2009)

telemark said:


> UPC: 851342000254
> Model: TCD846510
> Tivo SKU: R84651
> 
> The BestBuy SKU is different.


Thanks.. what I really needed was the Best Buy SKU# to give to local store.

avid


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> The latest page this morning doesn't even say "late". They pulled all the expected delivery months like "end of October", off the Best Buy Dealer list "again" on the Tivo website. This has to go down as the worst roll out of any product I can ever remember being interested in. I truly suspect that they have discovered some major issues with the OTA, which make them impossible to sell in their present form , and they had to recall all the units that were to be shipped to Best Buys, to be reworked or modified some how. Either that, or the factory burned to the ground


Maybe they realized if someone solders a Cablecard jack in the bottom that it will work just like a Roamio basic? Has anybody with one of these things tried hooking it up to a cable signal and doing a scan and seeing if it will receive clear QAM?


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


-why should I pay 200 bucks for the one with a cable card when there is no cable where I live when I can pay 50 bucks?
-I can afford $15 a month...not the lifetime price right now
-it does what I need it to do. Record 4 shows at once. Its better than the 2 tuner one I had


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

unclehonkey said:


> -why should I pay 200 bucks for the one with a cable card when there is no cable where I live when I can pay 50 bucks?
> -I can afford $15 a month...not the lifetime price right now
> -it does what I need it to do. Record 4 shows at once. Its better than the 2 tuner one I had


The OTA sounds perfect for you.


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> I truly suspect that they have discovered some major issues with the OTA ...


A major issue like people buying the device just for parts.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It doesn't make sense to me either, but people don't always behave rationally. Much to my surprise, there does seem to be a demand for this unit, and it's hard to argue with success.


Yeah, pretty much. They should just allow Lifetime on it at the full $500. Then it would sort of make sense.



replaytv said:


> Doesn't seem such a rip-off. A four tuner HD box that you can use without a subscription to time shift content a half hour. That is what I plan to use it for to watch the news so I can fast forward through the commercials.


You'd be better off with something else if you really don't want to pay the subscription fee.



unclehonkey said:


> -why should I pay 200 bucks for the one with a cable card when there is no cable where I live when I can pay 50 bucks?
> -I can afford $15 a month...not the lifetime price right now
> -it does what I need it to do. Record 4 shows at once. Its better than the 2 tuner one I had


Because for $700, you have a DVR that has NO monthly fee! If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be buying anything like it that now has a monthly fee attached! Maybe get an S3 off of Ebay with Lifetime or something. It might be a while, but when we see a large-scale MPEG-4 conversion by Verizon or Comcast, the price of those will go down even farther... Or add a tuner card to an old PC and use MCE 7... There's options that aren't $700.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So I could actually buy one of these for $50 and not get service? Is that true? If so that would be an excellent deal for spare parts . An extra power supply, fan and hard drive would be nice.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Because for $700, you have a DVR that has NO monthly fee! If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be buying anything like it that now has a monthly fee attached! Maybe get an S3 off of Ebay with Lifetime or something. It might be a while, but when we see a large-scale MPEG-4 conversion by Verizon or Comcast, the price of those will go down even farther... Or add a tuner card to an old PC and use MCE 7... There's options that aren't $700.


I don't know... he will get almost 4 years of service for 700 bucks. During those 4 years he can save enough to buy whatever the newest non-TVmonopoly unit TiVo makes. Unless of course, they never make another one and remove OTA from everything because the TV monopolies don't allow it.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

aaronwt said:


> So I could actually buy one of these for $50 and not get service? Is that true? If so that would be an excellent deal for spare parts . An extra power supply, fan and hard drive would be nice.


From the reports (that were) coming in, from those who bought them, when/where available, no service commitment was required at point of sale at BB.

From the reports (now) coming in, it seems TiVo has stopped shipping them to stores, and seems to be scurrying to make some changes, which could change the former POS process (like requiring a service commitment at purchase), change some TOS/policies, or maybe even make changes to the internals, to make sure they can't be un-crippled. Maybe they found some fatal flaw. It's all back to speculation now.

I'd be watching the legal section on TiVo's site, and checking for anything that gets updated there. They'd have to make some changes to stop people from buying for $50, agreeing to a service commitment, then using the 30-day satisfaction guarantee to lose the commitment, then keep the box.

If TiVo truly wanted to insure against all this, they'd only sell them from tivo.com, and would require return of the box, upon cancelling the service. How they can stop such things, selling through BB, would require BB to verify the unit was returned to the store, tracked via TSN, and relayed to TiVo.

Unless the hiccup is purely internal hardware, or a major software issue, everything I just speculated should show up in the legal section, if any of that gets changed.

*ETA:* I recall when I could buy TCD746320 Premieres from BB, and only the main barcode was scanned, while the TCD746500 model would prompt the cashier to scan the TSN barcode after scanning the main one (or the other way around). It didn't seem to matter as a buyer, or as somebody returning one, since I bought one of each, then returned both (to see if they would wind up back on the shelf, or returned to TiVo, as BB claimed, when I accused them as selling open box TiVos, resealed, as new). Results: They were resealed, and put back on shelf as new, instead of open-box.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> From the reports (that were) coming in, from those who bought them, when/where available, no service commitment was required at point of sale at BB.
> 
> From the reports (now) coming in, it seems TiVo has stopped shipping them to stores, and seems to be scurrying to make some changes, which could change the former POS process (like requiring a service commitment at purchase), change some TOS/policies, or maybe even make changes to the internals, to make sure they can't be un-crippled. Maybe they found some fatal flaw. It's all back to speculation now.
> 
> ...


The Roamio that I bought from Best Buys last month, had been registered 7 weeks before I bought it by someone. Everything looked brand new, and the box was perfectly sealed, but the serial number is outside on the box, so , they could have called and registered it using that serial number.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Captainbob said:


> The Roamio that I bought from Best Buys last month, had been registered 7 weeks before I bought it by someone. Everything looked brand new, and the box was perfectly sealed, but the serial number is outside on the box, so , they could have called and registered it using that serial number.


You can even write down the TSNs from the sealed boxes, and put them on priority update lists. I tried that, just to see what would happen. TSN was accepted, on a never-opened TiVo, still at the store.

I like the TSN on the outside, as I'm the type that digs through the stacks, looking for the highest serial numbers, for anything I buy. Higher S/N on name model of product, tends to mean newer, and sometime makes warranty issues easier.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The OTA sounds perfect for you.


hence the reason I own one. Got it the 1st day they were available. Ordered thru my BB and got it 2 days later


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Because for $700, you have a DVR that has NO monthly fee! If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be buying anything like it that now has a monthly fee attached!


so lemme understand this. Just because* I* "can't afford" 700 buks up front and would rather pay $15 a month I (in *YOUR* mind) look like an idiot?

Last I checked you weren't my wife (don't have one...don't need one) and I'd rather do it this way. News Flash...some people actually *DON'T* want lifetime service because either they cant afford it or just don't want it.



> Maybe get an S3 off of Ebay with Lifetime or something.


actually I *DID* replace a Series 3 with this one. I got the Series 3 for $10 from someone because "it was broke"....and it had service on it until end of August. All that was wrong was the hard drive cable somehow got loose. Used it 6 months.
Why did I upgrade? Simple. 4 tuners versus 2. (and the HD only had the 21 hour hard drive) 
By the way I've had 4 Tivo's now. Premiere for 3 days (OTA tuner sucked...returned it), Used Series 3 with Lifetime (sold it...needed the money), and the 2 I just talked about previously.



MannyE said:


> I don't know... he will get almost 4 years of service for 700 bucks. During those 4 years he can save enough to buy whatever the newest non-TV monopoly unit TiVo makes. Unless of course, they never make another one and remove OTA from everything because the TV monopolies don't allow it.


Exactly. But I guess I look like the dumbass because I wont get lifetime (according to some people here)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Whether someone wants to pay monthly or all at once with Lifetime should not really matter. It is fortunate that TiVo allows their customers to choose. That was not the case with some DVRs from other companies in the past. They only had one choice. There is nothing wrong with someone paying monthly or getting lifetime. It is their money and their decision what they do with it.

I typically buy lifetime service. But I also have one TiVo on $6.95 monthly. If I did not have the option for $6.95 service back in 2007 then I would not have a Roamio Basic on $6.95 monthly. Since it's just a secondary TiVo for me I would not have paid all the money for lifetime when I got it last November.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm new to this forum and to TiVo too. Well, not new to TiVo, but it's been years. 

I'm happily subscribed to DirecTV, but I've wanted to try TiVo and thought this OTA would be perfect. I just went through a local channel blackout and this would solve that. 

I gave up on the OTA with all the delays and ordered a base Roamio yesterday, and I didn't do lifetime. 

I'm not stupid, broke or lazy, I'm just not sure that I'll be using it after my 12 months are up. 

Even though I lack lifetime service on it, I'm really looking forward to the Roamio showing up. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

unclehonkey said:


> so lemme understand this. Just because* I* "can't afford" 700 buks up front and would rather pay $15 a month I (in *YOUR* mind) look like an idiot?
> 
> Last I checked you weren't my wife (don't have one...don't need one) and I'd rather do it this way. News Flash...some people actually *DON'T* want lifetime service because either they cant afford it or just don't want it.
> 
> ...


I have argued the same point for weeks on this forum, and finally gave up. Many of the people that post pro-lifetime see nothing wrong with spending $500 up front to save $15 a month years from now ( providing the product is still working) , on a then 3-4 year old piece of electronic gear. I've been in the electronics business my entire life, and to me that's like buying a 10 year extended warranty on a $500 TV. I finally gave up, because I realized that this saving of $15 a month to some folks is the most important thing in their lives. I don't get it either, especially when some of these same people seem to be still paying monthly cable bills. Go figure..


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> I'm new to this forum and to TiVo too. Well, not new to TiVo, but it's been years.
> 
> I'm happily subscribed to DirecTV, but I've wanted to try TiVo and thought this OTA would be perfect. I just went through a local channel blackout and this would solve that.
> 
> ...


Exactly my thinking. I think it is a poor choice to drop down $500 on a product that you may not be using in a year or two. Like buying a lifetime supply of a certain beer, that you may hate in a year.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Captainbob said:


> Exactly my thinking. I think it is a poor choice to drop down $500 on a product that you may not be using in a year or two. Like buying a lifetime supply of a certain beer, that you may hate in a year.


I'm not calling it a poor choice, just that for me it isn't the right choice.

There's no chance that I cut the cord in the next 5 years, and there's little chance that I switch to cable.

At this rate, I could use it for my 1 year and drop it. I could also use it for a few years and love it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

The argument that everyone should buy Lifetime is almost like saying everyone renting an Apartment should be being a Condo. And homeowners are throwing money away with a mortgage, they should be buying with all cash.

But the more interesting part is about Risk. If Tivo wants higher subscriber numbers (and who doesn't want that?) They will have to reach people who never had a DVR before. People who are saying why would I pay $500, which is more than many pay for their TV, for some unknown accessory, that they barely know what it does, nor see the benefit.

This is different for someone who is a long time Tivo (or even DVR) user. You know what you're paying for and getting in return.  There is low risk of later disliking or not finding it useful. Tivo's are generally loved by those who tried, but the adoption rates never lead to saturation. (compare that to other tech that did become ubiquitous over the same time period). That's very telling there's a barrier to acceptance, and the least Tivo could do is play/experiment with the initial pricing to start addressing it.

It just wish they did it sooner, like many years ago, instead of when they could be on the verge of irrelevance.

Comcast with X1 offers free 6 months and installation. You gotta hope that those who get hooked on DVR's and TV Anywhere, will "upgrade" to Tivo from that because I don't see Tivo ever matching that offer.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

telemark said:


> The argument that everyone should buy Lifetime is almost like saying everyone renting an Apartment should be being a Condo. And homeowners are throwing money away with a mortgage, they should be buying with all cash.
> 
> But the more interesting part is about Risk. If Tivo wants higher subscriber numbers (and who doesn't want that?) They will have to reach people who never had a DVR before. People who are saying why would I pay $500, which is more than many pay for their TV, for some unknown accessory, that they barely know what it does, nor see the benefit.
> 
> ...


Another issue is the competition that the cable and dish providers are in currently trying to capture new customers from their competitors. They will offer fantastic deals for the first year, trying to get people to switch, offering free DVRs and HD along with their very low intro rates. . I talk to folks all the time, including family members, that switch from one provider to another to take advantage of these deals. Being tied to a lifetime contract on a DVR that may or may not work with another provider, limits that option in many cases.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Why wouldn't the TiVo work with another provider? As long as they use cable cards the TiVo will work. Here I could switch between Comcast and FiOS if I want and my Season Passes will carry over between providers.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

telemark said:


> The argument that everyone should buy Lifetime is almost like saying everyone renting an Apartment should be being a Condo. And homeowners are throwing money away with a mortgage, they should be buying with all cash.


You should own instead of rent. And with a mortgage you own the home you aren't leasing it. Your payments are finite. It's a loan.

IF the cable company broke out the cost of your equipment in your bill and your fees would stop when it was paid off then it would be comparable to a mortgage.



telemark said:


> But the more interesting part is about Risk. If Tivo wants higher subscriber numbers (and who doesn't want that?) They will have to reach people who never had a DVR before. People who are saying why would I pay $500, which is more than many pay for their TV, for some unknown accessory, that they barely know what it does, nor see the benefit.
> 
> This is different for someone who is a long time Tivo (or even DVR) user. You know what you're paying for and getting in return. There is low risk of later disliking or not finding it useful. Tivo's are generally loved by those who tried, but the adoption rates never lead to saturation. (compare that to other tech that did become ubiquitous over the same time period). That's very telling there's a barrier to acceptance, and the least Tivo could do is play/experiment with the initial pricing to start addressing it.
> 
> ...


They don't have to go after non-dvr users. Nothing to do with it really.

Tivo's problem has always been the cable company. The cable company was in a position to make life difficult for Tivo. They had all the power. They had control over the network and already had a relationship with the customer and they had b&m customer service centers within driving distance of every customer.

And yes most people would rather make small monthly payments in perpetuity vs paying a lot up front and saving in the long run. And cable was in a much better position to take advantage of that.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Why wouldn't the TiVo work with another provider? As long as they use cable cards the TiVo will work. Here I could switch between Comcast and FiOS if I want and my Season Passes will carry over between providers.


How about Dish and Direct TV and U-verse?


----------



## joetekcor (Sep 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Why is anyone buying this horrible rip-off?


I was one of the lucky ones who went to BB on day one and was able to order an OTA and picked it up 4 days later.

Last month I ditched Dish Network after paying $160/month for service. I was already subscribing to netflix, amazon, etc and needed something to help with the current season OTA stuff. The new OTA Roamio is working great! I live about 5 miles from the broadcast towers so reception is no problem. My first scan picked up about 110 OTA channels. (OK, only about 6 that I'd watch)

I know that everyone gripes about the $15/month fee but for us new cord cutters used to shelling out 10X that amount $15 is nothing. I looked into other alternatives but I don't have tons of money to invest up front. One time $50 and $15/mo is the perfect solution for me.

And I'll add that the box has been working flawlessly for me. Been recording everything with a great picture quality. Streams netflix, youtube, etc over wifi without a skip. I'm just waiting for Amazon Prime streaming to show up.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Exactly my thinking. I think it is a poor choice to drop down $500 on a product that you may not be using in a year or two. Like buying a lifetime supply of a certain beer, that you may hate in a year.


Ridiculous. You still have this logic that talks out of both sides of its mouth.

this logic that says saving a bit of money by getting lifetime means nothing to me. But heaven forbid the small possibility I lose a little bit of money by going with lifetime.

$15/mo for 2 years in is $360. YOu're pretty darn quickly in the ball park of $500. Do you know what you would lose if you went lifetime, kept it for 2 years and then threw your lifetime Tivo in the closet? You would have lost $6/mo or $.20/day those past 2 years.

That's you the same person that says I'm not concerned about paying $.50/day for my dvr when told you can save money with lifetime.

And then you have this ridiculous analogy to beer. As if people are going to get tired of a dvr like they might with a beer. YOu keep acting like some amazing new way to record, play, pause, ff, and rewind content is imminent.

And if I have the ability sell my supply of beer as easily as a Tivo at any time and come out way ahead, relatively speaking, compared to making monthly payments in perpetuity, then I'm doing it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

joetekcor said:


> I was one of the lucky ones who went to BB on day one and was able to order an OTA and picked it up 4 days later.
> 
> Last month I ditched Dish Network after paying $160/month for service. I was already subscribing to netflix, amazon, etc and needed something to help with the current season OTA stuff. The new OTA Roamio is working great! I live about 5 miles from the broadcast towers so reception is no problem. My first scan picked up about 110 OTA channels. (OK, only about 6 that I'd watch)
> 
> ...


Well tivo is banking on customers like you who compare apples and oranges.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> Well tivo is banking on customers like you who compare apples and oranges.


Tivo is banking on customers who decide that oranges taste great and cost a heck of a lot less than apples (to extend your metaphor).


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

maybe. I'm thinking more like....



ncted said:


> Tivo is banking on customers who decide that 2 new apples and 2 old apples are great and cost a heck of a lot less than the highest price I could possibly pay for the 10 bushels of apples and oranges that I was getting(to extend your metaphor).


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Well tivo is banking on customers like you who compare apples and oranges.


They are banking on customers that are glad to save over $1,000 a year by cutting the cord, as I did 2 years ago, but still like having a good DVR, and for those people a $15 a month fee is chump change compared to their former cable and dish bills, and I know people paying a lot more than $1,000 a year for their cable service.

I have said this before, and will say it again, I work in an industry with all tech people that have been in the video business for years as engineers and technicians. When I bought my Tivo over a month ago and told them about the "lifetime ( of the unit) subscription plan, versus the $15 a month,* not one of them *said they would have chosen the lifetime plan.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> They are banking on customers that are glad to save over $1,000 a month by cutting the cord, as I did 2 years ago, but still like having a good DVR, and for those people a $15 a month fee is chump change compared to their former cable and dish bills.


AS I said, Tivo is banking on customers like you who compare apples and oranges.



Captainbob said:


> I have said this before, and will say it again, I work in an industry with all tech people that have been in the video business for years as engineers and technicians. When I bought my Tivo over a month ago and told them about the "lifetime ( of the unit) subscription plan, versus the $15 a month,* not one of them *said they would have chosen the lifetime plan.


That is supposed to trump math and reason and experience? 

You're asking laymen for advice. You'll find more experts about the best way to buy Tivos on this forum than anywhere else.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> maybe. I'm thinking more like....
> 
> Tivo is banking on customers who decide that 2 new apples and 2 old apples are great and cost a heck of a lot less than the highest price I could possibly pay for the 10 bushels of apples and oranges that I was getting(to extend your metaphor).


That is actually a decent metaphor as there is no way I could ever eat that much fruit, and I don't care for most of the varieties bulk shipped to me every month, and assuming the old apples are freeze dried.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Ridiculous. You still have this logic that talks out of both sides of its mouth.
> 
> this logic that says saving a bit of money by getting lifetime means nothing to me. But heaven forbid the small possibility I lose a little bit of money by going with lifetime.
> 
> ...


Do you sell used cars by any chance?


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Captainbob said:


> They are banking on customers that are glad to save over $1,000 *a month* by cutting the cord, as I did 2 years ago, but still like having a good DVR, and for those people a $15 a month fee is chump change compared to their former cable and dish bills.


I'll assume that's supposed to say "year". Otherwise, what the hell were you subscribed to?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

> You're asking laymen for advice. You'll find more experts about the best way to buy Tivos on this forum than anywhere else.


While not disagreeing with that statement, Nobody on this planet, and by that I include the esteemed board members, knows for certain what the TV competitive landscape will look like in 4+ years.

We're always one congress vote, FCC ruling, court decision, or invention away from a sudden disruption.

Plenty of smart people believe a DVR (used as a recording device of linear TV) will be obsolete to them by then. You can disagree, and even be right in the end, but they still made a logical choice based on their views of the future.

I know people like that irl, and the only thing I can say to them is I hope their timeframe is right. (cause eventually they'll be right, just a matter of when)


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

There is nothing wrong with monthly service, and I do not look down on people who choose that route... If it makes sense for you, that is why TiVo offers both options (in most cases.)

For me I look at the number of years I generally use a TiVo and the resale of a lifetime TiVo when I am ready to upgrade. When I bought my Roamio and mini, I sold my two S3 models and my lifetime service fee was covered by the resale.

I still have my Premiere running and at almost 4 years old it still gets software updates and is well past the break even point. 

Premiere 2 tuner TiVo with lifetime - current resale value: ~ $400
Premiere 2 tuner Tivo w/o lifetime - current resale value: ~ $50

So, you can see why many of us long time TiVo owners are more inclined to go with lifetime service. It is like putting money in the bank.

It would be different if the monthly service fee ended or converted to lifetime after an extended period of time, but you build no equity - and ultimately, that is the problem.

I was not a fan of the TiVo OTA when I thought they were unreasonably crippling the functionality by not allowing use of the Mini - but with that available, I think it is a decent offering.

Would I buy one? No, I would choose the base Roamio with lifetime. Why? Just because it is more functional and will support more environments and have a much better resale value.

But that is just me.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> Whether someone wants to pay monthly or all at once with Lifetime should not really matter. It is fortunate that TiVo allows their customers to choose. That was not the case with some DVRs from other companies in the past. They only had one choice. There is nothing wrong with someone paying monthly or getting lifetime. It is their money and their decision what they do with it.


well put! I dont get why some people get their big boy panties in a wad if someone doesnt do lifetime. Reminds me of the whole "own vs lease" when it comes to cars.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

telemark said:


> While not disagreeing with that statement, Nobody on this planet, and by that I include the esteemed board members, knows for certain what the TV competitive landscape will look like in 4+ years.
> 
> We're always one congress vote, FCC ruling, court decision, or invention away from a sudden disruption.
> 
> ...


There are quite a few people in the broadcasting business that feel that much of what we watch today will be moving to the world of streaming from the cloud, which would tend to make DVR's unnecessary. When I watch Netflix now, I don't use my Tivo, other than for it's Netflix app, but I could also use my Roku, or an Apple TV, or Chromecast, or Blu Ray player. Look at how almost nobody listens to terrestrial radio anymore, getting their radio stations from their smartphone or Roku box, via Tunein or other radio apps. Companies like Clearchannel are up to their butts in debt owing billions, after buying so many radio stations that are losing money and listeners every day. Rather than maintain an expensive transmitter, and all the associated expenses that go along with it, it is a simple matter to stream the content via broadband, at a fraction of the cost. The media world we see today, is going to be changing sooner rather than later.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

telemark said:


> While not disagreeing with that statement, Nobody on this planet, and by that I include the esteemed board members, knows for certain what the TV competitive landscape will look like in 4+ years.


No one has a crystal ball. But pretty clear that there is nearly 100% chance that your OTA Tivo isn't going obsolete in the next 2 years and that there won't be so much better cheaper alternatives to watching that content. For that to happen changes have to start being made yesterday.



telemark said:


> We're always one congress vote, FCC ruling, court decision, or invention away from a sudden disruption.


 You can have a vote that changes things but the disruption will never be sudden. Experience points that out.



telemark said:


> Plenty of smart people believe a DVR (used as a recording device of linear TV) will be obsolete to them by then.


They may be smart in some areas but not in this one.



telemark said:


> You can disagree, and even be right in the end, but they still made a logical choice based on their views of the future.


Well then every crazy person is making logical choices.



telemark said:


> I know people like that irl, and the only thing I can say to them is I hope their timeframe is right. (cause eventually they'll be right, just a matter of when)


AT some point dvrs go by the wayside.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> There are quite a few people in the broadcasting business that feel that much of what we watch today will be moving to the world of streaming from the cloud, which would tend to make DVR's unnecessary. When I watch Netflix now, I don't use my Tivo, other than for it's Netflix app, but I could also use my Roku, or an Apple TV, or Chromecast, or Blu Ray player. Look at how almost nobody listens to terrestrial radio anymore, getting their radio stations from their smartphone or Roku box, via Tunein or other radio apps. Companies like Clearchannel are up to their butts in debt owing billions, after buying so many radio stations that are losing money and listeners every day. Rather than maintain an expensive transmitter, and all the associated expenses that go along with it, it is a simple matter to stream the content via broadband, at a fraction of the cost. The media world we see today, is going to be changing sooner rather than later.


There is a great chance we move to streaming from the cloud.

But it won't be happening soon enough to make a lifetime Tivo OTA not worthwhile vs making monthly payments. EXperience can tell you that. Look at all the other transitions that have happened of this magnitude. And even though radio may not be doing great, radio stations still play music and talk shows and your radio still receives them.

Besides if local channels went the streaming route tomorrow and you could do it on a $100 Roku, they won't take down OTA transmissions and you won't be skipping commercials on your Roku.

Hell my wife's 3yr old iPhone 4s still does calls, messages, Facebook, email, music, etc etc and we're talking the rapidly moving smartphone tech world.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

unclehonkey said:


> well put! I dont get why some people get their big boy panties in a wad if someone doesnt do lifetime. Reminds me of the whole "own vs lease" when it comes to cars.


No one cares if someone doesn't do lifetime.

The point here is to call out the misinformation and retarded logic some are using. I'd call out people buying lifetime if they used ridiculous notions to support their decision.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> AS I said, Tivo is banking on customers like you who compare apples and oranges. That is supposed to trump math and reason and experience?  You're asking laymen for advice. You'll find more experts about the best way to buy Tivos on this forum than anywhere else.


I'm really thinking we should get Suze Orman to weigh in on monthly vs lifetime, as mediator. 8)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Do you sell used cars by any chance?


Funny because I think you're describing yourself.

You're the one reducing costs to a per day basis something everyone trying to sell you something does.

You're the one telling us how the other choice is going to be obsolete any second.

You're the one telling us the other choice is bound to break down.

You're the one trying to tell us none of your coworkers in the industry think the other choice is a good idea.

You're the one using all the hyperbole.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> That is actually a decent metaphor as there is no way I could ever eat that much fruit, and I don't care for most of the varieties bulk shipped to me every month, and assuming the old apples are freeze dried.


Good point. Except that same person that purports to not care about all the fruit that is shipped to them is busy digging in the dumpster out back for some of that same fruit because it's cheaper.

Anyway the analogy was really saying that ....

Tivo likes that people are comparing the monthly fee of the OTA Tivo based on the highest possible price one could pay per month for a satellite tv package. Tom Rogers is giddy right now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Funny because I think you're describing yourself.
> 
> You're the one reducing costs to a per day basis something everyone trying to sell you something does.
> 
> ...


And you are the one that obviously enjoys bashing anyone that disagrees with your mantra " Everyone must have a lifetime subscription like I do, or there is something wrong with you", Over and over and over again. You seem to be almost OCD about this topic , completely denying that anyone could have a reason to do something other than what you feel is the "correct" thing that everyone should do. Go on, keep bashing, doesn't bother me. You are rather amusing. Might want to check your blood pressure........

I do have to admit that reading your repetitive posts, is getting rather tedious... You are obviously totally obsessed with proving that everyone that disagrees with you, is totally wrong. Lots of luck with that project, let us all know how that is working out for you.... Might be time for a hissy fit.....


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> They are banking on customers that are glad to save over $1,000 a month by cutting the cord, as I did 2 years ago, but still like having a good DVR, and for those people a $15 a month fee is chump change compared to their former cable and dish bills.
> 
> I have said this before, and will say it again, I work in an industry with all tech people that have been in the video business for years as engineers and technicians. When I bought my Tivo over a month ago and told them about the "lifetime ( of the unit) subscription plan, versus the $15 a month,* not one of them *said they would have chosen the lifetime plan.


What service costs $1000 a month!!


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Banker257 said:


> What service costs $1000 a month!!


Meant $1,000 a year, thought that would be obvious, so didn't bother correcting it, but maybe it confuses folks, so I will correct it now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Another issue is the competition that the cable and dish providers are in currently trying to capture new customers from their competitors. They will offer fantastic deals for the first year, trying to get people to switch, offering free DVRs and HD along with their very low intro rates. . I talk to folks all the time, including family members, that switch from one provider to another to take advantage of these deals. Being tied to a lifetime contract on a DVR that may or may not work with another provider, limits that option in many cases.


Depends on the area and how much you care about TiVo. Here, two of our four options for TV are QAM. In some parts of metro Boston, three of their five TV providers are QAM-based, two have extra special TiVo support. That's the ultimate situation for TiVos, as you can own your own TiVos and switch providers regularly with a few simple changes and a CableCard swap, so TiVo significantly reduces the switching costs (I'm talking economic, but non-monetary like losing recordings and having to program a new system).

A lot of other areas in the country are limited to a single provider for QAM. I chose Comcast because TiVo works on QAM, and not on DirecTV, even though they are a better TV provider here.

But the bottom line is that if you are committed to TiVo, Lifetime is the only way to go, and if you aren't, then don't get TiVo and get some crappy MSO DVR. Monthly service on TiVo is just a rip-off that TiVo invented to get stupid Americans who can't afford it to buy their product. It's worked well for tons of other products, so I'm sure it works well for TiVo.



joetekcor said:


> I know that everyone gripes about the $15/month fee but for us new cord cutters used to shelling out 10X that amount $15 is nothing. I looked into other alternatives but I don't have tons of money to invest up front. One time $50 and $15/mo is the perfect solution for me.


And after month 43, your TCO keeps going up and up and up, while the TCO of a Lifetime unit stays exactly the same (I'm not including power in any of those, since they are the same for an OTA vs. a Roamio Basic). Hence, the per month cost an OTA asymptotically approaches $15/mo, while the per month cost of a lifetime unit keeps going down. Lifetime is the way to go. $700 and you're good to go, no monthly fees. Factor in resale, and lifetime is an even better deal.

I'm also sick of hearing about this "cutting the cord" phenomenon like it's some big thing. It's not some giant movement, it's a right-sizing of the market of a small percentage of people who didn't really watch much TV in the first place, or only watched network programming right-sizing their packages. You can pry my cord out of my cold, dead hands. I want my basketball and HBO and Comedy Central.



telemark said:


> Plenty of smart people believe a DVR (used as a recording device of linear TV) will be obsolete to them by then. You can disagree, and even be right in the end, but they still made a logical choice based on their views of the future.


The MSOs might push their DVRs to the "cloud" like Comcast X1, but TiVos will still work just fine. All the more reason to get TiVo. And DirecTV has to have DVRs on their system. So no, the DVR isn't going anywhere. In fact, even X1 with Cloud DVR cements DVR functionality, even though it's delivered in a kludgy way, as one of the three pillars of TV from XFinity with Live TV, Cloud DVR, and XFinity On Demand.

There is no question that more content will be coming through the streaming model, but at the same time, there is still a lot of content in the linear model to be DVR'ed, and there will be for the foreseeable future.

The only TiVos that are going to be obsolete in 4 years are the S3's, and even those could soldier on as OTA TiVos, they just won't really work with cable as the major MSOs move to H.264.


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

trip1eX said:


> No one cares if someone doesn't do lifetime.


you obviously do because you keep defending it post after post

You basically told me "well since you cant AFFORD lifetime you shouldn't have a Tivo". I'm glad you weren't at my local BB the day it became available and I bought one and 4 other people were buying one and 3 others were asking about it.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I'm also sick of hearing about this "cutting the cord" phenomenon like it's some big thing. It's not some giant movement, it's a right-sizing of the market of a small percentage of people who didn't really watch much TV in the first place, or only watched network programming right-sizing their packages. You can pry my cord out of my cold, dead hands. I want my basketball and HBO and Comedy Central.
> 
> .


So all the lecturing about it being so smart to cut costs with lifetime, and yet you keep paying a monthly fortune for cable... Unbelievable. !!!!!

http://bgr.com/2014/10/01/cord-cutting-cable-companies/


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> So all the lecturing about it being so smart to cut costs with lifetime, and yet you keep paying a monthly fortune for cable... Unbelievable. !!!!!
> 
> http://bgr.com/2014/10/01/cord-cutting-cable-companies/


That makes no ****ing sense whatsoever. A monthly TiVo user gets the EXACT same service as a Lifetime TiVo user, except that the monthly TiVo user pays more.

An OTA user gets a small fraction of the service that a cable user gets, hence why only people who don't watch much TV in the first place are these so-called "cord cutters".

Plus, between my Lifetime TiVos, and bundle deals from the cable provider, I have significantly reduced my monthly costs over what a lot of people are paying. Sure, I had to pay for the hardware (I consider Lifetime to be part of the cost of a TiVo since it's a requirement for me to have a TiVo), but even broken out monthly, it's still way less than paying Comcast for X1.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Another issue with TiVo Roamio OTA is that OTA users are forced to pay the same monthly fee as cable users are on the regular Roamio. How does that make any sense? They get maybe 20-30 guide channels, 5-6 in HD (5 or 6 physical channels plus subchannels) worth of guide data, whereas many cable subs are getting 300-400 channels worth of guide data, often with 100-200 channels in HD. How is that not a raw deal?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That makes no ****ing sense whatsoever. A monthly TiVo user gets the EXACT same service as a Lifetime TiVo user, except that the monthly TiVo user pays more.
> 
> An OTA user gets a small fraction of the service that a cable user gets, hence why only people who don't watch much TV in the first place are these so-called "cord cutters".
> 
> Plus, between my Lifetime TiVos, and bundle deals from the cable provider, I have significantly reduced my monthly costs over what a lot of people are paying. Sure, I had to pay for the hardware (I consider Lifetime to be part of the cost of a TiVo since it's a requirement for me to have a TiVo), but even broken out monthly, it's still way less than paying Comcast for X1.


Shows you total ignorance regarding cutting the cord, and it's people like you that the cable industry counts on to keep feeding their coffers so they can load your cable up with junk channels that have no interest for probably 95% of their subscribers. Between OTA signals ( I get 21 channels OTA including all the major networks) plus Netflix on my Roku I can't keep up with the selection of movies and programs that I have access too unless I watch TV 8 hours a day, at least, and thankfully I am not addicted to sitting in front of a TV all day long as my main focus in life. Last night for instance, I watched Dateline NBC ( 2 hours) plus the Tonight show from the previous evening ( 1 hour), plus a 1 hour show on PBS, plus 48 hours ( 1 hour). That is a total of 5 hours of TV.. Is that not enough, according to your standards? I still have several shows, from last week that I have yet to watch, plus a few movies I need to catch up on. In fact I have started deleting recorded programs from my Tivo, because I am falling behind. As far as HBO, I stopped subscribing to that after the Sopranos ended, and nothing worth watching replaced it. No wonder that now Netflix has more subscriber revenue than HBO.

My total cost for all the TV I watch, which is more than I can keep up with, is $14.95 plus $8 for Netflix... grand total of *$22.95*. Why don't you let us all know what your monthly outlay is for the hundreds of hours a month that you must be watching, according to your post.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> Good point. Except that same person that purports to not care about all the fruit that is shipped to them is busy digging in the dumpster out back for some of that same fruit because it's cheaper.
> 
> Anyway the analogy was really saying that ....
> 
> Tivo likes that people are comparing the monthly fee of the OTA Tivo based on the highest possible price one could pay per month for a satellite tv package. Tom Rogers is giddy right now.


You lost me at the end with the analogy, but to your point about the cost of satellite vs. OTA: I am currently paying Dish $50.46/month for the Welcome Pack, 1 Hopper, and 1 Joey. The only thing we watch that isn't on our local OTA channels is Comedy Central, although we do get a few other cable channels like TBS, which we do not watch.

If I spend $200 on a Roamio OTA and a Mini, and $8/month for Hulu, my monthly bill drops to $23, my investment is paid back in 7.5 months.

If I spend $720 a Romaio Base with lifetime, and a Mini, and $8/month for Hulu, my investment is paid back in 17.1 months.

Clearly the economics favor the second option, plus the Roamio base can be used with cable should we ever decide it is worth the money. That said, the $520 difference in up-front cost is a huge obstacle for some people. Even though I could swing it, my wife would definitely take some convincing.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> You lost me at the end with the analogy, but to your point about the cost of satellite vs. OTA: I am currently paying Dish $50.46/month for the Welcome Pack, 1 Hopper, and 1 Joey. The only thing we watch that isn't on our local OTA channels is Comedy Central, although we do get a few other cable channels like TBS, which we do not watch.
> 
> If I spend $200 on a Roamio OTA and a Mini, and $8/month for Hulu, my monthly bill drops to $23, my investment is paid back in 7.5 months.
> 
> ...


I wasn't knocking the choice of going OTA. I'm knocking the numbers that most cord cutter posts use, the lack of mention that they are getting much less content and now my latest thing to make fun of is comparing the cost of a very expensive satellite package to the monthly cost of an OTA Tivo.

The latter comparison is very apples vs oranges. The cost of a satellite package has nothing to do with how much an OTA Tivo should cost. But Tivo is banking on customers to think that way sorta speak. They love it. It makes them look really good. They get compared to a content provider and yet provide no content.

I also had to poke fun that the same person who pays $160/mo for satellite is the same person that is fine with OTA. It just begs the question as to why they weren't downgrading their satellite package many moons ago. I swear there is a pattern where every cord cutter quotes triple digit prices for their satellite or cable package. It must be in the handbook.

You must not have gotten the handbook.  $50/mo for satellite? Get with it. You're supposed to quote minimum $100/mo. (What I'm saying is your post is very reasonable.)

My only exception is the huge obstacle part. I think the obstacle is emotional or psychological. If it is truly financial then one shouldn't be paying nothing up front only to pay more in the long run as that would only increase one's financial obstacles down the road.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

unclehonkey said:


> you obviously do because you keep defending it post after post
> 
> You basically told me "well since you cant AFFORD lifetime you shouldn't have a Tivo". I'm glad you weren't at my local BB the day it became available and I bought one and 4 other people were buying one and 3 others were asking about it.


It doesn't look like you can separate the wheat from the chaff sorta speak. I'm not defending lifetime. I'm just attacking the retarded reasoning (not all reasoning just the reasoning that isn't well thought out) that some people use for going monthly. Most of Cpt. Bob's reasoning since he joined this forum not more than 30 days ago has been pretty egregious in this regard.

There is nothing wrong with paying nothing up front, making monthly payments in perpetuity and paying more in the long run. It's very hassle free and convenient and very predictable.

And you only quoted part of my post. I know it was more than one sentence. It was 2 maybe 3 sentences. But the next sentence where I said I would attack dumb reasons for going lifetime too. You could have quoted that part although it wouldn't fit well with you wanting to paint me as "defending lifetime."


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> And you are the one that obviously enjoys bashing anyone that disagrees with your mantra " Everyone must have a lifetime subscription like I do, or there is something wrong with you", Over and over and over again.
> 
> You seem to be almost OCD about this topic , completely denying that anyone could have a reason to do something other than what you feel is the "correct" thing that everyone should do. Go on, keep bashing, doesn't bother me. You are rather amusing. Might want to check your blood pressure........


Look in the mirror. You're the one that keeps saying over and over and over that lifetime is a poor choice. And you only joined this forum last month.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between challenging you on the nonsensical part of your reasoning for going "monthly" vs declaring lifetime is the end all be all and only correct decision and no one should go monthly.



Captainbob said:


> I do have to admit that reading your repetitive posts, is getting rather tedious... You are obviously totally obsessed with proving that everyone that disagrees with you, is totally wrong. Lots of luck with that project, let us all know how that is working out for you.... Might be time for a hissy fit.....


I do rather enjoy seeing you reply with insults when I point out how some of your reasoning is nonsense.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> My only exception is the huge obstacle part. I think the obstacle is emotional or psychological. If it is truly financial then one shouldn't be paying nothing up front only to pay more in the long run as that would only increase one's financial obstacles down the road.


Indeed, the obstacle isn't financial, at least not for me, it is psychological.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Look in the mirror. You're the one that keeps saying over and over and over that lifetime is a poor choice. And you only joined this forum last month.
> 
> I'm sorry you can't see the difference between challenging you on the nonsensical part of your reasoning for going "monthly" vs declaring lifetime is the end all be all and only correct decision and no one should go monthly.
> 
> I do rather enjoy seeing you reply with insults when I point out how some of your reasoning is nonsense.


Obviously I am not as bright as you. How long have you been a member of Mensa? ( obviously I said that in jest)


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Another issue with TiVo Roamio OTA is that OTA users are forced to pay the same monthly fee as cable users are on the regular Roamio. How does that make any sense? They get maybe 20-30 guide channels, 5-6 in HD (5 or 6 physical channels plus subchannels) worth of guide data, whereas many cable subs are getting 300-400 channels worth of guide data, often with 100-200 channels in HD. How is that not a raw deal?


I guess what I don't quite understand is that you and a couple of others, seem to be trying to claim that Tivo, is always trying to rip off or hoodwink the people that are buying their products, like they are running some evil conspiracy against their customers. At the same time you are on this forum posting, year after year. If you think the company is so dishonorable, why would you continue to frequent this forum, and more importantly use and promote their products? If I distrusted a company as much as you seem to, I would be damned if I would use their product.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> I guess what I don't quite understand is that you and a couple of others, seem to be trying to claim that Tivo, is always trying to rip off or hoodwink the people that are buying their products, like they are running some evil conspiracy against their customers. At the same time you are on this forum posting, year after year. If you think the company is so dishonorable, why would you continue to frequent this forum, and more importantly use and promote their products? If I distrusted a company as much as you seem to, I would be damned if I would use their product.


True. Essentially, no one has come close to the Tivo product, at least not when it comes to OTA DVRs which is why so many people continue to have interest in Tivo. If I could get live TV using streaming instead of OTA/Cable/Satellite, I probably wouldn't be too interested in Tivo any more.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> It doesn't look like you can separate the wheat from the chaff sorta speak. I'm not defending lifetime. I'm just attacking the retarded reasoning (not all reasoning just the reasoning that isn't well thought out) that some people use for going monthly. Most of Cpt. Bob's reasoning since he joined this forum not more than 30 days ago has been pretty egregious in this regard.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with paying nothing up front, making monthly payments in perpetuity and paying more in the long run. It's very hassle free and convenient and very predictable.
> 
> And you only quoted part of my post. I know it was more than one sentence. It was 2 maybe 3 sentences. But the next sentence where I said I would attack dumb reasons for going lifetime too. You could have quoted that part although it wouldn't fit well with you wanting to paint me as "defending lifetime."


Oh so being on this forum since 2005 ( almost 10 years) , makes you much smarter than someone that joined a month ago... That's some unusual reasoning. I do have to admit that I can't even imagine my still posting on this forum discussing monthly versus lifetime fees, ad nauseum, in 2024. You do have stamina...


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Oh so being on this forum since 2005, makes you much smarter than someone that joined a month ago... That's some unusual reasoning. I do have to admit that I can't even imagine my still posting on this forum discussing monthly versus lifetime fees, ad nauseum, in 2024. You do have stamina...


No it makes you naive. and not very considerate.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> No it makes you naive. and not very considerate.


And the personal insults by you continue... .


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Shows you total ignorance regarding cutting the cord, and it's people like you that the cable industry counts on to keep feeding their coffers so they can load your cable up with junk channels that have no interest for probably 95% of their subscribers. Between OTA signals ( I get 21 channels OTA including all the major networks) plus Netflix on my Roku I can't keep up with the selection of movies and programs that I have access too unless I watch TV 8 hours a day, at least, and thankfully I am not addicted to sitting in front of a TV all day long as my main focus in life. Last night for instance, I watched Dateline NBC ( 2 hours) plus the Tonight show from the previous evening ( 1 hour), plus a 1 hour show on PBS, plus 48 hours ( 1 hour). That is a total of 5 hours of TV.. Is that not enough, according to your standards? I still have several shows, from last week that I have yet to watch, plus a few movies I need to catch up on. In fact I have started deleting recorded programs from my Tivo, because I am falling behind. As far as HBO, I stopped subscribing to that after the Sopranos ended, and nothing worth watching replaced it. No wonder that now Netflix has more subscriber revenue than HBO.
> 
> My total cost for all the TV I watch, which is more than I can keep up with, is $14.95 plus $8 for Netflix... grand total of *$22.95*. Why don't you let us all know what your monthly outlay is for the hundreds of hours a month that you must be watching, according to your post.


I am not one bit ignorant in terms of what OTA offers versus cable. I will NOT give up the content that cable offers, given that I have the income to easily afford cable, and I have a Double Play package anyways. My favorite programming all year long is basketball. Last year there were 79 or 80 games that my school (UConn) played. I watched probably 75 of those plus another couple dozen games from other schools during March Madness. Guess how many were available OTA? 3 or 4 of UConn's on CBS and maybe 6-8 others. The rest are cable only. I also enjoy the HBO docs, Last Week Tonight with John Stewart, Silicon Valley, Bill Maher, and I want to catch up on Veep before the spring season. I also watch some MSNBC and Comedy Central.

If I only had OTA, basically all I would have is PBS, which is maybe 30% of my viewing. And I would have crappy WEDH at that. With the magic of Comcast's fiber optic network, I get *THE* WGBH.

Apparently you have no appreciation for the fact that many TV viewers want content that is only available on cable. Only the lightest TV viewers would be OK only having 5 channels, 4 of which are mostly junk most of the time.

My 3 roommates and I pay about $120/mo for XFinity Double Play, as we're in year 2 of a promo deal. We get XF Preferred with HBO, Blast! Internet, and two of my roommates are paying for RedZone (sports package). They rent two of my TiVos from me as if they were Comcast equipment, the other two I just straight own. We also have my Amazon Prime and Netflix available and one of my roommates has her own Hulu account that she uses.



trip1eX said:


> The latter comparison is very apples vs oranges. The cost of a satellite package has nothing to do with how much an OTA Tivo should cost. But Tivo is banking on customers to think that way sorta speak. They love it. It makes them look really good. They get compared to a content provider and yet provide no content.
> 
> I also had to poke fun that the same person who pays $160/mo for satellite is the same person that is fine with OTA. It just begs the question as to why they weren't downgrading their satellite package many moons ago. I swear there is a pattern where every cord cutter quotes triple digit prices for their satellite or cable package. It must be in the handbook.





> If it is truly financial then one shouldn't be paying nothing up front only to pay more in the long run as that would only increase one's financial obstacles down the road.


Exactly. The same can be said for the new phone financing programs. No one should be buying a $650 phone if they can't put $650 down on the counter in straight cash. My goal is to minimize monthly costs. Hence, I buy my phones outright on Mobile Share Value on AT&T, I have Lifetime on all my TiVos, etc, etc. As long as I can see the benefit on a spreadsheet, I have no psychological barrier to going and dropping a few hundred or thousand bucks if it's going to save me money down the road.



Captainbob said:


> I guess what I don't quite understand is that you and a couple of others, seem to be trying to claim that Tivo, is always trying to rip off or hoodwink the people that are buying their products, like they are running some evil conspiracy against their customers. At the same time you are on this forum posting, year after year. If you think the company is so dishonorable, why would you continue to frequent this forum, and more importantly use and promote their products? If I distrusted a company as much as you seem to, I would be damned if I would use their product.


I'm not always saying TiVo is trying to rip people off. However, the Roamio OTA IS a rip-off given that you can't get Lifetime on it. The Roamio Basic is still a good product for OTA users, although it's a tougher sell now with competition from Tablo and Simple.TV.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> And the personal insults by you continue... .


Well you are being inconsiderate because you are lobbing insults and personal attacks in every other post. Telling you that you are being inconsiderate for doing so isn't an insult.

And you are naive about this subject of lifetime and Tivos. You didn't know about the PLSR code. You act like Tivos are going to be obsolete in a year. You act like they have a 50/50 chance of breaking down. YOu act like you can't get a warranty. You act like there is a huge probability lifetime won't save you money.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Well you are being inconsiderate because you are lobbing insults and personal attacks in every other post. Telling you that you are being inconsiderate for doing so isn't an insult.
> 
> And you are naive about this subject of lifetime and Tivos. You didn't know about the PLSR code. You act like Tivos are going to be obsolete in a year. You act like they have a 50/50 chance of breaking down. YOu act like you can't get a warranty. You act like there is a huge probability lifetime won't save you money.


Do you feel better now?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I am not one bit ignorant in terms of what OTA offers versus cable. I will NOT give up the content that cable offers, given that I have the income to easily afford cable, and I have a Double Play package anyways. My favorite programming all year long is basketball. Last year there were 79 or 80 games that my school (UConn) played. I watched probably 75 of those plus another couple dozen games from other schools during March Madness. Guess how many were available OTA? 3 or 4 of UConn's on CBS and maybe 6-8 others. The rest are cable only. I also enjoy the HBO docs, Last Week Tonight with John Stewart, Silicon Valley, Bill Maher, and I want to catch up on Veep before the spring season. I also watch some MSNBC and Comedy Central.
> 
> If I only had OTA, basically all I would have is PBS, which is maybe 30% of my viewing. And I would have crappy WEDH at that. With the magic of Comcast's fiber optic network, I get *THE* WGBH.
> 
> ...


Whatever.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

You guys so childish 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Whatever.


Couldn't refute the facts about content, could you? Or just jealous that I have more than 10x the number of channels that you do?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Couldn't refute the facts about content, could you? Or just jealous that I have more than 10x the number of channels that you do?


Just have no interest in continuing this dialog with you. It's obvious to me that no matter what I say, you and one or two others will just continue your rants trying to prove some silly point, to maybe yourselfs. Who knows......


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

unclehonkey said:


> well put! I dont get why some people get their big boy panties in a wad if someone doesnt do lifetime. Reminds me of the whole "own vs lease" when it comes to cars.


 Nobody gets their panties in a wad about it, we simply try to educate people that lifetime is a much better deal than monthly. But there's a certain crowd that likes to buy everything on payments or are unreasonably concerned about the longevity of a Tivo.

And those folks are helping to keep Tivo afloat, so more power to them.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

unclehonkey said:


> well put! I dont get why some people get their big boy panties in a wad if someone doesnt do lifetime. Reminds me of the whole "own vs lease" when it comes to cars.


I think they resent the fact that someone buys an OTA for $50, and is very happy to pay $15 a month from now until doomsday if they want, because they don't feel that monthly fee is going to drive them into personal bankruptcy, or have an impact on their financial lifestyle. Then the monthly fee folks have the freedom at any time, to opt out of Tivo, go in another direction if they want, and don't feel like they have to sell, or repair a device to recoup their investment in a lifetime, had it been available. There is also no guarantee that Tivo will keep the $15 a month on the OTA, Tivo may, after a year or so, offer a lifetime on the OTA at a greatly reduced price, as they have done before. Nobody without a working crystal ball, knows for sure what will happen in a year or two from now. Tivo is banking on people going into Best Buys, that have either cut the cord or are contemplating cutting it, and find out that with a cheap antenna, they can get all the local programming they need. Local channels and Netflix, or Hulu Plus, or possibly Amazon, with a Tivo, Roku, or Apple TV, or Chromecast, and they can have the possibility of over 1,000 channels to choose from in some cases. The big obstacle that cord cutters have had in the last couple of years when I did it, was local broadcasts. That is why Aereo did so well, until the Feds with their ridiculous court decision, shut them down. Now cord cutters are finding out with a decent antenna, either indoor or outdoor antennas, they can get all the local channels and they can use a DVR for time shifting these local broadcasts. That's why there are several OTA DVRs that are now being sold, Tivo, Channel Master, Simple TV, Tablo, etc... If this market was not a growing market, you would not see this kind of competition.

Most people today that get new smartphones, sign contracts so the price of the phone is spread out over 2 years, because they don't feel like plopping down $600 for a new unsubsidized iPhone 6 or Android top of the line model. These people, who are the vast majority of smartphone customers, know fully well that the price of the phone is rolled into the contract, but the fact that they don't have to spend $600 today, to get their new phone, but can pay it out over time, feels like a good decision for them. If you take the prospective cord cutter customer walking into Best Buys, seeing a display of Tivo OTAs ( when and if they ever are in stock), with the $50 price tag, and then the Best Buy person tells them that they can get a "lifetime of the device" contract, for another $500, the next thing you will hear is the pitter patter of feet heading for another department or the exit door, and the OTA will be placed back on the shelf. You would see the exact same scenario played out if at the cellphone section in Best Buys or any Cellphone store, if you were told that your new phone would be $5-600 ,* paid up front.*

One more issue that is important, is that younger demographic groups, don't even watch TV that much anymore, they are more addicted to streaming Youtube, or binge watching on Netflix or Amazon. For that, they don't even need a DVR, because they can stream anytime they want to. If you think these people are going to spend many hundreds of dollars on a lifetime subscription for a DVR, you are dreaming.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Based on this (albeit overly personal) discussion, I have been doing some considering and quite a bit of reading.

While this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Roamio OTA has been released, some people on this forum seem intent on ignoring the writing on the wall. Cable/Satellite/OTA TV is the present, but not for that much longer. Things are quickly moving to Internet-based content. Yes, Aereo lost, but Intel/Verizon, Sony, and Dish are all working on OTT solutions. Given how many customers Aereo signed up before they were put out of business, the demand is obviously there. The CEOs of cable and Satellite companies can either get on-board or end up being nothing but a pipe to deliver other companies' products. Charlie Ergen gets it, and it is just a matter of time before everyone else figures it out. TV Everywhere is great in theory, but there's going to be lots more competition for eyes. The old-school companies are going to have to learn how to compete.

Based on this, I can understand people being unwilling to invest hundreds of dollars on a setup which could just be essentially obsolete in a few years. I wouldn't invest in anything that had more than a couple of years payback on it. My hope would be that Apps would be available on Tivo for whatever services achieve critical mass, but I honestly think it is too early in their App ecosystem to have any confidence in that happening.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> Based on this (albeit overly personal) discussion, I have been doing some considering and quite a bit of reading.
> 
> While this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Roamio OTA has been released, some people on this forum seem intent on ignoring the writing on the wall. Cable/Satellite/OTA TV is the present, but not for that much longer. Things are quickly moving to Internet-based content. Yes, Aereo lost, but Intel/Verizon, Sony, and Dish are all working on OTT solutions. Given how many customers Aereo signed up before they were put out of business, the demand is obviously there. The CEOs of cable and Satellite companies can either get on-board or end up being nothing but a pipe to deliver other companies' products. Charlie Ergen gets it, and it is just a matter of time before everyone else figures it out. TV Everywhere is great in theory, but there's going to be lots more competition for eyes. The old-school companies are going to have to learn how to compete.
> 
> Based on this, I can understand people being unwilling to invest hundreds of dollars on a setup which could just be essentially obsolete in a few years. I wouldn't invest in anything that had more than a couple of years payback on it. My hope would be that Apps would be available on Tivo for whatever services achieve critical mass, but I honestly think it is too early in their App ecosystem to have any confidence in that happening.


That is what I have been saying for weeks, but a few still seem stuck in the past.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

It's nice to see people talking about cutting the cord. I just got fed up myself and am waiting on delivery of my new Roamio basic which will be exclusively OTA. I will figure out how to watch Doctor Who somehow 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

MannyE said:


> It's nice to see people talking about cutting the cord. I just got fed up myself and am waiting on delivery of my new Roamio basic which will be exclusively OTA. I will figure out how to watch Doctor Who somehow.


I haven't been too impressed with the new doctor's episodes thus far. If they don't get better soon I may have to stop watching.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> It's nice to see people talking about cutting the cord. I just got fed up myself and am waiting on delivery of my new Roamio basic which will be exclusively OTA. I will figure out how to watch Doctor Who somehow
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


I used to live in Hollywood, you should get quite a few stations on Miami Beach.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Nobody gets their panties in a wad about it, we simply try to educate people that lifetime is a much better deal than monthly. But there's a certain crowd that likes to buy everything on payments or are unreasonably concerned about the longevity of a Tivo.
> 
> And those folks are helping to keep Tivo afloat, so more power to them.


Yup. TiVo's main business has shifted over to MSOs, but I'm sure the monthly fees from all the suckers who didn't buy lifetime aren't hurting!



Captainbob said:


> You would see the exact same scenario played out if at the cellphone section in Best Buys or any Cellphone store, if you were told that your new phone would be $5-600 ,* paid up front.*


That's the problem. Americans are either stupid, or financially irresponsible, or both. If they were smart and financially responsible, then they would be able to handle the decision of $650 up front or buy something cheaper, as is the case for phones, and $700 up front or not for TiVo.



ncted said:


> While this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Roamio OTA has been released, some people on this forum seem intent on ignoring the writing on the wall. Cable/Satellite/OTA TV is the present, but not for that much longer. Things are quickly moving to Internet-based content.


Let me know when HBO and NCAA basketball are available over the internet without a cable subscription. As long as the content is on cable, cable is king. Pay TV isn't at all doomed, there's just a right-sizing of the market happening now that better technology for OTA is available.



> Based on this, I can understand people being unwilling to invest hundreds of dollars on a setup which could just be essentially obsolete in a few years. I wouldn't invest in anything that had more than a couple of years payback on it. My hope would be that Apps would be available on Tivo for whatever services achieve critical mass, but I honestly think it is too early in their App ecosystem to have any confidence in that happening.


Yeah, right. QAM-based cable systems are going to be here for many, many years to come.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I haven't been too impressed with the new doctor's episodes thus far. If they don't get better soon I may have to stop watching.


I said the same thing after Pond (the hottest companion there will EVER be) left. But we all come around eventually. I'm even liking Clara now.

They always seem to stutter a bit when a new Doctor comes on, with the exception being David Tennant's appearance as the tenth. He is still my favorite iteration to date.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

MannyE said:


> I said the same thing after Pond (the hottest companion there will EVER be) left. But we all come around eventually. I'm even liking Clara now.
> 
> They always seem to stutter a bit when a new Doctor comes on, with the exception being David Tennant's appearance as the tenth. He is still my favorite iteration to date.
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


That's because Tennant is the best actor to ever play the good Doctor.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> That's the problem. Americans are either stupid, or financially irresponsible, or both. If they were smart and financially responsible, then they would be able to handle the decision of $650 up front or buy something cheaper, as is the case for phones, and $700 up front or not for TiVo.


Must be really difficult for you to be living in a country surrounded by stupid people, unless of course you live in China, or Korea, or some other country of your choosing. .


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Must be really difficult for you to be living in a country surrounded by stupid people, unless of course you live in China, or Korea, or some other country of your choosing. .


There are some people who aren't stupid in Murica, but a lot of them are...


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> There are some people who aren't stupid in Murica, but a lot of them are...


Maybe if it bothers you so much as it seems to, you should consider relocating.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Captainbob said:


> Maybe if it bothers you so much as it seems to, you should consider relocating.


To where?


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Let me know when HBO and NCAA basketball are available over the internet without a cable subscription. As long as the content is on cable, cable is king. Pay TV isn't at all doomed, there's just a right-sizing of the market happening now that better technology for OTA is available.
> 
> Yeah, right. QAM-based cable systems are going to be here for many, many years to come.


Well, HBO's been toying with the idea of HBO GO-only subscriptions for a while now, and they've already signed a deal with Amazon for older content. It is just a matter of time. As soon as enough eyeballs move in this direction, the sports broadcasts will anyway. Heck, I'd bet during the first few rounds of March Madness as many people are watching it on their computers at work as watch at home. Yes, it requires a cable/satellite subscription now, but as soon as the NCAA figures out they can cut out the middle-man and sell directly to the consumer, they'll do it. I bet they already have figured it out, but they're just waiting for contracts to expire and audience to grow enough to make it more economical.

As for antiquated cable systems: How long do you think the big cablecos are going to waste bandwidth on traditional TV while they lose TV subs quarter after quarter and gain broadband subs? People are clamoring for more and more Internet bandwidth, and almost no one is asking for yet another reality TV network to be added to their cable package. This is why AT&T isn't expanding Uverse and Verizon is not adding FiOS markets any more. The future is here and it is IP. This is the same thing that happened to telcos in the 90s, and radio and newspapers in the naughts. It is inevitable, and the companies who figure out the business model will be the big winners. *This* is why Comcast wants to buy TWC and AT&T buy DirecTV. Not just to get more traditional TV audience for contract negotiations with content providers, but to get more total customers do protect their position in a fractured market.

Sure, QAM systems might be around for decade, mostly because big utilities move so slow to upgrade, but that doesn't matter when it comes to buying a product like a Tivo. If you're not watching it, then it wasn't worth the money you spent on it. If you like the cable content model, well great for you, but if the rest of the world has moved on to something better, and a $550+ investment you made 2 years ago is holding you back, then maybe you didn't do yourself a favor making the most efficient choice.

You and I have been round and round about this before, and I respect your position, but I agree with it less and less as time goes by. At this point, unless they can turn their boxes into something special for Internet content, which I think is very possible, Tivo is merely a bridge technology until the next great thing gets here.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ncted said:


> Based on this (albeit overly personal) discussion, I have been doing some considering and quite a bit of reading.
> 
> While this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Roamio OTA has been released, some people on this forum seem intent on ignoring the writing on the wall. Cable/Satellite/OTA TV is the present, but not for that much longer. Things are quickly moving to Internet-based content. Yes, Aereo lost, but Intel/Verizon, Sony, and Dish are all working on OTT solutions. Given how many customers Aereo signed up before they were put out of business, the demand is obviously there. The CEOs of cable and Satellite companies can either get on-board or end up being nothing but a pipe to deliver other companies' products. Charlie Ergen gets it, and it is just a matter of time before everyone else figures it out. TV Everywhere is great in theory, but there's going to be lots more competition for eyes. The old-school companies are going to have to learn how to compete.
> 
> Based on this, I can understand people being unwilling to invest hundreds of dollars on a setup which could just be essentially obsolete in a few years. I wouldn't invest in anything that had more than a couple of years payback on it. My hope would be that Apps would be available on Tivo for whatever services achieve critical mass, but I honestly think it is too early in their App ecosystem to have any confidence in that happening.


Linear channel TV delivery is not going anywhere for the forseeable future. I fully expect to be using a DVR for the next 5-10 years at least, because the streaming (cloud, whatever) model that they want to eventually move us to SUCKS compared to the control that we have over the experience now.

People fail to understand that the content providers/cable providers etc. want to keep control over the entire user experience including what and when you watch and getting paid for it multiple times. They're not going to just give up all that linear channel money in return for less money and control over what you get via the internet.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

DEC2955 said:


> What is the UPC and or the SKU# so that others that wish to order this DVR can place an order!


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

davezatz said:


>


Someone from Tivo posted on their Facebook page yesterday, that this is the correct SKU number. The correct SKU# is 8758098. I wonder which one is correct now?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Younger people are more and more, moving away from Broadcast TV, towards streaming. Very few people use DVRs according to this article.

http://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...viewing-still-live-but-streaming-video-g.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-fall-for-first-time-as-streaming-gains.html


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> Younger people are more and more, moving away from Broadcast TV, towards streaming. Very few people use DVRs according to this article.
> 
> http://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...viewing-still-live-but-streaming-video-g.html
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-fall-for-first-time-as-streaming-gains.html


That poll is worldwide. I would be much more interested to know the U.S. percentages.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> Well, HBO's been toying with the idea of HBO GO-only subscriptions for a while now, and they've already signed a deal with Amazon for older content.


HBO hasn't toyed with the idea of going OTT at all, they've acknowledged that they could, but they can't and they won't for as long as MSO's are paying them billions of dollars.

Time Warner has shareholders and those shareholders expect the company to produce profits, and they expect to get paid their cut of that profit.

Only those that are uniformed, ignorant of the facts or stoned out of their minds believe that HBO could go OTT and STILL get the MSO's to line their corporate pockets with the money that their shareholders demand.

Besides, read up on the Roamio OTA feedback in forums and places like Reddit, see how many actual cord cutters say that the reason that they don't want one is the monthly subscription.

If there were a million cord cutters in this country, that isn't anywhere near a million OTT subscribers for stand alone March Madness or HBO. The majority of those people would laugh at the price.



> Heck, I'd bet during the first few rounds of March Madness as many people are watching it on their computers at work as watch at home. Yes, it requires a cable/satellite subscription now, but as soon as the NCAA figures out they can cut out the middle-man and sell directly to the consumer, they'll do it. I bet they already have figured it out, but they're just waiting for contracts to expire and audience to grow enough to make it more economical.


Again, that TV contract is worth billions of dollars over the 10 or so years that Turner/CBS has left on their deal. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA has "figured out" that they could make MORE money by going it alone with streaming OTT?

Doesn't matter, because it isn't happening. Turner/CBS has those rights for the next 10 years, and in 10 years if they won't pay MORE money to renew, Disney has that ESPN/ABC deal waiting in the wings. 


> As for antiquated cable systems: How long do you think the big cablecos are going to waste bandwidth on traditional TV while they lose TV subs quarter after quarter and gain broadband subs?


How quickly do think that investors in cable companies are going to allow these publicly traded companies to walk away from the profits generated from video subscribers?

As long as there is money to be made, and dividends to be paid to shareholders, video isn't going anywhere.

Pay TV churn is still less than 1%.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> People are clamoring for more and more Internet bandwidth, and almost no one is asking for yet another reality TV network to be added to their cable package. This is why AT&T isn't expanding Uverse and Verizon is not adding FiOS markets any more.


This got cut off from my original reply.

You just tanked your "people want more and faster internet" claim.

The only way that AT&T or Verizon can deliver more and faster internet is to continue to roll out more Uverse and FiOS.

They aren't doing that.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable aren't doing anything to bring more and faster internet either.

If people wanted more and faster Internet, and the providers thought that there was enough money to be made to justify the investment, they'd do it.

Hell, even Google is having trouble with sign ups in large parts of Kansas City, and you can't find more or faster than Google Fiber in the US.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

I think many of you grossly over-estimate the speed of change. There's no doubt the Pay TV landscape is changing and OTA/OTT is becoming more commonplace. However, OTA is a small fraction and will remain a small fraction for the foreseeable future. There's a lot of talk about the "younger generation" and how they're all about OTT content. That's certainly true, but you discount the inertia of the Baby Boom generation. They've become accustomed to cable/satellite pay TV. Age 50+ viewers aren't going to "cut the cord". Sports is the other big point of inertia.

I've had my Roamio for about 1 year now. It has lifetime. I fully expect to get at least 5 years out of it. I have no fear that any changes to Cable technology in that time-frame will impact my use. It's just not going to happen that fast.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> Based on this (albeit overly personal) discussion, I have been doing some considering and quite a bit of reading.
> 
> While this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Roamio OTA has been released, some people on this forum seem intent on ignoring the writing on the wall. Cable/Satellite/OTA TV is the present, but not for that much longer. Things are quickly moving to Internet-based content. Yes, Aereo lost, but Intel/Verizon, Sony, and Dish are all working on OTT solutions. Given how many customers Aereo signed up before they were put out of business, the demand is obviously there. The CEOs of cable and Satellite companies can either get on-board or end up being nothing but a pipe to deliver other companies' products. Charlie Ergen gets it, and it is just a matter of time before everyone else figures it out. TV Everywhere is great in theory, but there's going to be lots more competition for eyes. The old-school companies are going to have to learn how to compete.
> 
> Based on this, I can understand people being unwilling to invest hundreds of dollars on a setup which could just be essentially obsolete in a few years. I wouldn't invest in anything that had more than a couple of years payback on it. My hope would be that Apps would be available on Tivo for whatever services achieve critical mass, but I honestly think it is too early in their App ecosystem to have any confidence in that happening.


Meh. People were doing monthly 10-15 years ago. So this latest change that's on the horizon has nothing to do with why people do monthly.

They do it because it feels cheaper. IT's easier for a sales person to talk you into something you don't understand if all you have to do is take it home and start using it. And there is a no worry phase to renting that is a big selling point to consumers. None of this means it is actually cheaper on average after a few years.

And sure internet on-demand is coming. But who knows when, and even if it happens tomorrow, your current equipment is still going to work for years. And internet delivery is not going to let you skip commercials.

And if we're just talking OTA then you can push a potential obsolescence date even farther out.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tatergator1 said:


> I think many of you grossly over-estimate the speed of change. There's no doubt the Pay TV landscape is changing and OTA/OTT is becoming more commonplace. However, OTA is a small fraction and will remain a small fraction for the foreseeable future. There's a lot of talk about the "younger generation" and how they're all about OTT content. That's certainly true, but you discount the inertia of the Baby Boom generation. They've become accustomed to cable/satellite pay TV. Age 50+ viewers aren't going to "cut the cord". Sports is the other big point of inertia.
> 
> I've had my Roamio for about 1 year now. It has lifetime. I fully expect to get at least 5 years out of it. I have no fear that any changes to Cable technology in that time-frame will impact my use. It's just not going to happen that fast.


Exactly. There's a lot of inertia out there. There is a lot of infrastructure that would have to change for people to watch the tv they watch today over the internets en masse.

And for me, no skipping of commercials with an internet on-demand package would be a big scoop of inertia.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Younger people are more and more, moving away from Broadcast TV, towards streaming. Very few people use DVRs according to this article.
> 
> http://www.mediapost.com/publicatio...viewing-still-live-but-streaming-video-g.html
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-fall-for-first-time-as-streaming-gains.html


That's cause they don't have any money and it's free to catch up on shows on the internets.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> This got cut off from my original reply.
> 
> You just tanked your "people want more and faster internet" claim.
> 
> ...


AT&T and Verizon *are* rolling out more/faster broadband, it is just wireless because that is more profitable to do than fiber. Both TWC and Comcast are rolling out higher speeds all over the US.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Announces-New-Maxx-Markets-129927

http://corporate.comcast.com/news-i...peeds-in-california-kansas-missouri-and-texas


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> HBO hasn't toyed with the idea of going OTT at all, they've acknowledged that they could, but they can't and they won't for as long as MSO's are paying them billions of dollars.
> 
> Time Warner has shareholders and those shareholders expect the company to produce profits, and they expect to get paid their cut of that profit.
> 
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ing-cable-welcome-to-the-future-of-television

"Bewkes also hinted that in the future, consumers who pay for high-speed internet will be able to buy subscriptions to HBO Go without having cable at all, just as many already do with Netflix and Hulu Plus. "

Keep your head in the sand if you like.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tatergator1 said:


> I think many of you grossly over-estimate the speed of change. There's no doubt the Pay TV landscape is changing and OTA/OTT is becoming more commonplace. However, OTA is a small fraction and will remain a small fraction for the foreseeable future. There's a lot of talk about the "younger generation" and how they're all about OTT content. That's certainly true, but you discount the inertia of the Baby Boom generation. They've become accustomed to cable/satellite pay TV. Age 50+ viewers aren't going to "cut the cord". Sports is the other big point of inertia.
> 
> I've had my Roamio for about 1 year now. It has lifetime. I fully expect to get at least 5 years out of it. I have no fear that any changes to Cable technology in that time-frame will impact my use. It's just not going to happen that fast.


There might be nothing driving you to change in 5 years, but you might want to given new options. I certainly expect to be watching content differently in 5 years than I do now, just like I do it differently now than I did 5 years ago. I actually expect it much sooner.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> There might be nothing driving you to change in 5 years, but you might want to given new options. I certainly expect to be watching content differently in 5 years than I do now, just like I do it differently now than I did 5 years ago. I actually expect it much sooner.


Just how do you watch content so much differently today than 5 years ago?

The only new option you're going to get is internet streaming. And you won't be skipping commercials. And it will cost money.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> That's cause they don't have any money and it's free to catch up on shows on the internets.


Before cable, people watched TV exclusively for free OTA. To young people, the Internet is the gateway for everything. One day, when they do have money, companies will want them as customers, so the companies will device offerings now that will win them those customers in the future. The smart ones will anyway.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> Before cable, people watched TV exclusively for free OTA. To young people, the Internet is the gateway for everything. One day, when they do have money, companies will want them as customers, so the companies will device offerings now that will win them those customers in the future. The smart ones will anyway.


Exactly what are you trying to say here? It sounds like mumbo jumbo.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> Just how do you watch content so much differently today than 5 years ago?


The majority of what I watched 5 years ago was on a Dish DVR. I occasionally watched a movie from iTunes or Netflix streaming. Usually movies I watched were a DVD that came in the mail.

Today, based on my DVR SPs, I watch maybe 8 shows _a year_ that come in my satellite package, almost all on local broadcast channels. Everything else I watch is on streaming. I don't get physical media any more. All movies are streamed.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> The majority of what I watched 5 years ago was on a Dish DVR. I occasionally watched a movie from iTunes or Netflix streaming. Usually movies I watched were a DVD that came in the mail.
> 
> Today, based on my DVR SPs, I watch maybe 8 shows _a year_ that come in my satellite package, almost all on local broadcast channels. Everything else I watch is on streaming. I don't get physical media any more. All movies are streamed.


But for you to have any point you would have to break down your viewing habits by show today and 5 years ago.

Because what I read into into your post is I watch old shows on Netflix today instead of new shows on DISH like I did 5 years ago because it is cheaper and I'm fine with watching old shows.

And I don't see any difference between watching shows via streaming or via broadcast. It's the same difference. NO reason a piece of content on one couldn't be on the other. So if you're comparing the same content, then the only reason to totally prefer streaming over broadcast or vice versa would be price.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

ncted said:


> The majority of what I watched 5 years ago was on a Dish DVR. I occasionally watched a movie from iTunes or Netflix streaming. Usually movies I watched were a DVD that came in the mail.
> 
> Today, based on my DVR SPs, I watch maybe 8 shows _a year_ that come in my satellite package, almost all on local broadcast channels. Everything else I watch is on streaming. I don't get physical media any more. All movies are streamed.


All well and good, but anecdotes make for poor statistics. Here's a recent Nielsen chart: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/more-of-what-we-want.html

Things have changed for you, but Live TV and DVR playback are still king. And I expect they will be for at least another 5 years, and likely much longer.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ncted said:


> There might be nothing driving you to change in 5 years, but you might want to given new options. I certainly expect to be watching content differently in 5 years than I do now, just like I do it differently now than I did 5 years ago. I actually expect it much sooner.


It's the same for me now as five years ago.I still use Vudu and Netflix. Although I use Vudu less now than I did five or six years ago. And I've been recording HD content since 2001. Although things got easier in 2004 when the first HD TiVo came out.

But with TiVo usage for thirteen years now it's been pretty consistent during this time. Although I do record more content now than a few years.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ing-cable-welcome-to-the-future-of-television
> 
> "Bewkes also hinted that in the future, consumers who pay for high-speed internet will be able to buy subscriptions to HBO Go without having cable at all, just as many already do with Netflix and Hulu Plus. "
> 
> Keep your head in the sand if you like.


Hinting about something is hardly toying with the idea.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> AT&T and Verizon *are* rolling out more/faster broadband, it is just wireless because that is more profitable to do than fiber. Both TWC and Comcast are rolling out higher speeds all over the US.
> 
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Announces-New-Maxx-Markets-129927
> 
> http://corporate.comcast.com/news-i...peeds-in-california-kansas-missouri-and-texas


Comcast increasing speeds will just make subscribers hit their caps faster.

And wireless isn't the answer to more and faster internet. The speeds are slower than wired, more expensive and hard capped at low usage/high overages.

The only people that will sniff at wireless internet are people that literally have no other choice for access. Caps and overages will keep them from streaming media.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

How do I buy a TiVo ota?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> Well, HBO's been toying with the idea of HBO GO-only subscriptions for a while now, and they've already signed a deal with Amazon for older content.


Toying. It's tough to give up a model where you provide the product, and another company owns nearly the entire physical infrastructure to distribute it, does most of the marketing, and nicely bundles it in promotions to get people hooked on it.



> As for antiquated cable systems: How long do you think the big cablecos are going to waste bandwidth on traditional TV while they lose TV subs quarter after quarter and gain broadband subs?


That argument makes no sense. TWC, using SDV is delivering 300mbps internet and 200 HD's on their systems. Without SDV, Comcast is delivering 100mbps and 120 HD's, and will soon, with the combination of more plant rebuilds to 860mhz, node splitting, and H.264 encoding, be able to do something like 200mbps/200HDs on their systems, along with extensive VOD and cloud DVR delivery. If they eventually go to SDV with small nodes, the fiber will be far enough out that they will be able to deliver an unlimited number of HD channels and at least a few hundred mbps on internet. So your point is technologically illogical.



slowbiscuit said:


> Linear channel TV delivery is not going anywhere for the forseeable future. I fully expect to be using a DVR for the next 5-10 years at least, because the streaming (cloud, whatever) model that they want to eventually move us to SUCKS compared to the control that we have over the experience now.


Correct. Comcast is trying to move it to "the cloud", i.e. their private network. However, linear QAM is going to be around a long time, and as long as linear QAM and CableCards exist, so will local DVRs.



tarheelblue32 said:


> That poll is worldwide. I would be much more interested to know the U.S. percentages.


In the US, about half of people have DVRs, yet 80% of TV is still watched live. Go figure. I don't get it. I only watch sports live, everything else is TiVo'ed, but then again, I'm ahead of the curve in terms of DVR ownership and usage. OTOH, while I was binge watching off the 80GB drive in the Series 2 before binge watching was even a term in the American culture, I'm sort of behind on the adoption of streaming, because a lot can be gotten through TiVo, although I find that more and more stuff I watch is streaming. HBO and PBS are still the mainstays of my shows, however, along with sports from the various channels that carry basketball.



arrowrand said:


> Again, that TV contract is worth billions of dollars over the 10 or so years that Turner/CBS has left on their deal. Do you honestly believe that the NCAA has "figured out" that they could make MORE money by going it alone with streaming OTT?


Exactly. There's a lot of money in the current model. I just hope that CableVision wins against Viacom, which will disrupt the crap bundling system, and hopefully clean up the channel lineups, and kill off some of the crappier channels and at least keep rate increases in check.



tatergator1 said:


> Sports is the other big point of inertia.


This is the key. The younger audiences love sports just as much, if not more, then the older audiences, so until sports leaves cable, cable is just fine.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sports in General has already left cable, with the exception of the NFL (Sort of, see below). I can buy and stream my Philly teams here in HI using MLB.TV, NHL Game Center and NBA if I wanted to. I was able to even do DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket using my PS3 for a few years too and I know this year it's on XBox too. I just haven't checked out the details this year.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

HarperVision said:


> Sports in General has already left cable, with the exception of the NFL (Sort of, see below). I can buy and stream my Philly teams here in HI using MLB.TV, NHL Game Center and NBA if I wanted to. I was able to even do DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket using my PS3 for a few years too and I know this year it's on XBox too. I just haven't checked out the details this year.


This is all out-of-market only stuff, so sports haven't left cable at all.

If you live in your favorite team's home TV footprint (which an awful lot of people do), you have to have pay TV unless you're going to go to the added effort and expense of a VPN.

And with the sudden influx of all of the college sports conference networks that are aligned with ESPN or Fox, that's one more stumbling block.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> That's cause they don't have any money and it's free to catch up on shows on the internets.


They don't like wasting money on mindless dribble , and aren't addicted to watching the moronic cable channels like the one's listed below. Income has nothing to do with it, in fact the more affluent they are the less likely they are to sit in front of a TV all night.

A&E 265
ABC Family 311
AUDIENCE® 239
AXS TV - HD 340
Animal Planet 282
BBC America 264
BET 329
BYUtv 374
Bloomberg TV 353
Bravo 237
CMT 327
CNBC 355
CNN 202
CSPAN 1 350
CSPAN 2 351
CTN 376
Cartoon Network
(East)
296
Cartoon Network
(West)
297
Church Channel 371
Comedy Central 249
Daystar 369
Discovery 278
Disney Channel East
(SAP)
290
Disney Channel West
(SAP)
291
Disney Junior
Channel
289
Disney XD 292
E! 236
EWTN 370
FX 248
Food Network 231
Fox News Channel 360
Free Speech TV* 348
GEM NET (Global
Expansion Media
Network)*
2068
GOD TV 365
Golden Eagle
Broadcasting*
363
HGTV 229
HITN TV* 438
Hallmark Channel 312
Hallmark Movies &
Mysteries HD
565
Headline News 204
History 269
Home Shopping
Network
240
Hope Channel* 368
Investigation
Discovery
285
Jewelry Television 313
Jewish Life
Television*
366
Lifetime 252
Link TV 375
MAVTV 214
MHz WORLDVIEW* 2183
MSNBC 356
MTV 331
MTV2 333
NASA TV 346
NRB 378
National Geographic
Channel
276
Nick Jr. 301
Nickelodeon (East) 299
Nickelodeon (West) 300
PBS 0
Pursuit Channel 604
QVC 275
QVC Plus 315
RFD TV 345
ReelzChannel - HD 238
ShopHQ 316
Spike 241
Syfy 244
TBS 247
TCT Network 377
TLC 280
TNT 245
TV Land 304
TeenNick 303
Trinity Broadcasting
Network (TBN)
372
USA Network 242
VH1 335
Velocity - HD (SAP) 281
WeatherNation - HD 361
Word Network, The 373
World Harvest
Television
367
pivot 267
truTV


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> They don't like wasting money on mindless dribble , and aren't addicted to watching the moronic cable channels like the one's listed below. Income has nothing to do with it, in fact the more affluent they are the less likely they are to sit in front of a TV all night.


Money is a huge factor for a college student or starving artist etc. And while you might watch less TV if you have money, it doesn't mean you aren't paying for cable For when you do watch.

And if you don't watch much TV then that doesn't favor any content providing business.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Money is a huge factor for a college student or starving artist etc. And while you might watch less TV if you have money, it doesn't mean you aren't paying for cable For when you do watch.
> 
> And if you don't watch much TV then that doesn't favor any content providing business.


All young people are "starving artists or in college?" What a ridiculous claim, do you actually believe the stuff you post? BTW the group that advertisers shoot for is 18-34.

http://civicscience.com/who-is-the-online-streaming-tv-viewer-and-who-isnt/

http://www.nscreenmedia.com/84-cord-cutters-happy-decision-leave-pay-tv/


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Captainbob said:


> They don't like wasting money on mindless dribble , and aren't addicted to watching the moronic cable channels like the one's listed below.


So you're one that believes that if you aren't recording it on your TiVo it's mindless dribble on moronic channels.

That says a lot about you.



Captainbob said:


> All young people are "starving artists or in college?" What a ridiculous claim, do you actually believe the stuff you post?


Only he didn't claim that ALL young people are poor college kids or starving artists, you made that part up.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> ....... the group that advertisers shoot for is 18-34. ........


Since I'm way outside that age range I just wish they had better aim. There should be age group filters that automatically exclude the commercials for me.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> So you're one that believes that if you aren't recording it on your TiVo it's mindless dribble on moronic channels.
> 
> That says a lot about you.


Where did I say that, try reading my post again.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> This is all out-of-market only stuff, so sports haven't left cable at all. If you live in your favorite team's home TV footprint (which an awful lot of people do), you have to have pay TV unless you're going to go to the added effort and expense of a VPN. And with the sudden influx of all of the college sports conference networks that are aligned with ESPN or Fox, that's one more stumbling block. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Good points, but there are ways around that. Didn't the FCC just drop support for sports blackouts? Of course, the NFL in its infinite wisdom and care for its customers decided to ignore it......for now.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> All young people are "starving artists or in college?" What a ridiculous claim, do you actually believe the stuff you post? BTW the group that advertisers shoot for is 18-34.
> 
> http://civicscience.com/who-is-the-online-streaming-tv-viewer-and-who-isnt/
> 
> http://www.nscreenmedia.com/84-cord-cutters-happy-decision-leave-pay-tv/


No plenty graduate from college, live alone and have a low paying job for years too. If they have the option to get stuff for free or cheap from the internet and they don't watch a ton of tv anyway then the internet it is.

You can just watch clips nowadays too in lieu of watching a show. Cliff notes for TV.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> This got cut off from my original reply.
> 
> You just tanked your "people want more and faster internet" claim.
> 
> ...


So, your argument is, people do NOT want faster internet?

Because that's what you're saying. And that's obviously wrong, so maybe you need to clarify what you mean.

Because, you're conflating a bunch of untrue and irrelevant things together. Like, profit and demand. Profit and demand, in a monopoly with high barriers to entry, are extremely loosely related.

Let's take an example. Let's say, I have a monopolistic position due to high barriers to entry, to sell you water. You'll buy water at almost any price. Because you have to have water. This is called low price elasticity. If people are not buying lots of my overpriced water, but instead only the minimum they have to to survive, this is not proof that people don't want more water.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> Comcast increasing speeds will just make subscribers hit their caps faster.
> 
> And wireless isn't the answer to more and faster internet. The speeds are slower than wired, more expensive and hard capped at low usage/high overages.
> 
> ...


Ok, ignore my last post. You're literally not worth talking to. You're just digging in your heels on an already ridiculous position.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> All young people are "starving artists or in college?" What a ridiculous claim, do you actually believe the stuff you post?


Do you actually read posts or are you too busy working on personal insults to do so? 



Captainbob said:


> BTW the group that advertisers shoot for is 18-34.
> 
> http://civicscience.com/who-is-the-online-streaming-tv-viewer-and-who-isnt/
> 
> http://www.nscreenmedia.com/84-cord-cutters-happy-decision-leave-pay-tv/


Yes and notice how the upper part of the 18-34 age range in your second link watches alot a good chunk more on-demand dvr tv and live tv while watching less streaming than the lower part of that age range. The upper part of that age range is going to have more money and be more settled.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

btw, to all who say kids are growing with streaming. You are right. But look around, kids are also growing up with cable and satellite just as before unless you think all the cable/satellite subs are to households without kids.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> Because that's what you're saying. And that's obviously wrong, so maybe you need to clarify what you mean.


Actually, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> Ok, ignore my last post. You're literally not worth talking to. You're just digging in your heels on an already ridiculous position.


OK, so you aren't going to talk to me anymore. I think that's great.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

arrowrand said:


> This is all out-of-market only stuff, so sports haven't left cable at all.


Exactly.



> And with the sudden influx of all of the college sports conference networks that are aligned with ESPN or Fox, that's one more stumbling block.


Also quite true, although a lot of it was on cable before, so it's not entirely new.



trip1eX said:


> No plenty graduate from college, live alone and have a low paying job for years too. If they have the option to get stuff for free or cheap from the internet and they don't watch a ton of tv anyway then the internet it is.


Out of my friends, more have cable than not, although several who don't have either a parent's or significant other's logins for TV anywhere stuff, or access to their cable.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Since you have to commit to 1 year of service, it might make sense to pay for lifetime service and the hardware with a line of credit with a low monthly payment. I've seen credit cards with a $20 minimum payment. Just get a second line of credit with only the tivo purchase and make that payment every month instead of paying tivo.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. Also quite true, although a lot of it was on cable before, so it's not entirely new. Out of my friends, more have cable than not, although several who don't have either a parent's or significant other's logins for TV anywhere stuff, or access to their cable.


Does the FCC ruling to no longer support sports blackouts effect this at all?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

btw, ESPN and TNT signeda new tv including digital streaming agreements with the NBA.

http://www.cnet.com/news/nba-espn-deal-drafts-streaming-only-service-for-cord-cutters/


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Cost aside, OTA (ATSC) delivers better a picture and sound and with reliability that neither cable or satellite can beat. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it isn't better.

Antenna might well be a solution for some who can't afford or don't want to pay the ever increasing prices for hundreds of channels you never watch. But it's also a superior product that is much cheaper than a typical programming bundle. And with the money you save, you can supplement broadcast TV with streaming services and a la carte movies and shows.

Cable companies are trying to figure out how to further compress content while getting away with charging you more for it, meanwhile the ATSC 3.0 specs are being finalized for release in 2015, which will potentially bring 4K 120hz 3D content with 7.1+4 audio to OTA broadcasts by 2016.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Out of my friends, more have cable than not, although several who don't have either a parent's or significant other's logins for TV anywhere stuff, or access to their cable.


I find the opposite true. Very few of my friends and acquaintances have cable or satellite any more. I am in my 40s, and I work with a bunch of professionals of all adult ages. These are almost all cord-cutters, not cord-nevers. The only thing really keeping my friends who do have cable subscribed any more is sports. I do have some extended family that I know share Netflix logins though.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Out of my friends, more have cable than not, although several who don't have either a parent's or significant other's logins for TV anywhere stuff, or access to
> their cable.





ncted said:


> I find the opposite true. Very few of my friends and acquaintances have cable or satellite any more.


These kind of statements are weakened when you open with, "my friends." People's friends and family are strikingly similar. (leads to self reinforcing world views) 
Which is why we put the Random in Random Surveys.

Kinda silly, but make a statistical observation of the people you don't like to be friends with (or despise), it would be a stronger statement.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dcline414 said:


> Cost aside, OTA (ATSC) delivers better a picture and sound and with reliability that neither cable or satellite can beat. .........


I wish that were always true. I just installed an antenna and was able to pickup 12 stations. Problem is, most of them are translator/repeater stations from the top of Haleakala and they've compressed them horribly with the exception of one or two 1080i signals. They even crammed the local NBC and CBS (owned by the same company) station into one 8VSB/ATSC signal with bit rates of about 8.9Mbps each! (Normally a minimum of about 12+, but should actually be the full bitrate of 19.8Mbps if you ask me) To make matters worse, they're originally 1080i signals but they convert them to 720p! Needless to say with the combination of the bitrate crush and the resolution and refresh rate change, the signals look like total crap, especially with any motion. There are MPEG artifacts and mosquito noise all over the place. My TWC and DirecTV versions of these channels blow them away, by a landslide. I called the engineers to ask them questions and the reasons why. I left a message and they haven't replied yet. The most curious being why they bothered to convert 1080i to 720p for the dual so called "HD" signals, when 1080i is actually a smaller and easier package bitrate wise to transmit. Simply ridiculous in this day and age. Goes to show, no one really cares about quality, it's all about quantity and the all mighty dollar!


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

HarperVision said:


> I wish that were always true. I just installed an antenna and was able to pickup 12 stations. Problem is, most of them are translator/repeater stations from the top of Haleakala and they've compressed them horribly with the exception of one or two 1080i signals. They even crammed the local NBC and CBS (owned by the same company) station into one 8VSB/ATSC signal with bit rates of about 8.9Mbps each! (Normally a minimum of about 12+, but should actually be the full bitrate of 19.8Mbps if you ask me) To make matter worse, they're originally 1080i signals but they convert them to 720p! Needless to say with the combination of the bitrate crush and the resolution and refresh rate change, the signals look like total crap, especially with any motion. There are MPEG artifacts and mosquito noise all over the place. My TWC and DirecTV versions of these channels blow them away, by a landslide. I called the engineers to ask them questions and the reasons why. I left a message and they haven't replied yet. The most curious being why they bothered to convert 1080i to 720p for the dual so called "HD" signals, when 1080i is actually a smaller and easier package bitrate wise to transmit. Simply ridiculous in this day and age. Goes to show, no one really cares about quality, it's all about quantity and the all mighty dollar!


Dude, if I lived in Hawaii, I wouldn't friggin' care about *any* of that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

ncted said:


> Dude, if I lived in Hawaii, I wouldn't friggin' care about any of that.


Dude, that's what I used to think, until you realize it's not all fun and vacation and end up at work 12 hrs a day and finally get home and all you want to do is sit in your lazy boy, crack open a beer, peruse TCF on your iPad and watch some mindless boob-tube!


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

HarperVision said:


> Dude, that's what I used to think, until you realize it's not all fun and vacation and end up at work 12 hrs a day and finally get home and all you want to do is sit in your lazy boy, crack open a beer, peruse TCF on your iPad and watch some mindless boob-tube!


Touché


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That poll is worldwide. I would be much more interested to know the U.S. percentages.


Why? TiVo's main source of business is in Europe.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

No arguments from me on that one. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

HarperVision said:


> Dude, that's what I used to think, until you realize it's not all fun and vacation and end up at work 12 hrs a day and finally get home and all you want to do is sit in your lazy boy, crack open a beer, peruse TCF on your iPad and watch some mindless boob-tube!


Same thing in Miami Beach. Lol.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Does the FCC ruling to no longer support sports blackouts effect this at all?


That really has nothing to do with anything. That was for a very small number of NFL games. I'm talking about NCAA, which is on cable only in the first place, and doesn't have blackout issues as far as I know.



ncted said:


> I find the opposite true. Very few of my friends and acquaintances have cable or satellite any more. I am in my 40s, and I work with a bunch of professionals of all adult ages. These are almost all cord-cutters, not cord-nevers. The only thing really keeping my friends who do have cable subscribed any more is sports. I do have some extended family that I know share Netflix logins though.


No one watches HBO? At this point, it seems like cable has become this hollowed out mass of nothingness between the locals and HBO, with some sports channels being the only thing that anyone really wants. But between sports and HBO, it's impossible to cut the cord, as much as people might want to.



telemark said:


> Kinda silly, but make a statistical observation of the people you don't like to be friends with (or despise), it would be a stronger statement.


Sure. Although my friends are all over the map in terms of their use of technology, and many don't care about tech the way I do.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dcline414 said:


> Cost aside, OTA (ATSC) delivers better a picture and sound and with reliability that neither cable or satellite can beat. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it isn't better.
> 
> Antenna might well be a solution for some who can't afford or don't want to pay the ever increasing prices for hundreds of channels you never watch. But it's also a superior product that is much cheaper than a typical programming bundle. And with the money you save, you can supplement broadcast TV with streaming services and a la carte movies and shows.
> 
> Cable companies are trying to figure out how to further compress content while getting away with charging you more for it, meanwhile the ATSC 3.0 specs are being finalized for release in 2015, which will potentially bring 4K 120hz 3D content with 7.1+4 audio to OTA broadcasts by 2016.


In many cities it can be more reliable from cable. Because cable has a direct fiber link to the TV station. I know that happened here on multiple occasions. The OTa transmission was gone or messed up, but there were no issues watching the channel from FiOS or Comcast. And here on FiOS the local broadcast is the same bitrate as what is sent ota. Unlike Comcast in my area which further compresses the signal.

Heck, the vast majority of people watch the local channels from cable or satellite anyway. Not from OTA.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> In many cities it can be more reliable from cable. Because cable has a direct fiber link to the TV station. I know that happened here on multiple occasions. The OTa transmission was gone or messed up, but there were no issues watching the channel from FiOS or Comcast. And here on FiOS the local broadcast is the same bitrate as what is sent ota. Unlike Comcast in my area which further compresses the signal.
> 
> Heck, the vast majority of people watch the local channels from cable or satellite anyway. Not from OTA.


Been watching TV for well over a half century in 4 major cities where I lived. Never had an OTA fail for me. Can't even begin to count the cable and satellite problems I have had.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> No one watches HBO? At this point, it seems like cable has become this hollowed out mass of nothingness between the locals and HBO, with some sports channels being the only thing that anyone really wants. But between sports and HBO, it's impossible to cut the cord, as much as people might want to.


The few people I know who are into HBO shows get them via Amazon, iTunes, or Netflix Disc in the mail. I think I know maybe 1 person who actually subscribes to HBO anymore at $15-$19/month. I've been getting it a few months per year to watch GoT and last year's True Blood on HBO Go. If I go OTA only, then I too will watch GoT on something else until HBO Go is available without a pay TV package.

The reality for my friends is there is plenty to watch without pay TV, and everything, including pay TV, has gotten more expensive. It is hard to justify the cost any more for what is really just entertainment.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

ncted said:


> The few people I know who are into HBO shows get them via Amazon, iTunes, or Netflix Disc in the mail. I think I know maybe 1 person who actually subscribes to HBO anymore at $15-$19/month. I've been getting it a few months per year to watch GoT and last year's True Blood on HBO Go. If I go OTA only, then I too will watch GoT on something else until HBO Go is available without a pay TV package.
> 
> The reality for my friends is there is plenty to watch without pay TV, and everything, including pay TV, has gotten more expensive. It is hard to justify the cost any more for what is really just entertainment.


My thoughts exactly. Until there is a mass exodus back to ota, ain't nuthin gonna happen. I for one, don't mind the thought of 4 networks duking it out again flush with money from all those returning eyeballs. Of course I'm not stupid enough to believe it will happen.

But it will happen for me. Eventually when people have to decide between eating and watching basketball, I'm hoping it will take care of itself.

Hell, I'm about to go back to reading books. Thrift stores are full of them at 50 cents a pop. Lol.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> The reality for my friends is there is plenty to watch without pay TV, and everything, including pay TV, has gotten more expensive. It is hard to justify the cost any more for what is really just entertainment.


Fortunately it is quite easy for someone who has cable to add independent users with a separate login, and I'm sure there are ways to work out a deal with someone if you don't have any friends/family to help you. Comcast allows up to five separate users per account, so I have my own login for all HBOgo, Xfinity, and (most importantly) WatchESPN.

Combining OTA with Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and Xfinity streaming gives me far more options than cable for a fraction of the price, all in higher quality than a compressed cable offering.

Wonder how long until HBO, ESPN and the others realize how much revenue they are giving up by clinging to their twentieth century business model.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> Fortunately it is quite easy for someone who has cable to add independent users with a separate login, and I'm sure there are ways to work out a deal with someone if you don't have any friends/family to help you. Comcast allows up to five separate users per account, so I have my own login for all HBOgo, Xfinity, and (most importantly) WatchESPN.
> 
> Combining OTA with Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and Xfinity streaming gives me far more options than cable for a fraction of the price, all in higher quality than a compressed cable offering.
> 
> Wonder how long until HBO, ESPN and the others realize how much revenue they are giving up by clinging to their twentieth century business model.


i don't know. How long until you realize you are doing the 21st century equivalent of stealing cable TV?

And from what I have seen of online ESPN content, it isn't as good a picture quality as over cable. Netflix isn't that great a lot of time either. I haven't checked out AmaZon in awhile but they were behind Netflix in picture quality.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> I find the opposite true. Very few of my friends and acquaintances have cable or satellite any more. I am in my 40s, and I work with a bunch of professionals of all adult ages. These are almost all cord-cutters, not cord-nevers. The only thing really keeping my friends who do have cable subscribed any more is sports. I do have some extended family that I know share Netflix logins though.


~83% of households have cable or satellite TV.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> No one watches HBO? At this point, it seems like cable has become this hollowed out mass of nothingness between the locals and HBO, with some sports channels being the only thing that anyone really wants. But between sports and HBO, it's impossible to cut the cord, as much as people might want to.


I don't know. There are lots of movies on cable. Albeit with commercials and edited for language and nudity.

And For me there seems to be a show here and there that I watch on one cable channel or another. First 48 on AE. Louie on FX. MadMen on AMC.

I watched Breaking Bad. I was into Pawn Stars and Storage Wars for awhile. Not so much anymore.

and that is just me. Wife also has her own tastes. Kids watch cartoons on CN.

But yeah sports is a draw for me. And I have HBO as well.

personally I watch very few network shows. I tend to dislike every drama as they seem so sanitized to me. And the only big network shows I like are the rare really good comedy sitcoms like Modern Family or then something like Dateline or 60 Minutes sometimes. Of course the NFL is on the networks too.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> Cost aside, OTA (ATSC) delivers better a picture and sound and with reliability that neither cable or satellite can beat. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it isn't better.
> 
> Antenna might well be a solution for some who can't afford or don't want to pay the ever increasing prices for hundreds of channels you never watch. But it's also a superior product that is much cheaper than a typical programming bundle. And with the money you save, you can supplement broadcast TV with streaming services and a la carte movies and shows.
> 
> Cable companies are trying to figure out how to further compress content while getting away with charging you more for it, meanwhile the ATSC 3.0 specs are being finalized for release in 2015, which will potentially bring 4K 120hz 3D content with 7.1+4 audio to OTA broadcasts by 2016.


Just for some extra perspective....OTA viewership has only decreased. Only 7% in 2013 watched via OTA according to the CEA. Down from 9% in 2012 and 16% in 2003 according to a Nielson survey.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

That 7% is only those that SOLELY use OTA (and is disputed other surveys say 3 x's that) does not include the millions with satellite.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

The last few years that I had cable and Dish, it seem like I spent a great deal of time trying to find something to watch that wasn't targeted for a 12 year old. I tried HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc, usually when they would have a trial subscription when first signing up, or when they ran a week free trying to get you hooked into signing up. Once I started streaming Netflix, Amazon, and started watching content that I was really interested in, giving up cable was pretty easy. Then factoring in the $100 a month in savings, and I never gave cable or Dish a second thought. I am probably not the typical TV viewer, because the idea of sitting in front of a TV for 9+ hours a day, watching crappy shows, doesn't interest me in the least.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> i don't know. How long until you realize you are doing the 21st century equivalent of stealing cable TV?
> 
> And from what I have seen of online ESPN content, it isn't as good a picture quality as over cable. Netflix isn't that great a lot of time either. I haven't checked out AmaZon in awhile but they were behind Netflix in picture quality.


I agree. No one should be stealing cable, even by sharing streaming accounts.

Amazon and Netflix PQ are both equivalent to what is on cable/satellite these days as long as your ISP isn't artificially throttling them. SD shows like Stargate SG-1 actually look better than if you watched them in re-run on a cable channel. HD content, such as Mad Men looks worse than Blu-Ray, but about the same as what actually shows up on AMC in my house. Of course, I have a 30Mb Internet plan, and TWC signed a direct connection deal with Netflix.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

I agree that no one should steal cable and if one doesn't like the service one should not pay for it. 

There are plenty of other options at a cheaper price like what someone else said about paying for all the streaming services which I think together equal somewhere in the 20ish dollar a month for the big three (Netflix Hulu Amazon) although it's difficult to put a number on Amazon Prime 

I will say that even though it's illegal to steal cable, the unethical monopolistic behavior of the cable companies makes it very difficult for anyone to feel any empathy towards them. 




Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> I agree that no one should steal cable and if one doesn't like the service one should not pay for it.
> 
> There are plenty of other options at a cheaper price like what someone else said about paying for all the streaming services which I think together equal somewhere in the 20ish dollar a month for the big three (Netflix Hulu Amazon) although it's difficult to put a number on Amazon Prime
> 
> ...


Stealing is stealing, no matter how one justifies it.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> I agree. No one should be stealing cable, even by sharing streaming accounts.


I can't find anywhere that clearly defines how close a family member must be to share an account.

I pay for Netflix, and my siblings each have their own profile under my shared login. I believe our grandfathered plan is limited to 5 total profiles, and only two simultaneous users.

I just spent over an hour reading all the Comcast Xfinity legalese and can't find a single place where the terms say or even imply that immediate family members cannot share a single account, provided they each have their own user name and password (rather than sharing as Netflix does).

Perhaps I might feel guilty if I were "borrowing" these services from a friend or neighbor, but, the terms of the acceptable use agreement clearly state that the account owner can create up to five secondary users linked to the main account. Just trying to play by their rules as best we can.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> I can't find anywhere that clearly defines how close a family member must be to share an account.
> 
> I pay for Netflix, and my siblings each have their own profile under my shared login. I believe our grandfathered plan is limited to 5 total profiles, and only two simultaneous users.
> 
> ...


I think you'll find somewhere that your cable subscription is limited to members of your household. Not to anyone related to you.

Anyway the point wasn't about the legality. It's about the absurd comparison you made.

You said Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, OTA and "stealing" cable gives me far more options than cable at a fraction of the price.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> I think you'll find somewhere that your cable subscription is limited to members of your household. Not to anyone related to you.
> 
> Anyway the point wasn't about the legality. It's about the absurd comparison you made.
> 
> You said Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, OTA and "stealing" cable gives me far more options than cable at a fraction of the price.


I've had an email address on my father's Comcast account since back when I was still in school, long before they offered all these apps and streaming content. I installed the Xfinity app just to see what it was all about (huge on-demand library and dozens of live streaming channels), but I have honestly never had a desire to watch a single show or movie available in their app.

Now WatchESPN I use for 8-12 hours per Saturday in the fall, especially with the weird SEC power play they made this year, but I already had the Xfinity login for my email address linked to my father's account.

Clearly no one is going to sit at home where they have cable TV and instead watch streaming content over the Internet on a little tablet. I believe the language Comcast uses is something to the effect of all Comcast-provided hardware and equipment must be permanently located at the service address, and a substantial amount of the subscribed content should be consumed at that location.

More importantly, ESPN is crazier than an off-season NFL player if they think I am going to pay for a cable package consisting of nothing but channels we either already have via OTA or don't want, just so I can watch college football 10-12 days per year.

However if ESPN would be willing to accept payment from me directly, that is probably the single media outlet I would most be willing to pay for a la carte. But instead they just shake down the cable companies for payment to carry crap like the SEC network, the cost of which is just passed through in a rate hike for everyone.

Except I'm still ready and willing to contribute to their earnings if they'll ever stop ignoring this non-insignificant market segment.

</Rant>


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> The few people I know who are into HBO shows get them via Amazon, iTunes, or Netflix Disc in the mail.


That doesn't get you the stuff when it comes out. And some of the original programming that's news or comedy-based is very time sensitive. I get HBO for free at the moment, but I'll pay for it when the times comes if I can't provider hop or get deals.



trip1eX said:


> ~83% of households have cable or satellite TV.


It has nothing to do with cord cutting now, as it would have been the case for a very long time, but I wonder how many low and low-mid income households are getting limited basic or expanded basic included in their rent through bulk carriage deals that are counted in that statistic?



trip1eX said:


> I don't know. There are lots of movies on cable. Albeit with commercials and edited for language and nudity.


HBO isn't about movies. I've watched a couple off of HBO, but watching movies transmitted at 1080i60 on heavily compressed MPEG-2 just doesn't do it most of the time. It's about the original content. Between the Monday night docs, Bill Maher, Vice, Silicon Valley, and Last Week Tonight, I watch quite a bit of HBO content. Their TV shows are just incredible.



> I watched Breaking Bad. I was into Pawn Stars and Storage Wars for awhile. Not so much anymore.


I gave up on the junk on cable other than Stewart, Colbert, and occasionally MSNBC. I want to watch Breaking Bad, since I didn't watch it originally, but now I'm waiting to get a 4k TV or projector, since it's available in 4k through Netflix.



> personally I watch very few network shows. I tend to dislike every drama as they seem so sanitized to me. And the only big network shows I like are the rare really good comedy sitcoms like Modern Family or then something like Dateline or 60 Minutes sometimes. Of course the NFL is on the networks too.


I've never liked the scripted stuff on the networks. HBO or Netflix only for me, other than Big Bang Theory. Some of the news shows are OK, but a lot of them are over-hyped or fear-mongering.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> I've had an email address on my father's Comcast account since back when I was still in school, long before they offered all these apps and streaming content. I installed the Xfinity app just to see what it was all about (huge on-demand library and dozens of live streaming channels), but I have honestly never had a desire to watch a single show or movie available in their app.
> 
> Now WatchESPN I use for 8-12 hours per Saturday in the fall, especially with the weird SEC power play they made this year, but I already had the Xfinity login for my email address linked to my father's account.
> 
> ...


You don't have to try and justify your "stealing" of cable. I don't care.

But let's not treat it the same as signing up for Netflix. Or compare it to actually paying for cable.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

btw, I bought an antenna just to see what OTA is available to me in my smaller town and I can get the 4 major networks and 4 PBS channels plus MeTV and some 24/7 weather channels. 12 total.

Fox is on a sub channel of NBC and the quality seems a bit less.

NBC is good, but is the slightly flakey channel. I moved the antenna tho and it seems to have improved but once in awhile it acts up. I've had it on for hours now.

CBS and ABC seem fine.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> You don't have to try and justify your "stealing" of cable. I don't care.
> 
> But let's not treat it the same as signing up for Netflix. Or compare it to actually paying for cable.


Okay?

Just for the record, I'm doing neither of these things.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

trip1ex said:


> You don't have to try and justify your "stealing" of cable. I don't care.
> 
> But let's not treat it the same as signing up for Netflix. Or compare it to actually paying for cable.





dcline414 said:


> Okay?
> 
> Just for the record, I'm doing neither of these things.


Well maybe I'm the only one who read it that way, but I don't think I was splitting hairs or anything.



dcline414 said:


> *Combining* OTA *with* Redbox, *Netflix*, Hulu, Amazon, *and Xfinity streaming gives me far more options than cable for a fraction of the price*, all in higher quality than a compressed cable offering.





dcline414 said:


> I've had an email address on my father's Comcast account since back when I was still in school, long before they offered all these apps and streaming content. I installed the Xfinity app just to see what it was all about (huge on-demand library and dozens of live streaming channels), but I have honestly never had a desire to watch a single show or movie available in their app.
> 
> _Now WatchESPN I use for 8-12 hours per Saturday in the fall[/I__], especially with the weird SEC power play they made this year, but I already had the Xfinity login for my email address linked to my father's account.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> You don't have to try and justify your "stealing" of cable. I don't care.
> 
> But let's not treat it the same as signing up for Netflix. Or compare it to actually paying for cable.


It's not stealing if the account you are using is at your legal address...

I guess I'm the opposite. I have a Comcast account that's not at my legal address. Comcast does't seem to mind though, it's on autopay.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> It's not stealing if the account you are using is at your legal address...
> 
> I guess I'm the opposite. I have a Comcast account that's not at my legal address. Comcast does't seem to mind though, it's on autopay.


Well "stealing" is a concise way of saying "Sharing someone else's login. Specifically someone else who pays for the cable account at another address."


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Well "stealing" is a concise way of saying "Sharing someone else's login. Specifically someone else who pays for the cable account at another address."


Concise but semantically incorrect. When something is stolen, the legitimate owner no longer has it, right?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Concise but semantically incorrect. When something is stolen, the legitimate owner no longer has it, right?


Not in the case of ideas. And do you have a better word? That's the best I could do.

Anyway I hope you aren't going to imply that we should consider the sharing of login accounts from someone else's cable subscription a service option the same as we consider Netflix or Amazon or cable and satellite tv?

This guy was mooching off someone's else cable account in addition to buying Netflix etc and then using that to declare cable should get with the 21st century because he's paying much less and getting more options. :roll eyes:


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

I believe the best terminology would be "theft of service", but stealing works for me too.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

dlfl said:


> Concise but semantically incorrect. When something is stolen, the legitimate owner no longer has it, right?


Typical.

No, any time that you take something that a company offers for a price without paying for it, you - in the general sense - are a thief.

In Kentucky where I live, cable theft is theft of utilities and is punishable by fine and/or jail time, just as it is in other states. There have been recent cases here of fines, restitution with interest and even jail time for people caught doing the unauthorized hook-ups.

Skip in to court and tell the judge that you - again, you in the general sense - didn't steal it because the cable company still has it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Captainbob said:


> Then the monthly fee folks have the freedom at any time, to opt out of Tivo, go in another direction if they want, and don't feel like they have to sell, or repair a device to recoup their investment in a lifetime, had it been available.


The monthly folks have a 1 year commitment. You would have to pay an ETF to leave before the first year is up. Regardless of the monthly or lifetime subscription, you would either need to repair or replace a broken Tivo to keep using the Tivo service.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> Typical.
> 
> No, any time that you take something that a company offers for a price without paying for it, you - in the general sense - are a thief.
> 
> ...


Sure I saw the one way sign, your Honor. I was only going ONE WAY!!

LOL! I'd love to be a fly on the wall that day!


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Well maybe I'm the only one who read it that way, but I don't think I was splitting hairs or anything.





trip1eX said:


> This guy was mooching off someone's else cable account


Wrong.

Comcast allows 5 individuals to have access to login and use services associated with a single account. Keep in mind that these are services intended for mobile use OUTSIDE the service address.

My parents have three adult children, so all five of my immediate family members have our own Comcast login that is not shared with anyone else. I was not able to find anything in their terms that would limit who the account owner is allowed to set up a secondary account for. Given that Comcast authored the terms, any ambiguity automatically goes in favor of the customer.

A parent setting up an account for a child who lives in their home certainly seems like exactly the intended use of these secondary accounts. And there is nothing in the terms that says when the account owner must revoke access.

So I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I am not stealing/sharing/borrowing cable from someone else.


----------



## swerver (May 18, 2012)

Maybe it's not stealing, but it can't be usefully compared to other scenarios, as was pointed out. That's like being on your parents insurance, and then claiming others paying for insurance should demand cheaper insurance, because look at what a great deal I'm getting. You've got a sweetheart deal.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Well "stealing" is a concise way of saying "Sharing someone else's login. Specifically someone else who pays for the cable account at another address."


Did you totally ignore my point? If someone is at college, for example, and they legally live at their parents' house, and they have their parents' login, that might not be a TOS violation, even if they were using it full time elsewhere, since they are still residents of their parents' house. In my case, I still legally live with my parents, even though I actually live 40 miles away, and have my own Comcast account here.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

swerver said:


> Maybe it's not stealing, but it can't be usefully compared to other scenarios, as was pointed out. That's like being on your parents insurance, and then claiming others paying for insurance should demand cheaper insurance, because look at what a great deal I'm getting. You've got a sweetheart deal.


Agreed... and yet I would still pay for my own WatchESPN subscription if I could buy it directly or bundled with my internet.

If I didn't have access to ESPN during football season, I would probably spend a lot of time in sports bars every Saturday, but I certainly wouldn't consider buying cable or satellite to get it.


----------



## swerver (May 18, 2012)

Six of one, half dozen the other. Going to the bar to watch games is fun, but doing it every weekend would pretty easily cost more than just buying cable. Probably easier to justify for the younger crowd that is going to the bars a lot anyway. Lots of different scenarios out there. Another big factor is how you get internet. In my case, the only reasonable option for internet (or cable for that matter) is Comcast. If I didn't have cable, my internet price would go up. As it is, considering I have TiVo so I don't pay equipment fees, cable with hbo is only running me $50 a month. $50 won't last long at the bar. But like I said, lots of scenarios out there.


----------



## CinciDVR (May 24, 2014)

dcline414 said:


> So I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I am not stealing/sharing/borrowing cable from someone else.


Seems like you are sharing. Legally, but still sharing. If your parents account went away, wouldn't your account also go away? If so, how can what you're doing be anything but sharing?


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

CinciDVR said:


> Seems like you are sharing. Legally, but still sharing. If your parents account went away, wouldn't your account also go away? If so, how can what you're doing be anything but sharing?


Sorry, I meant not sharing login info (which is prohibited).


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Well "stealing" is a concise way of saying "Sharing someone else's login. Specifically someone else who pays for the cable account at another address."





dlfl said:


> Concise but semantically incorrect. When something is stolen, the legitimate owner no longer has it, right?





arrowrand said:


> Typical. .....


Hmmm... Now what could you have meant by that comment? 


arrowrand said:


> ..... No, any time that you take something that a company offers for a price without paying for it, you - in the general sense - are a thief.
> 
> In Kentucky where I live, cable theft is theft of utilities and is punishable by fine and/or jail time, just as it is in other states. There have been recent cases here of fines, restitution with interest and even jail time for people caught doing the unauthorized hook-ups.
> 
> Skip in to court and tell the judge that you - again, you in the general sense - didn't steal it because the cable company still has it. .........


My point, poorly expressed, was you haven't stolen from the person whose login you are sharing, assuming your usage doesn't infringe on their usage. But I agree that if you have violated the terms of service you could be viewed as stealing from the service provider. And clearly "stealing" is a term that most people find useful in describing this situation, regardless of any semantic issues.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Did you totally ignore my point? If someone is at college, for example, and they legally live at their parents' house, and they have their parents' login, that might not be a TOS violation, even if they were using it full time elsewhere, since they are still residents of their parents' house. In my case, I still legally live with my parents, even though I actually live 40 miles away, and have my own Comcast account here.


No you ignored my point actually.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Comcast allows 5 individuals to have access to login and use services associated with a single account. Keep in mind that these are services intended for mobile use OUTSIDE the service address.
> 
> ...


Do you not get the point too!?!??!

You can't compare paying for cable on one hand to getting a free streaming account (from someone who is paying for cable) on the other.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

swerver said:


> Maybe it's not stealing, but it can't be usefully compared to other scenarios, as was pointed out. That's like being on your parents insurance, and then claiming others paying for insurance should demand cheaper insurance, because look at what a great deal I'm getting. You've got a sweetheart deal.


Exactly.


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

I thought this tread was about the Roamio OTA not released????????


----------



## Mr Tony (Dec 20, 2012)

Davisadm said:


> I thought this tread was about the Roamio OTA not released????????


exactly. 
well it _was_ released but now is on hold again


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> No you ignored my point actually.


You didn't have a point.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> You didn't have a point.


Ok.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Just goes to show again that the pay TV system is broken. It's almost impossible to start a thread with the letters OTA in them and not have it degrade into the above. 

I find the knee jerk defense of monopolistic cable companies baffling. Anyone with eyes and ears can do a few minutes of research and see that a few very powerful companies are doing whatever the hell they want. How can it be good for consumers? 

I also find the other side's justification baffling. If you are enjoying the use of a service without the knowledge or even with the complicit knowledge of the customer, and you are not paying for it or part of the household that pays for it, you are stealing. Period. 

If people have to resort to stealing to get a fair price there's a problem 

That's why there are more and more people looking at alternatives like OTA and online streaming. 

And if you can't see what's coming with OTA now able to transmit (I think it's close to a hundred or more...someone help me) many high def channels and streaming with unlimited capacity, you're blind and deaf. 

Or just work in the pay TV industry. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

MannyE said:


> Just goes to show again that the pay TV system is broken. It's almost impossible to start a thread with the letters OTA in them and not have it degrade into the above.
> 
> I find the knee jerk defense of monopolistic cable companies baffling. Anyone with eyes and ears can do a few minutes of research and see that a few very powerful companies are doing whatever the hell they want. How can it be good for consumers?
> 
> ...


Yep everyone is going to be watching tv for free in the future because cable has always been the only thing stopping content providers from giving away their content away for free.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> Just goes to show again that the pay TV system is broken. It's almost impossible to start a thread with the letters OTA in them and not have it degrade into the above.
> 
> I find the knee jerk defense of monopolistic cable companies baffling. Anyone with eyes and ears can do a few minutes of research and see that a few very powerful companies are doing whatever the hell they want. How can it be good for consumers?


I'm not a defender of cable. But we have to consider two things.

1. It's not cable's fault. It's the content providers' faults. They are jacking the rates up and up and up, partly to cover massive increases in sports programming costs, partly to pay for massive force bundles of garbage from the likes of Viacom, and for a variety of other reasons including retrans fees and other factors.

2. What I hate is the mantra of the "cord cutters" about how great "cord cutting" is and how everyone should do it, and how they save a bazillion dollars a year. First of all, most people have have cable have it because they want to watch what is on cable, and not available via OTA or other means.

For a while, they were espousing a-la-carte TV show purchases through Amazon or iTunes, without bothering to do the math on watching even a couple of series, and how quickly those costs add up.

But the ultimate issue is that sports and HBO aren't available through any other means, and a lot of people like watching one or the other or both of those. Sure, I could get PBS for "free" after sticking a giant antenna on my roof, and having only my local PBS, as opposed to the two different PBS'es I have now through the magic of Comcast's fiber-optic network, BUT I still would lose sports and HBO, which are equal parts of my viewing to PBS.

And lastly, they ignore the economics of internet-only and promo deals. With most cable companies, it's $15/mo more or so to get internet without the TV, and you lose the bundling discount, which can run another $5-$10/mo, making that "$100" TV package more like $75. Then, you add promo deals for bundles, which you can get basically forever if you have more than one provider, and are wiling to switch every couple of years, or just use the other one to threaten your first one and get a decent deal, and the actual cost is actually less than that.

"Cord-cutting" is not some magical, big trend. It's simply a right-sizing of a market where a small part of the population, nonetheless representing millions of subs, through habit and apathy were over-subscribed to stuff that they didn't really want or use, and are thus right-sizing now that a more reliable way of getting TV OTA is available than what was around in the analog days. The market will right-size, and it will go on, with most households still having pay TV.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.cordcutterforum.com/topic/632-cord-cutter-basics-for-newbies-implementation-guide/


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I'm not a defender of cable. But we have to consider two things.
> 
> 1. It's not cable's fault. It's the content providers' faults. They are jacking the rates up and up and up, partly to cover massive increases in sports programming costs, partly to pay for massive force bundles of garbage from the likes of Viacom, and for a variety of other reasons including retrans fees and other factors.
> 
> ...


Yeah exactly. My beef too. What also gnaws is comparing OTA to $150 cable packages and using that figure as the amount of money you're saving.

I don't understand that. I mean my cable co (MidCo) offers up limited basic for $20/mo. It includes the networks and WGN and PBS in HD. IT has TBS, ABC FAmily, TVland and CNN to name a few in SD. That's comparable to what OTA offers. Arguably better.

That's all you are saving from moving to OTA. $20/mo. Plus if you get limited basic you save at least $5 on your internet.

Also I can get HBO and limited basic for $27.99/mo. That's regular price.

Comcast has internet plus with the networks and HBO plus 25 mpbs internet for $40/mo.

CAble companies are responding to consumer demand albeit slowly but surely and begrudgingly.

IT is good to have competition in the form of OTA and streaming. No need for "cord cutters" to exaggerate it tho.

Personally I pay a regular price of $70/mo for the major cable channels plus HBO including taxes and fees before the cost of my Tivo setup.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> ........ my cable co (MidCo) offers up limited basic for $20/mo. It includes the networks and WGN and PBS in HD. IT has TBS, ABC FAmily, TVland and CNN to name a few in SD. That's comparable to what OTA offers. Arguably better. ..........


If those basic channels are (digital) **HD** then your point is made. If they're just SD then the comparison is not valid.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> If those basic channels are (digital) **HD** then your point is made. If they're just SD then the comparison is not valid.


Digital is HD and SD. If I get content from OTA, it is going to be all digital. And in my area the cable systems are all digital too. Whether it's HD or SD it's digital.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Digital is HD and SD. If I get content from OTA, it is going to be all digital. And in my area the cable systems are all digital too. Whether it's HD or SD it's digital.


Even so, if getting the digital cable versions requires using a TA, getting them OTA could have a major advantage (not having to deal with a TA) -- plus not having to pay even the $20. In my case just a simple cheap indoor antenna gets all my locals just fine.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Even so, if getting the digital cable versions requires using a TA, getting them OTA could have a major advantage (not having to deal with a TA) -- plus not having to pay even the $20. In my case just a simple cheap indoor antenna gets all my locals just fine.


I get many more locals on my $35 OTA antenna mounted on the wall in back of my TV, than I ever got on cable or dish. I just counted them on the Tivo Guide and I get 30 , and that doesn't include the channels that are spanish or other languages and the church channels which I disabled.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dlfl said:


> If those basic channels are (digital) **HD** then your point is made. If they're just SD then the comparison is not valid.


I said what they were in my post. Read again. 

The local limited cable package is ~7 HD channels including major networks and WGN and PBS. The rest are SD. From what I've experienced, the SD ones you won't get on OTA.. The stuff like ABC Family, CNN, TBS, TVLand, ... I'd trade those SD channels for what I've seen on OTA besides the networks.

Anyway the point is to not split hairs over what you personally prefer but to show that cable offers pretty competitive alternatives to OTA. And that comparing the most expensive cable packages to OTA is a disservice to those seeking an accurate picture of the choices available.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Even so, if getting the digital cable versions requires using a TA, getting them OTA could have a major advantage (not having to deal with a TA) -- plus not having to pay even the $20. In my case just a simple cheap indoor antenna gets all my locals just fine.


I'd say it works the other way around just as much. Probably more.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

As some one said earlier, this is not an apples to apples comparison, so I'm pretty bored with the whole discussion. Obviously, people's tastes and preferences differ. We're as bad as congress arguing our entrenched positions. If Bigg and TripleX want to stick with traditional cable, so be it. If CaptainBob likes being a cord-cutter, good for him. Both are valid choices, and (hopefully) meet the needs of each individual at a cost they are willing to pay. Everyone here has posted claims of why one is better than the other, and clearly prices/offerings vary for cable depending on where you live, so it is almost impossible to prove that what works for you where you live applies to someone else who lives somewhere else.

I for one am hoping the Roamio (Base or OTA) works well for *me* and my desire to cut the cord. If not, I'll probably stick with Dish due to its relatively low price compared to Cable and DirecTV. It is good enough for me if OTA reception doesn't work out, and at a not too bad a price.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> I said what they were in my post. Read again.
> 
> The local limited cable package is ~7 HD channels including major networks and WGN and PBS. The rest are SD. From what I've experienced, the SD ones you won't get on OTA.. The stuff like ABC Family, CNN, TBS, TVLand, ... I'd trade those SD channels for what I've seen on OTA besides the networks.


If TWC offered all those channels in their base package, I might consider it. Instead, we get TBS, CSPAN, Shopping Networks, and Spanish Language Networks. If I could get 1 cable news channel (even CNN!) and ABC Family, that could work. My $20 Dish Package includes Comedy Central, TBS, History, HGTV, Hallmark, CMT, Weather Channel, Food, MTV2, Boomerang, Hub, TLC, Bloomberg, MSNBC, etc. All in SD mind you, plus HD locals.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> HBO hasn't toyed with the idea of going OTT at all, they've acknowledged that they could, but they can't and they won't for as long as MSO's are paying them billions of dollars.


Oops.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6982049/hbo-go-will-offer-standalone-subscription-2015


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> Oops.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6982049/hbo-go-will-offer-standalone-subscription-2015


That will certainly make cord-cutting more attractive to a lot of people, especially the ones who do not care about sports.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ncted said:


> That will certainly make cord-cutting more attractive to a lot of people, especially the ones who do not care about sports.


Yeah. Sports are still my roadblock, and always have been. I'm essentially paying $80 a month to watch sports... which is kinda bonkers but I am pretty sure it's worth it anyways.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> Oops.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6982049/hbo-go-will-offer-standalone-subscription-2015


Little early to be calling oops, given that nobody knows details like price, content availability or terms.

Come back and rub my nose in it if HBO offers HBO Go, with even just next day availability for current season shows to anyone with Internet access.

If the content availability is limited to previous seasons and only to "select" customers of cable internet customers then this is just a souped up Amazon Prime deal.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> Little early to be calling oops, given that nobody knows details like price, content availability or terms.
> 
> Come back and rub my nose in it if HBO offers HBO Go, with even just next day availability for current season shows to anyone with Internet access.
> 
> ...


This is the most idiotic heel dragging I've seen in years.

It's an HBO GO subscription. We know what HBO GO is. It's that. That's what they are offering.

It's like I just told you that Nintendo was going to sell a cheaper WiiU and you said "well, hold on, we don't know if the WiiU is going to be the WiiU or a game cube!"


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I mean, if the WiiU is just a game cube or an N64 then this isn't really selling a WiiU after all!

While technically true, who would possibly make such a ridiculous assumption? In what world is this even reasonable to say?

Just say "Yeah, I guess i was wrong" and move on. For ****s sake.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Looks like HBO is reading the handwriting on the wall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...015_n_5989866.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
http://www.cnet.com/news/cord-cutters-hbo-to-start-online-only-subscriptions-in-2015/


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> As some one said earlier, this is not an apples to apples comparison, so I'm pretty bored with the whole discussion. Obviously, people's tastes and preferences differ. We're as bad as congress arguing our entrenched positions. If Bigg and TripleX want to stick with traditional cable, so be it. If CaptainBob likes being a cord-cutter, good for him. Both are valid choices, and (hopefully) meet the needs of each individual at a cost they are willing to pay. Everyone here has posted claims of why one is better than the other, and clearly prices/offerings vary for cable depending on where you live, so it is almost impossible to prove that what works for you where you live applies to someone else who lives somewhere else.
> 
> I for one am hoping the Roamio (Base or OTA) works well for *me* and my desire to cut the cord. If not, I'll probably stick with Dish due to its relatively low price compared to Cable and DirecTV. It is good enough for me if OTA reception doesn't work out, and at a not too bad a price.


I never said cable is better than OTA. As you are saying I am saying it is an entirely different package than what it is usually compared to.

For me, it's not about what is "better." IT's about accurate information and comparisons.

IT's about transparency.

For example, I just want to know what these 30-40 OTA channels are that some get. I mean your cable company couldn't even get away with just telling you (the customer) you're getting 30-40 channels without naming them. Why should we accept this from a "cord cutter?" But when pressed they can't name jack. No offense to any cord cutter. But it's true. And I'd be the first to switch to OTA if I could get 30-40 channels and they actually offered up stuff like I find on AMC or AE or TNT etc.

And I'm just showing that virtually every (if not every) cable company offers up a $20ish/mo cheap tv package that contains local channels. This is cable's version of OTA.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> If TWC offered all those channels in their base package, I might consider it. Instead, we get TBS, CSPAN, Shopping Networks, and Spanish Language Networks. If I could get 1 cable news channel (even CNN!) and ABC Family, that could work. My $20 Dish Package includes Comedy Central, TBS, History, HGTV, Hallmark, CMT, Weather Channel, Food, MTV2, Boomerang, Hub, TLC, Bloomberg, MSNBC, etc. All in SD mind you, plus HD locals.


That actually looks like a better offering. I'm glad you mentioned the cheap DISH package.

Because all I wanted to show was that both cable and satellite have packages that are essentially their version of OTA. Packages seemingly meant to compete with OTA.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Oops.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/15/6982049/hbo-go-will-offer-standalone-subscription-2015


Great news. HBOGo is pretty well done.

CAn't wait to see the price and details. Competition is good.

...read more of the article. Seemed less certain that this will be HBOGo. CEO says it will work with its paytv partners. But we will have to wait and see. I wish Tivo would get HBOGo.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> It's an HBO GO subscription. We know what HBO GO is. It's that. That's what they are offering.


Sorry, but it was referred to as HBO, not HBO Go in the discussion by the TW CEO at the investor meeting. I've not found one single quote where he said that they would offer standalone HBO Go next year.

Call it heel dragging or anything else that you want, but you're making a giant leap by assuming that this will be the full HBO Go offering OTT.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> I mean, if the WiiU is just a game cube or an N64 then this isn't really selling a WiiU after all!
> 
> While technically true, who would possibly make such a ridiculous assumption? In what world is this even reasonable to say?
> 
> Just say "Yeah, I guess i was wrong" and move on. For ****s sake.


I'll say that I'm wrong when HBO says that you can subscribe to HBO Go without a cable TV subscription.

That's not what the TW CEO said today. Not even close. These CEO types say what they mean, and sometimes they even mean what they say. He didn't say HBO Go.

Hulu segregates content based on who pays and who doesn't. Netflix now segregates 4k content based on who pays the right amount of money. It would be nothing for HBO to have a totally separate apps for those that pay through an MSO and those that pay directly.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> It's an HBO GO subscription. We know what HBO GO is. It's that. That's what they are offering.


Here's the quote by the CEO at the investor meeting that got everyone so excited.



> That is a large and growing opportunity that should no longer be left untapped. It is time to remove all barriers to those who want HBO. So, in 2015, we will launch a stand-alone, over-the-top, HBO service in the United States.


I don't see HBO Go in there anywhere.

There's another quote from the meeting to the effect that the MSO's would get their cut of this deal because it's their internet customers and their pipes.

That affects the price, the content offered or both.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> Sorry, but it was referred to as HBO, not HBO Go in the discussion by the TW CEO at the investor meeting. I've not found one single quote where he said that they would offer standalone HBO Go next year.
> 
> Call it heel dragging or anything else that you want, but you're making a giant leap by assuming that this will be the full HBO Go offering OTT.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/15/med...tml?sr=fb101514hbosubscriptions1145pstorylink


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> I said what they were in my post. Read again.


Sorry, missed that.


trip1eX said:


> The local limited cable package is ~7 HD channels including major networks and WGN and PBS. The rest are SD. From what I've experienced, the SD ones you won't get on OTA.. The stuff like ABC Family, CNN, TBS, TVLand, ... I'd trade those SD channels for what I've seen on OTA besides the networks.
> 
> Anyway the point is to not split hairs over what you personally prefer but to show that cable offers pretty competitive alternatives to OTA. And that comparing the most expensive cable packages to OTA is a disservice to those seeking an accurate picture of the choices available.


I agree -- as long as the cable-supplied broadcast network programs are in HD. My TWC still maintains 0-100 channels as analog (thus SD) and I suspect their basic subscription, which is $25, uses those. I'm not sure about that and I'm not curious enough to undergo the pain of trying to find out.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> Here's the quote by the CEO at the investor meeting that got everyone so excited. I don't see HBO Go in there anywhere. There's another quote from the meeting to the effect that the MSO's would get their cut of this deal because it's their internet customers and their pipes. That affects the price, the content offered or both. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


arrowrand is right according to the link CaptainBob posted:


> In the context of the Internet service, Plepler pointedly did not mention HBO GO, the network's popular app for cable and satellite subscribers.
> 
> But he said the network would work with its existing partners and "explore models with new partners."


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> I'll say that I'm wrong when HBO says that you can subscribe to HBO Go without a cable TV subscription.
> 
> That's not what the TW CEO said today. Not even close. These CEO types say what they mean, and sometimes they even mean what they say. He didn't say HBO Go.
> 
> ...


Maybe he didn't say HBO GO? But the reporting on it is saying HBO GO. So either the people reporting this story are getting it wrong, or you are. I honestly don't know which one. I guess maybe I'll look up the source and see? But both of the news outlets I checked said it was HBO Go.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

So, having read the quote, it just says "an HBO service." But everyone reporting this is saying either HBO Go or HBO Subscription, both of which would suggest a full sub to the entire package.

I guess we'll see, but an assumption that it will be less than HBO Go seems like paranoia to me. There's no interest in that.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> Maybe he didn't say HBO GO? But the reporting on it is saying HBO GO. So either the people reporting this story are getting it wrong, or you are. I honestly don't know which one. I guess maybe I'll look up the source and see? But both of the news outlets I checked said it was HBO Go.


I'm basing my thoughts on the quotes from the CEO, not the way any journalist is reporting it.

The CEO never said HBO Go when describing this OTT HBO. Not once. Every story that's reporting that it is HBO Go is making that bit up.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> I guess we'll see, but an assumption that it will be less than HBO Go seems like paranoia to me. There's no interest in that.


Just like I can say that it is a misguided assumption to think that HBO is suddenly willing to risk the billions that they make each year from MSO's so that they can go OTT.

TW grossed over $4 billion last year from HBO, and banked over $250 million of that. This HBO OTT service will be something that doesn't upset their only real source of revenue, and that means that the devil will be in the details.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> So, having read the quote, it just says "an HBO service." But everyone reporting this is saying either HBO Go or HBO Subscription, both of which would suggest a full sub to the entire package.
> 
> I guess we'll see, but an assumption that it will be less than HBO Go seems like paranoia to me. There's no interest in that.


What if there was a week delay before you could watch new shows? Would that be worth it for, say, $10/month? Hulu users already have to wait for some new content, and people seem content to do so.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> Just like I can say that it is a misguided assumption to think that HBO is suddenly willing to risk the billions that they make each year from MSO's so that they can go OTT.
> 
> TW grossed over $4 billion last year from HBO, and banked over $250 million of that. This HBO OTT service will be something that doesn't upset their only real source of revenue, and that means that the devil will be in the details.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


I imagine it is some of that, as well as some lip service to protect paytv stock prices. He doesn't want to upset the apple cart until he has agreements in place to do what they plan to do.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> I imagine it is some of that, as well as some lip service to protect paytv stock prices. He doesn't want to upset the apple cart until he has agreements in place to do what they plan to do.


Revenue from pay TV providers: $4,100,000,000

Revenue from cord cutters: $0,000,000,000

Who do you think HBO cares more about, and how far out in the distance does this plan run to make cord cutters more profitable than MSO's?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> Revenue from pay TV providers: $4,100,000,000
> 
> Revenue from cord cutters: $0,000,000,000
> 
> ...


It isn't just cord cutters, it is cord nevers, and, more importantly, HBO-nevers they are going after. 80 million of them. I agree whatever they offer will probably differ somewhat from what HBO Go is now, but it has to be attractive enough to new customers that people actually sign up, otherwise they will not achieve the growth they are looking for.

edit: I would guess that the Amazon streaming stats they've been getting recently probably weighed heavily on their decision as well.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> It isn't just cord cutters, it is cord nevers, and, more importantly, HBO-nevers they are going after. 80 million of them. I agree whatever they offer will probably differ somewhat from what HBO Go is now, but it has to be attractive enough to new customers that people actually sign up, otherwise they will not achieve the growth they are looking for.
> 
> edit: I would guess that the Amazon streaming stats they've been getting recently probably weighed heavily on their decision as well.


Regardless of price or content availability, some people will sign up for this.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah exactly. My beef too. What also gnaws is comparing OTA to $150 cable packages and using that figure as the amount of money you're saving.
> 
> I don't understand that. I mean my cable co (MidCo) offers up limited basic for $20/mo. It includes the networks and WGN and PBS in HD. IT has TBS, ABC FAmily, TVland and CNN to name a few in SD. That's comparable to what OTA offers. Arguably better.
> 
> ...


Your reasoning is defective. Many cord cutters get their premium content from netflix or amazon so they may be paying ~$10 per month. Depending on how the streamed premium content is mapped to the cable channels. They could be avoiding the $150/month cable bill minus the cost of the streaming service.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

YOu know what's weird and maybe this is just me, but some of us have had Netflix for years along with cable or satellite, but never had HBO even though we like HBO.

Now, in the past 2months, I am a HBO subscriber because it was $8/mo and because of HBOGo.

I might become an online only HBO subscriber if what they offer is reasonable and if I can't continue the $8/mo HBO pricing I currently get. This from a cable subscriber.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Your reasoning is defective. Many cord cutters get their premium content from netflix or amazon so they may be paying ~$10 per month. Depending on how the streamed premium content is mapped to the cable channels. They could be avoiding the $150/month cable bill minus the cost of the streaming service.


What's defective about comparing cable or satellite's OTA-type package to OTA?!?!??! 

YOu do realize cable subscribers of any ilk can get Amazon and Netflix too?!??

So one guy gets free OTA plus Netflix and Amazon. The other guy chooses to pay $20/mo for cable's OTA alternative package and also gets Netflix and Amazon.

The difference is still $20/mo. Far cry from the $150/mo that "cord cutters" say they are saving from cutting the cord.

And, as I pointed out, a paytv provider may offer their OTA alternative package along with HBO for $28/mo while, say a "cord cutter," with free OTA and Netflix, would be paying $10/mo (or $8/mo if they are a long time subscriber.) Difference again is about $20/mo.

These types of comparisons are much more on the money than comparing OTA and Netflix to a $150/mo cable package.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Oh dear, it looks like I poured a tanker of gasoline on the fire!



trip1eX said:


> That's all you are saving from moving to OTA. $20/mo. Plus if you get limited basic you save at least $5 on your internet.


Yeah, that's a part of it. Where I live now, I could get a decent price on unbundled internet if I switched to the overbuilder, but for areas that are Comcast-only, and don't have [soon to be] Frontier U-Verse, it costs _maybe_ $5/mo when you include taxes and fees for limited basic, when you account for the price difference in HSI. And that includes a CableCard, and HD.



dlfl said:


> Even so, if getting the digital cable versions requires using a TA,


I've never heard of a cable company running SDV on locals.



Captainbob said:


> I get many more locals on my $35 OTA antenna mounted on the wall in back of my TV, than I ever got on cable or dish. I just counted them on the Tivo Guide and I get 30 , and that doesn't include the channels that are spanish or other languages and the church channels which I disabled.


There are at most 6 or 7 decent channels in there. The rest are junk. If you count the junk channels, you have to start using engineering counts on cable too, where you are looking at 250-400 channels, depending on the system, many of which are junk. U-Verse and FIOS probably top even that.



ncted said:


> As some one said earlier, this is not an apples to apples comparison, so I'm pretty bored with the whole discussion. Obviously, people's tastes and preferences differ. We're as bad as congress arguing our entrenched positions. If Bigg and TripleX want to stick with traditional cable, so be it. If CaptainBob likes being a cord-cutter, good for him. Both are valid choices, and (hopefully) meet the needs of each individual at a cost they are willing to pay. Everyone here has posted claims of why one is better than the other, and clearly prices/offerings vary for cable depending on where you live, so it is almost impossible to prove that what works for you where you live applies to someone else who lives somewhere else.


I'm not arguing that everyone should have cable just because they have a TV. What grinds my gears is when people start proclaiming how great "cord-cutting" is, and how they can "replace" their pay-TV (they can't) with OTT streaming and OTA. The fact of the matter is that this is a right-sizing of the market, for a small, but nonetheless significant minority of users who didn't watch much TV in the first place, or only watch TV very casually, and don't watch sports. For those people, pay-TV makes no sense in the first place, so if they have it now, they should get rid of it, or switch to Limited Basic.

*That's a market segment. I get it.* But it's not the majority of pay-TV subscribers, it's not a majority of America, and it's not automatically going to be the future of TV just because it is new and shiny and cheap. For the foreseeable future, linear pay-TV is still going to be king. Sports are going to stay king of pay-TV, and a lot of people watch a lot of TV, to a point where even today's beefed up internet networks couldn't handle the traffic if everyone streamed everything all the time.



ncted said:


> That will certainly make cord-cutting more attractive to a lot of people, especially the ones who do not care about sports.


To a segment of the market, yes. But i don't think it's a huge segment. Still, depending on how the service is structured, it could be the falling of one of the two big lynchpins of pay-TV. The other one remains rock solid, however.



Grakthis said:


> Yeah. Sports are still my roadblock, and always have been. I'm essentially paying $80 a month to watch sports... which is kinda bonkers but I am pretty sure it's worth it anyways.


Yes, this is quite true. However, when you look at it as a whole bundle, it's not as bad. Pay-TV is overpriced, and hopefully the right-sizing of the market will put some pressure on the content providers to get a little more creative with the ways they allow the pay-TV providers to bundle channels, but at the same time, cable as a whole is still a decent value. Here's what I get out of cable TV:

1. A huge bundle discount over internet-only.
2. Local stations far more reliably than OTA, without fooling around with antennas, including locals that are too far away to get OTA.
3. The "cable" channels that I watch frequently (Comedy Central), and sometimes (MSNBC, CNN, Discovery, etc).
4. Live sports.
5. HBO bundled in.
6. All that content delivered through a single CableCard/coax jack to my TiVo, where it remains in one central repository for the whole house to use.

Combine all that, and things don't look so bad, even if I was actually paying my whole cable bill (I have 3 roommates, so having Blast!, XF Preferred and HBO is just sort of the basic).



trip1eX said:


> For example, I just want to know what these 30-40 OTA channels are that some get. I mean your cable company couldn't even get away with just telling you (the customer) you're getting 30-40 channels without naming them. Why should we accept this from a "cord cutter?" But when pressed they can't name jack. No offense to any cord cutter. But it's true. And I'd be the first to switch to OTA if I could get 30-40 channels and they actually offered up stuff like I find on AMC or AE or TNT etc.


Quite true. And if the OTA guys are going to do it, they have to acknowledge the 400+ channels that U-Verse and FIOS carry. Who knows what the heck 350+ of them actually are, but they are on the systems, so they have to count.



trip1eX said:


> ...read more of the article. Seemed less certain that this will be HBOGo. CEO says it will work with its paytv partners. But we will have to wait and see. I wish Tivo would get HBOGo.


Yeah, it's hard to tell. HBOGo would be interesting on TiVo, but I find that HBOGo is kind of crappy in the first place, and I basically only use the single linear QAM feed of the main HBO channel as a conduit to my TiVo. The quality is better than HBOGo anyways...



dlfl said:


> I agree -- as long as the cable-supplied broadcast network programs are in HD. My TWC still maintains 0-100 channels as analog (thus SD) and I suspect their basic subscription, which is $25, uses those. I'm not sure about that and I'm not curious enough to undergo the pain of trying to find out.


The basic package should include HD. I think TWC still has locals in clear QAM too, unlike Comcast, where they are encrypted, but available through a CableCard.



trip1eX said:


> YOu know what's weird and maybe this is just me, but some of us have had Netflix for years along with cable or satellite, but never had HBO even though we like HBO.


Most Netflix subscribers also have cable. I have Netflix, cable, and HBO. I enjoy content across the various platforms. And Amazon Prime too, although I wouldn't pay for that if it didn't come free with the two-day shipping.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Oh dear, it looks like I poured a tanker of gasoline on the fire!
> 
> Yeah, that's a part of it. Where I live now, I could get a decent price on unbundled internet if I switched to the overbuilder, but for areas that are Comcast-only, and don't have [soon to be] Frontier U-Verse, it costs _maybe_ $5/mo when you include taxes and fees for limited basic, when you account for the price difference in HSI. And that includes a CableCard, and HD.
> 
> ...


You should work in the retention department of Comcast.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I'm not arguing that everyone should have cable just because they have a TV. What grinds my gears is when people start proclaiming how great "cord-cutting" is, and how they can "replace" their pay-TV (they can't) with OTT streaming and OTA. The fact of the matter is that this is a right-sizing of the market, for a small, but nonetheless significant minority of users who didn't watch much TV in the first place, or only watch TV very casually, and don't watch sports. For those people, pay-TV makes no sense in the first place, so if they have it now, they should get rid of it, or switch to Limited Basic.
> 
> *That's a market segment. I get it.* But it's not the majority of pay-TV subscribers, it's not a majority of America, and it's not automatically going to be the future of TV just because it is new and shiny and cheap. For the foreseeable future, linear pay-TV is still going to be king. Sports are going to stay king of pay-TV, and a lot of people watch a lot of TV, to a point where even today's beefed up internet networks couldn't handle the traffic if everyone streamed everything all the time.


It isn't the future of TV because it is shiny and cheap. It will be the future because that is how the next generation watches TV. FWIW: Streaming live events, like sports, is much easier to do than the mish-mash that Netflix, Amazon, and HBO Go do. Only 1 stream need go to each CDN edge server, and the edge servers can each handle many hundreds or thousands of clients.



Bigg said:


> To a segment of the market, yes. But i don't think it's a huge segment. Still, depending on how the service is structured, it could be the falling of one of the two big lynchpins of pay-TV. The other one remains rock solid, however.


You mean aside from MLB, NHL, and MLS. NBA will probably launch next based on the press reports, with NFL and NCAA being the last hold-outs.



Bigg said:


> The basic package should include HD. I think TWC still has locals in clear QAM too, unlike Comcast, where they are encrypted, but available through a CableCard.


TWC where I live has started encrypting some local HD channels apparently. I just signed my company up for business class TV service at our new building, and they told us all TVs will need Cisco digital tuners by the end of the year to get the encrypted locals. They also expect to have their analog signals turned off completely some time in 2015.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

This is fun. 

I CAN AND WILL replace pay TV with OTA and I will save about 80 bucks a month. That's only because I have to pay for Doctor Who. Once I can figure a way to watch Who, I will save more. (Maybe 85?)

It's only 85 because I still have to pay 16 or 17 a month for Hulu and Netflix. I don't count Amazon in that equation because I would still pay 99 a year for that because of the shipping deal. Music, TV, books and whatever else they provide is all gravy. 

BUT I will not for one second try to convince anyone that OTA better than pay TV because IT ISNT. Is not. Ain't. It's just in my nerd Sci-Fi, anime, PBS world, not as good a value. I can no longer justify spending over $1000 a year for TV. 

Is going OTA a little bit more hassle? Yep. Gotta have all the stupid services, gotta hit like a million more buttons to get to a show, gotta wait for load times. Hey! Internet is out...oh well... Guess it's the Tonight Show or go read a book! 

I'm glad I'm not a sports guy or I would be screwed. I can see my wife's Dolphins and my own Giants pretty much any night and that's good enough for me. 

I too would get a little tired of hearing how cutting the cord is awesome and somehow morally superior to paying for cable or sat. Kind of like on South Park when the Prius guys were smelling their own farts. 

So now that that's out of the way... Why oh why is it so hard to find an OTA DVR like my original TiVo??? What's so scary that TiVo won't put an OTA tuner in its two top models? Why is it so difficult for the OTA only TiVo to get to market? Is it because no one wants to buy it? I seem to see a lot of interest here at least. 

My gut smells shenanigans. Shenanigans of the highest corporate sort. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I believe the limitation is the chip manufacturers. Tivo's limited by what's out there. 

The big sales are for cable boxes. Nobody would put ATSC functionality on a cable box so that chip just doesn't exist.

On the Roamio Base, there's 4 chips that can each do OTA or ATSC.

Dr. Who is on iPlayer. I'll leave the ethics of accessing that aside.
Or you can't you pay $2 / episode to one of the US stores and still come out ahead?


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

That's what I plan on doing. I think iTunes sells Doctor Who for something like 30 bucks. 

However as I write this I am listening to NPR which is saying HBO is confirming the availability of its content online. So HBO GO is a GO. 

I call that the first shoe to drop. 

On the other hand, Netflix seems to be having problems signing people up. Hmmmm. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> That's what I plan on doing. I think iTunes sells Doctor Who for something like 30 bucks.
> 
> However as I write this I am listening to NPR which is saying HBO is confirming the availability of its content online. So HBO GO is a GO.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Netflix is really having problems. http://qz.com/245763/netflix-now-has-more-subscription-revenue-than-hbo/


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Captainbob said:


> Yeah, Netflix is really having problems. http://qz.com/245763/netflix-now-has-more-subscription-revenue-than-hbo/


Yeah. That was then. This is now.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I42KH20141015?irpc=932

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> Yeah. That was then. This is now.
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I42KH20141015?irpc=932
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


One quarter is a blip on the radar.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

True. But I think Netflix which has not had much competition till now is about to see it get harder to continue growing the way it was as TV begins the move away from cable and onto the web. It's inevitable. If you have shares I would take that profit now! Granted, Wall Street overreacted like it always does by dropping the share price 25% (it'll bounce back) but let's revisit this thread next year and see how things have changed. Unless Netflix have some trick up their sleeves, it's going to get bumpy!

The good thing is we, the consumers, will benefit from the coming war. I hope Netflix can come out winning though. I have an irrational emotional attachment to the company. Pioneers and all that. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> True. But I think Netflix which has not had much competition till now is about to see it get harder to continue growing the way it was as TV begins the move away from cable and onto the web. It's inevitable. If you have shares I would take that profit now! Granted, Wall Street overreacted like it always does by dropping the share price 25% (it'll bounce back) but let's revisit this thread next year and see how things have changed. Unless Netflix have some trick up their sleeves, it's going to get bumpy!
> 
> The good thing is we, the consumers, will benefit from the coming war. I hope Netflix can come out winning though. I have an irrational emotional attachment to the company. Pioneers and all that.
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


I think the one thing that Netflix has going is the content they are creating, like House of Cards, Orange is the new Black, Lilyhammer. Add to that the ability to binge watch older series, like The Black List Season 1, Weeds, Breaking Bad, Arrested Development , etc... I can remember when I had Showtime and HBO, and after I saw the few movies that were interesting during the month, I didn't bother watching them , and eventually cancelled them for lack of use. I can always find something on Netflix.

http://whats-on-netflix.com/top-lists/top-25-tv-series-currently-streaming-on-netflix/


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Captainbob said:


> Yeah, Netflix is really having problems. http://qz.com/245763/netflix-now-has-more-subscription-revenue-than-hbo/


Netflix generates more revenue than HBO, but only about 10% as much profit.

Netflix has a long way to go.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> Netflix generates more revenue than HBO, but only about 10% as much profit.
> 
> Netflix has a long way to go.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


I just looked at Direct TV's web site and they charge $17.95 a month for HBO . That is $10 more a month than Netflix. If Netflix could get that from their customers, they would have much higher profits than HBO.

http://www.directv.com/premiums/hbo


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Captainbob said:


> I just looked at Direct TV's web site and they charge $17.95 a month for HBO . That is $10 more a month than Netflix. If Netflix could get that from their customers, they would have much higher profits than HBO.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/premiums/hbo


Very few people pay that to DirecTV for HBO. I have all of the movie channels, and if you add up their individual prices it comes to like $65. 
In my bundle, they're all $35 combined.

Aside from that $17.95 isn't what DirecTV would pay HBO, something closer to $8 would be their cut.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

Captainbob said:


> I just looked at Direct TV's web site and they charge $17.95 a month for HBO . That is $10 more a month than Netflix. If Netflix could get that from their customers, they would have much higher profits than HBO.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/premiums/hbo


Most people don't pay anywhere near that for HBO. Comcast and other pay-tv providers have internet service plus limited tv channels and HBO for only a few dollars more than just plain internet service. For example with Comcast, Blast Plus is only $5 more per month to get HBO, Streampix and around 50 cable/local channels than just getting Blast 50/10 internet. Also, there are a lot of incentives out there for premium channels. With my Comcast package, I'm only paying $10 per month extra for HBO.

While it's great that HBO will be offering service without the need of a cable package, the writing has been on the wall for a few years now when you consider all of the discounts available to get HBO.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ncted said:


> What if there was a week delay before you could watch new shows? Would that be worth it for, say, $10/month? Hulu users already have to wait for some new content, and people seem content to do so.


Maybe? That won't actually change the thesis though. You said HBO wasn't going to go to an online streaming service, and they are. So, either way, it still makes my point. Even if it's not EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the cable TV offering, it's still an online service that competes with cable subs.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

arrowrand said:


> Just like I can say that it is a misguided assumption to think that HBO is suddenly willing to risk the billions that they make each year from MSO's so that they can go OTT.
> 
> TW grossed over $4 billion last year from HBO, and banked over $250 million of that. This HBO OTT service will be something that doesn't upset their only real source of revenue, and that means that the devil will be in the details.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Yeah, because, Netflix is struggling so much to have revenues without ties to MSO's such that it's clear no company can make that model work.

Right.

Right guys.

*crickets*


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> Yeah, because, Netflix is struggling so much to have revenues without ties to MSO's such that it's clear no company can make that model work.
> 
> Right.
> 
> ...


Netflix does generate more revenue than HBO, but they only make 10% of the profit that HBO turns.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> Maybe? You said HBO wasn't going to go to an online streaming service, and they are. So, either way, it still makes my point. Even if it's not EXACTLY IDENTICAL to the cable TV offering, it's still an online service that competes with cable subs.


I invite you to re-read my post, which says nothing of the sort:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10265336#post10265336

You must be confusing me with someone else.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> You mean aside from MLB, NHL, and MLS. NBA will probably launch next based on the press reports, with NFL and NCAA being the last hold-outs.


NBA isn't a holdout from what I've read. They have an online league pass. There may be restrictions on it as far as local home games go, but otherwise it's about $200 per season for access to every game. They also have a cheaper package where you pick 5 teams who you want to watch. They've had this for 2 years at least.

And I"m not even sure the NFL is a holdout. I thought I read you can buy the Sunday Ticket online now even if you aren't a DTV subscriber.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

MannyE said:


> This is fun.
> 
> I CAN AND WILL replace pay TV with OTA and I will save about 80 bucks a month. That's only because I have to pay for Doctor Who. Once I can figure a way to watch Who, I will save more. (Maybe 85?)
> 
> It's only 85 because I still have to pay 16 or 17 a month for Hulu and Netflix. I don't count Amazon in that equation because I would still pay 99 a year for that because of the shipping deal. Music, TV, books and whatever else they provide is all gravy.


But payTV isn't just the $100/mo package. payTV is also the $20/mo package that gives you the networks in HD and a handful of other cable channels in SD.

You have been able to save a lot of money by just cord shaving for awhile now.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> NBA isn't a holdout from what I've read. They have an online league pass. There may be restrictions on it as far as local home games go, but otherwise it's about $200 per season for access to every game. They also have a cheaper package where you pick 5 teams who you want to watch. They've had this for 2 years at least.
> 
> And I"m not even sure the NFL is a holdout. I thought I read you can buy the Sunday Ticket online now even if you aren't a DTV subscriber.


I couldn't find the NBA online pass, and all the press I read suggested soon, so I assumed it wasn't out yet. Sunday Ticket streaming has (had?) a fairly high bar to be eligible:

"
Now you can stream live, out-of-market NFL games on your favorite device without a DIRECTV satellite TV subscription. If you live in a select apartment building, attend one of these universities, or live in the following metro areas: New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco. You may qualify!"


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MannyE said:


> Yeah. That was then. This is now.
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I42KH20141015?irpc=932
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


They still have more subscribers than HBO in the US. In the world is another story. Netflix doesn't come anywhere close to the worldwide subscribers that HBO has. And nowhere close to the profit that HBO generates.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> I just looked at Direct TV's web site and they charge $17.95 a month for HBO . That is $10 more a month than Netflix. If Netflix could get that from their customers, they would have much higher profits than HBO.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/premiums/hbo


Do most people actually pay that much? I know I don't. I usually get a deal for half price. So right now on FiOS I'm in the middle of a year long half price HBO promotion. So I pay $9 or $9.50 a month. If I ever have to pay the full price it would only be for the short term. Only while a show I want to watch is on. Then I would cancel it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> I couldn't find the NBA online pass, and all the press I read suggested soon, so I assumed it wasn't out yet. Sunday Ticket streaming has (had?) a fairly high bar to be eligible:
> 
> "
> Now you can stream live, out-of-market NFL games on your favorite device without a DIRECTV satellite TV subscription. If you live in a select apartment building, attend one of these universities, or live in the following metro areas: New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco. You may qualify!"


Yeah Sunday Ticket is out then for most of us. It sounds like it really only targets customers that would have trouble getting satellite. I thought it was open to everyone. OTA or $20/mo package from cable/satellite actually is enough for most NFL fans I think. You get 4-5 games a week including your home team. And with a DVR you can skip commercials by starting the game an hour later.

NBA League Pass is found by going to NBA.com and highlighting the "Watch Games" option located on the upper right side of the page. They've had it for a few years. I never purchased it, but thought about it enough to know about it. Digital option is $200 for all games. $150 for 5 teams. It does say out of market games only. Somewhere around halfway thru the season to 3/4th they drop the price to $99 or something.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> It isn't the future of TV because it is shiny and cheap. It will be the future because that is how the next generation watches TV. FWIW: Streaming live events, like sports, is much easier to do than the mish-mash that Netflix, Amazon, and HBO Go do. Only 1 stream need go to each CDN edge server, and the edge servers can each handle many hundreds or thousands of clients.


The bandwidth requirements from the edge server to the customer would overwhelm the regional and last-mile networks. Also, I haven't seen anything live streamed that's as good quality even as Comcast's over-compressed channels. The March Madness app on the iPad was pretty good, but that was on a 10" screen... WatchESPN is decent, but not cable quality.



> You mean aside from MLB, NHL, and MLS. NBA will probably launch next based on the press reports, with NFL and NCAA being the last hold-outs.


MLB is out-of-market only. Not sure what the others are doing. A lot of those contracts go 5-10 years out, so it's not going to change overnight. I know some of the NCAA contracts are tied up for years.



> TWC where I live has started encrypting some local HD channels apparently. I just signed my company up for business class TV service at our new building, and they told us all TVs will need Cisco digital tuners by the end of the year to get the encrypted locals. They also expect to have their analog signals turned off completely some time in 2015.


Interesting. You should get them on a basic package with a CableCard, however.



MannyE said:


> So now that that's out of the way... Why oh why is it so hard to find an OTA DVR like my original TiVo??? What's so scary that TiVo won't put an OTA tuner in its two top models? Why is it so difficult for the OTA only TiVo to get to market? Is it because no one wants to buy it? I seem to see a lot of interest here at least.
> 
> My gut smells shenanigans. Shenanigans of the highest corporate sort.


You're mostly on target about cord cutting. TiVo put OTA in the model that they could. There aren't any hardware solution for 6-tuner OTA, only 6-tuner QAM, so that's what they ended up with. Also, when there are 5 (or 6 or 7) good channels available OTA, there just isn't much demand for more than 4 tuners and 500GB.



trip1eX said:


> NBA isn't a holdout from what I've read.


The NBA, like the MLB, is out-of-market only.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> The bandwidth requirements from the edge server to the customer would overwhelm the regional and last-mile networks. Also, I haven't seen anything live streamed that's as good quality even as Comcast's over-compressed channels. The March Madness app on the iPad was pretty good, but that was on a 10" screen... WatchESPN is decent, but not cable quality.


Not my sport, but my boss watches many PGA events on his computer at work, and they look pretty good to me on his 27" WQXGA monitor. He claims they look better than the Golf channel on DirecTV. I believe they use Akamai which offers up to 1080p if the client can handle it. Certainly DOCSIS 3 cable customers should be able to get a good enough stream to do this. Given TWC's 40Gb fiber rings where I live, there should be plenty of bandwidth available here. Not so sure about elsewhere though.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Lol. I don't think we even have time to watch TV what with all this posting. 

I promise to do an evaluation of life after pay TV after I've been away from direcTV for a while. I think it's an interesting experiment. 

Of course, there is a twist. I have been a DirecTV customer for a very long time (15 years I think) and who knows what the customer retention department is going to throw my way. They may offer something I would be stupid to turn down. I've never called to play the "I'm quitting" game in all that time to get free ****. So let's see what happens when I make the call in a week or so. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ncted said:


> What if there was a week delay before you could watch new shows? Would that be worth it for, say, $10/month? Hulu users already have to wait for some new content, and people seem content to do so.


 That's free Hulu, Hulu Plus customers don't wait and get HD.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

MannyE said:


> Just goes to show again that the pay TV system is broken. It's almost impossible to start a thread with the letters OTA in them and not have it degrade into the above.
> 
> I find the knee jerk defense of monopolistic cable companies baffling. Anyone with eyes and ears can do a few minutes of research and see that a few very powerful companies are doing whatever the hell they want. How can it be good for consumers?
> 
> ...


 Speaking as someone who uses OTA, once you get past the major networks, you are looking at a sub- channeled wasteland.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tenthplanet said:


> Speaking as someone who uses OTA, once you get past the major networks, you are looking at a sub- channeled wasteland.


Once you get past the few top channels on cable, the rest of them are a wasteland too.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tenthplanet said:


> Speaking as someone who uses OTA, once you get past the major networks, you are looking at a sub- channeled wasteland.





Captainbob said:


> Once you get past the few top channels on cable, the rest of them are a wasteland too.


LOL Both true! So why doesn't cable offer a package of just the "few top channels" ? Answer: Because ask 10 people what the top channels are and you get ten very different answers.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

dlfl said:


> LOL Both true! So why doesn't cable offer a package of just the "few top channels" ? Answer: Because ask 10 people what the top channels are and you get ten very different answers.


I don't think that is it at all. They make you buy a package loaded with garbage channels that nobody watches so they can have an advertisement like.. " $39.95 for the Basic 150 channels for the first 12 months" Then when you look at the channels, you find that 85% of them, you would never ever watch. Then you notice that one channel that you would like to watch is not in the "basic" group", you have to get the next group up with is $59.95 and has 225 channels, which has all the junk channels of basic, plus many more junk channels, and the one channel that you are really interested in. This is why I hated cable and dish, and so glad not to feed them $100+ dollars a month for mostly crap.

The solution that most people would want is ala carte selection of channels, where you could pick and pay for the exact channels that you want and leave channels like : Jewelry TV, The Weather Channel, FS1, Spike, Oxygen,Esquire network, Own, Gem Shopping Network, SEC overflow, Religious channels of which there are many, Spanish channels, LMN, IFC, Lifetime, Food Network, etc.etc....... in the dumpster. That is why people like the idea of Netflix, and other streaming services where they can pick and pay for content that they will actually watch, and not support dozens and dozens of useless channels with their monthly fee.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

as someone who worked IN television for over 20 years I can tell you that the 80/20 rule is very applicable to TV channels. It's pretty clear which package would be the logical "core" package

Those 10 answers would not be as different as you think. They would all be different but probably by one or two channels. 

That's why everyone has been clamoring for the cherry picking thing. Everyone except the 200 channels no one would pick. 

This is all moot anyway since TV by IP is coming on like a freight train. HBO GO is the tip of the iceberg. 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> I don't think that is it at all. They make you buy a package loaded with garbage channels that nobody watches so they can have an advertisement like.. " $39.95 for the Basic 150 channels for the first 12 months" Then when you look at the channels, you find that 85% of them, you would never ever watch. Then you notice that one channel that you would like to watch is not in the "basic" group", you have to get the next group up with is $59.95 and has 225 channels, which has all the junk channels of basic, plus many more junk channels, and the one channel that you are really interested in. This is why I hated cable and dish, and so glad not to feed them $100+ dollars a month for mostly crap.
> 
> The solution that most people would want is ala carte selection of channels, where you could pick and pay for the exact channels that you want and leave channels like : Jewelry TV, The Weather Channel, FS1, Spike, Oxygen,Esquire network, Own, Gem Shopping Network, SEC overflow, Religious channels of which there are many, Spanish channels, LMN, IFC, Lifetime, Food Network, etc.etc....... in the dumpster. That is why people like the idea of Netflix, and other streaming services where they can pick and pay for content that they will actually watch, and not support dozens and dozens of useless channels with their monthly fee.


BAh. Netflix uses the same concept as channels in a cable package. And 90% of what is on Netflix is crap.

And cable/satellite have had a range of packages and prices for awhile now.

There is a point to be made about having more choice. But I don't think ala carte is going to be this utopia some make it out to be. Your per channel cost is much less as part of a package then it would be individually.

The math for ala carte might work out for some. Might not. But the math isn't as simple as just subtracting the cost that you're paying per channel of the channels you don't want. No you also have to add in the increased cost of the channels you want to keep. If a channel you want to keep is only wanted by 1/5 of its previous subscribers then your costs for that channel go up 5x. Not to mention that cable/satellite have fixed infrastructure costs that don't change with the number of channels you get.

Oh and most of these channels get pennies or dimes per month. Food Network is only $0.08/mo/sub. Weather channel is $.11/mo/sub. Spike is $.20/mo/sub. Lifetime is $.28/mo/sub.

There are only 2 channels that get more than $1/mo/sub. And only ~3 that get between $.75/mo/sub and $.99/mo/sub. 5 or so at $.50/mo/sub. The rest are under that with a ton getting under $.11/mo/sub.

These are the wholesale prices from a couple of years ago. http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/business/cbs-to-offer-web-subscription-service.html?_r=0


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sure, there's been an acceleration towards a la carte TV. All of this grand and wonderful streaming video still has to reach the consumer via an adequate network connection. For the vast majority of people, the only cost-effective option for reliable high-speed internet is through the MSO's coax. IIRC, Netflix accounts for something like 25-30% of all residential download internet traffic. If people start finding better value in a la carte streaming, the MSO is going to respond with increased internet pricing, which may very well end up throwing the cost benefit analysis back towards a MSO's Internet + Cable TV bundle pricing.

I suppose it's a form of competition for the MSO's cable TV and may pressure MSO's to be more competitive with TV pricing, but they've still got the upper hand since they control most consumers access to the streaming video.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tatergator1 said:


> Sure, there's been an acceleration towards a la carte TV. All of this grand and wonderful streaming video still has to reach the consumer via an adequate network connection. For the vast majority of people, the only cost-effective option for reliable high-speed internet is through the MSO's coax. IIRC, Netflix accounts for something like 25-30% of all residential download internet traffic. If people start finding better value in a la carte streaming, the MSO is going to respond with increased internet pricing, which may very well end up throwing the cost benefit analysis back towards a MSO's Internet + Cable TV bundle pricing.
> 
> I suppose it's a form of competition for the MSO's cable TV and may pressure MSO's to be more competitive with TV pricing, but they've still got the upper hand since they control most consumers access to the streaming video.


It's amazing how good TWC's Internet pricing has gotten since Google and AT&T both annoucned fiber-to the-press-release in my area. Now TWC is going to start rolling out their Maxx service in January. If there are actually companies competing for broadband customers, prices stay low. Right now, I am paying $55 for 30/5 which will become 200/10 with Maxx at the same price. I am 15 months into my 12 month pricing deal. My neighbor who works for them checked my account, and there is no end date on the promo price. She said customers with good credit and auto-pay are no longer getting price hikes in our area, so they won't be tempted to leave for something else.

If TWC wants my video business, they'd need to not only compete on price, which they do poorly, but also quality, which they also do poorly, unlike Internet, where they are actually pretty good these days.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Competition is always good. Unfortunately, you're in the minority regarding competition from other companies installing fiber service. Most of us are stuck with the incumbent MSO or inferior DSL (6Mbps max in my area). And I'm only 25 miles from a major metro area.

I will note that I'm also seeing the same thing regarding pricing from TWC. My bill has been steady for the last 2+ years, and actually went down a few bucks for my current 12-month cycle which started a few months ago.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> Not my sport, but my boss watches many PGA events on his computer at work, and they look pretty good to me on his 27" WQXGA monitor. He claims they look better than the Golf channel on DirecTV. I believe they use Akamai which offers up to 1080p if the client can handle it. Certainly DOCSIS 3 cable customers should be able to get a good enough stream to do this. Given TWC's 40Gb fiber rings where I live, there should be plenty of bandwidth available here. Not so sure about elsewhere though.


It's possible to make streams look better than linear QAM channels, but I haven't seen any that actually have done that. Also, you're not likely to be able to give a real critical evaluation of how stuff looks on a 27" monitor, compared to putting it on the big screen.

The whole network would crumble if everyone were streaming all their video all the time, since that would add to the current video and other traffic. The telco systems might be able to handle it better, but the cable internet systems would be a mess.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> It's possible to make streams look better than linear QAM channels, but I haven't seen any that actually have done that. Also, you're not likely to be able to give a real critical evaluation of how stuff looks on a 27" monitor, compared to putting it on the big screen.
> 
> The whole network would crumble if everyone were streaming all their video all the time, since that would add to the current video and other traffic. The telco systems might be able to handle it better, but the cable internet systems would be a mess.


I don't know where I was reading it, but someone was saying that USA Internet is artificially choked vs Europe and Asia. There was some economic agenda behind it but I don't remember why.

If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, then if the money moves to TV by IP, I would imagine the "pipeline" would be unclogged. The Internet is tubes anyway right? 

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

MannyE said:


> I don't know where I was reading it, but someone was saying that USA Internet is artificially choked vs Europe and Asia. There was some economic agenda behind it but I don't remember why.
> 
> If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, then if the money moves to TV by IP, I would imagine the "pipeline" would be unclogged. The Internet is tubes anyway right?
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


The US monopoly internet companies have no reason to upgrade their equipment to the standards that many other countries already have. They would rather charge companies like netflix more money so that they can get the "Fast Lane" while they throttle the small companies to allow this to happen. That's what happens when there is no competition, which is the situation in most of the US.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow


----------



## thomasbbb (Oct 19, 2014)

Best Buy started selling the OTA on their website today -- $49.99

SKU# 8758098


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> I don't know where I was reading it, but someone was saying that USA Internet is artificially choked vs Europe and Asia. There was some economic agenda behind it but I don't remember why.
> 
> If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, then if the money moves to TV by IP, I would imagine the "pipeline" would be unclogged. The Internet is tubes anyway right?
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


Our internet is not "artificially choked" on any large scale. Of course we have all sorts of issues like peering agreements and last-mile congestion on HFC, but "artificially choked" is meaningless BS.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Our internet is not "artificially choked" on any large scale. Of course we have all sorts of issues like peering agreements and last-mile congestion on HFC, but "artificially choked" is meaningless BS.


So then "deliberately neglected" would be more on-target? I know I don't get the best internet from AT&T because the fiber cable run is replaced by copper some distance from whatever the optimal distance is. Replaced is the wrong word. I should say wasn't replaced.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

MannyE said:


> So then "deliberately neglected" would be more on-target? I know I don't get the best internet from AT&T because the fiber cable run is replaced by copper some distance from whatever the optimal distance is. Replaced is the wrong word. I should say wasn't replaced.
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


Well, there's just no money in improving it.

Think about it this way... our population density is much lower than Europe's, right? Which means it costs more money, per subscriber, to run new wire. Which means there has to be a strong cash incentive to replace old wire.

If the ISPs were putting in new wire, they would put in high speed lines. But they aren't going to rip out working lines without some kind of cash incentive to do so.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> Well, there's just no money in improving it.
> 
> Think about it this way... our population density is much lower than Europe's, right? Which means it costs more money, per subscriber, to run new wire. Which means there has to be a strong cash incentive to replace old wire.
> 
> If the ISPs were putting in new wire, they would put in high speed lines. But they aren't going to rip out working lines without some kind of cash incentive to do so.


No cash incentive, no competitive incentive (in most places right now), and no regulatory incentive. Places which have very high speed broadband also tend to have net neutrality and/or real competition, which requires ISPs and backbone providers to play nice and generally results in higher last mile speeds.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

I wonder if o could get a permit to run fiber up to my block then charge back the use of that cable. Hmmmmm 


Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> So then "deliberately neglected" would be more on-target? I know I don't get the best internet from AT&T because the fiber cable run is replaced by copper some distance from whatever the optimal distance is. Replaced is the wrong word. I should say wasn't replaced.
> 
> Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


If you're talking about U-Verse being FTTN vs. FTTP, that's a fundamental architecture and infrastructure issue. They're not "artificially choking" the infrastructure they have, they just aren't building the infrastructure that they need to be building.


----------



## mattydork (Mar 13, 2012)

I went to the Best Buy in Colorado Springs and was able to pick up a OTA unit on Sunday. My main issue for holding out over another TiVo option is the initial cost of entry and the fact that I only get internet from my iPhone hotspot. While the rep at BB couldn't confirm that the TiVo would see the hotspot correctly, she did let me know I could return the unit within 14 days if I couldn't get it to work. 

I have been on rabbit ears for many years now and get a great signal from a crappy old antenna I found while digging through my dads garage a couple of decades ago. Once I figured out how to get the hotspot connection to my TiVo, I was in business. Even with the monthly fee I couldn't be more thrilled with my purchase. Say what you will, I am happy that TiVo provided me with a product I actually want at a price I am willing/able to pay.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattydork said:


> I went to the Best Buy in Colorado Springs and was able to pick up a OTA unit on Sunday. My main issue for holding out over another TiVo option is the initial cost of entry and the fact that I only get internet from my iPhone hotspot. While the rep at BB couldn't confirm that the TiVo would see the hotspot correctly, she did let me know I could return the unit within 14 days if I couldn't get it to work.
> 
> I have been on rabbit ears for many years now and get a great signal from a crappy old antenna I found while digging through my dads garage a couple of decades ago. Once I figured out how to get the hotspot connection to my TiVo, I was in business. Even with the monthly fee I couldn't be more thrilled with my purchase. Say what you will, I am happy that TiVo provided me with a product I actually want at a price I am willing/able to pay.


Have fun with that. TiVo is not meant to work with a mobile hotspot. It requires a continuous internet connection to download daily guide data updates.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Have fun with that. TiVo is not meant to work with a mobile hotspot. It requires a continuous internet connection to download daily guide data updates.


Why do you think a mobile hotspot can't provide continuous internet to download daily guide data updates?

I've seen industrial data collection systems run on hotspots.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Have fun with that. TiVo is not meant to work with a mobile hotspot. It requires a continuous internet connection to download daily guide data updates.


You can manually connect the Tivo during the period when the mobile hot spot is available.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Why do you think a mobile hotspot can't provide continuous internet to download daily guide data updates?
> 
> I've seen industrial data collection systems run on hotspots.


If it's there at the house and on all the time, it could work.

I'm assuming mattydork has no wireline internet of any sort available at his house? If that's the case, a CradlePoint or satellite internet would be a better bet than running off of one of those mobile hotspots.



shwru980r said:


> You can manually connect the Tivo during the period when the mobile hot spot is available.


And then you forget, and stuff doesn't record...


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> If you're talking about U-Verse being FTTN vs. FTTP, that's a fundamental architecture and infrastructure issue. They're not "artificially choking" the infrastructure they have, they just aren't building the infrastructure that they need to be building.


That's exactly what I mean. And while it's not active "choking" it's choking by inaction. "To the Node" does not give me (please correct me if I'm wrong) the ability to record (as the advertising implies) 6 HD streams. I can do two HD and the rest will be in SD. "To the Home or Premises" would allow me to get the full functionality. It would also give me the option of investing in fiber to the desktop/tv/TiVo/Xbox if I wanted to. (I think)

I know that a lot of TV stations and production facilities pay to extend the fiber feed and make it FTTD in order to send feeds as fast as possible to whoever. I wonder if a homeowner has that option or if the cost is prohibitive.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> That's exactly what I mean. And while it's not active "choking" it's choking by inaction. "To the Node" does not give me (please correct me if I'm wrong) the ability to record (as the advertising implies) 6 HD streams. I can do two HD and the rest will be in SD. "To the Home or Premises" would allow me to get the full functionality. It would also give me the option of investing in fiber to the desktop/tv/TiVo/Xbox if I wanted to. (I think)
> 
> I know that a lot of TV stations and production facilities pay to extend the fiber feed and make it FTTD in order to send feeds as fast as possible to whoever. I wonder if a homeowner has that option or if the cost is prohibitive.


You're looking at it kind of backwards. They aren't choking anything off. They just never built the fat pipe in the first place, so there's no fat pipe to choke off to a thin pipe. They started with a thin pipe.

It depends on distance. Some installations can do 4HD, others are limited to 3HD, 2HD, or 1HD. I think they've gotten most of them up to 4HD now, but I'm not 100% sure. Some setups, depending on distance, will slow the internet down when you have 4 HD streams recording, which sucks. It's like a somewhat less bad, but still crappy version of the days when you couldn't be on the 56k modem and the phone at the same time. AFAIK, the limit is always 4 total streams, although you can have more than 4 TVs on at once, as long as some are either watching the same channel as another, or playing back previously recorded content.

There's no practical way to get fiber to your desktop, and no reason to do so. CAT cable can handle 1 gbps up to 100m. The only reason to do fiber is longer distances than 100m where you can't put active equipment (i.e. a switch) in the middle, and even for those long runs, you convert back to copper on both ends. There is no service out there today that will give you a fiber handoff, because there is no reason to. Gigabit Ethernet makes a lot more sense.

The ultimate solution is something like FIOS where you can set it up to get a gigabit Ethernet hand-off (even though the service itself is significantly slower than 1gbps) from the ONT to a router, and gigabit Ethernet from there to everywhere else over CAT-6 UTP cable. Then, the video goes over RG-6 coax from the ONT, and phone over CAT-3 or higher to the phone.

With Google Fiber, you'd have gigabit Ethernet from the fiber jack (effectively an ONT for WDM-PON) to the router, and then gigabit Ethernet from there, with MoCA or Ethernet for TVs. I guess the ultimate setup there would technically be all CAT-6 UTP, even for TVs, since it's all IP, but in practice, it really doesn't matter. MoCA is pretty darn robust for applications like IPTV where you don't need the full gig, but need the reliability of a hard copper connection.


----------



## mattydork (Mar 13, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Have fun with that. TiVo is not meant to work with a mobile hotspot. It requires a continuous internet connection to download daily guide data updates.


I have been able to login at my convenience and download the guide as needed. I rent a finished basement in a house where Internet and wi-fi are not provided nor is the option of a separate line. I use iPhone hotspot to connect my MacBook, iPad and now the Roamio. The hotspot is not ideal but it works well.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

shwru980r said:


> You can manually connect the Tivo during the period when the mobile hot spot is available.





Bigg said:


> And then you forget, and stuff doesn't record...


Because it's easy to forget with the constant C130 error message and warnings that guide data will run out starting about 3 days before the guide runs out.

Just because it's a less than ideal situation doesn't mean it won't work or isn't acceptable for some users. To each, his own.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Why can't you just leave the hotspot on? It should work fine. Although I only have experience for the five or six days my FiOS service was down in 2012. I used a T-mobile wifi hot spot for my internet connection. All my TiVos worked fine during that period with internet access from the WiFi hotspot. I basically saw no difference with the TiVos which I guess was when I was using the TiVo ELites. The speeds from the cellular hotspot were faster than my GFs 1.2 Mb/s DSL connection. And I was able to play Call of Duty on my XBox 360s without any issues. I was surprised at how well it worked.

I just setup the Wifi Hot spot and then used a wireless Bridge to connect my main router to it so all my devices could still have internet access while my FiOS services were down.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

And I would think we will only see more cellular-data-only households in the future.


----------



## mattydork (Mar 13, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> Why can't you just leave the hotspot on? It should work fine.


My hotspot is generated by my phone which I carry with me. I then bridge the connection through my MacBook by way of Ethernet. My plan is to update each Saturday or Sunday as I don't keep the MacBook in the same room with my tv and so far haven't had to connect any sooner.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

You may not have tried this... But I can start a stream on my iPad using the iPhone's "Personal hotspot". Once the stream starts, I can shut the hotspot down and the stream will continue to play over the iPad's LTE connection.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> And then you forget, and stuff doesn't record...


Tivo reminds you that guide data is running out before it actually runs out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> And I would think we will only see more cellular-data-only households in the future.


Not with 10GB or 20GB limits. My phone bill would be like $4,000 a month minimum if I was using cellular for internet. My Comcast bill, including TV and Internet is around $120/mo.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Not with 10GB or 20GB limits. My phone bill would be like $4,000 a month minimum if I was using cellular for internet. My Comcast bill, including TV and Internet is around $120/mo.


Yeah you and I might never use only cellular data.

But caps and speeds surely will increase and prices will surely continue to fall as they have doing every year.

I can see some people doing a double take and saying well I don't need 2 internet bills.

Everyone thinks cable is going the dumb pipe route, but maybe what happens is some people keep cabletv, and dump cable broadband in favor of mobile data which works anywhere.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah you and I might never use only cellular data.
> 
> But caps and speeds surely will increase and prices will surely continue to fall as they have doing every year.
> 
> ...


Until they try it and go way over their limit. I could see some very limited users who currently have slow DSL using wireless and not having an issue, but the majority of people want YouTube, Netflix, and other stuff. My grandparents were fine with AT&T wireless over the summer, but only because they don't use the internet that much, and their summer place doesn't have DSL or cable available.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm not sure, but I thought 1/week is not actually frequently enough, but not because of running out of data.

Doesn't the data get modified? So even if you think you have good data between now and 7 days later.. by the time the recording date rolls around, the guide data might have changed slightly. And the Tivo's schedule will be ever so slightly incorrect.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> I'm not sure, but I thought 1/week is not actually frequently enough, but not because of running out of data.
> 
> Doesn't the data get modified? So even if you think you have good data between now and 7 days later.. by the time the recording date rolls around, the guide data might have changed slightly. And the Tivo's schedule will be ever so slightly incorrect.


Yup. TiVo requires an always-on internet connection to function properly. Or a telephone line always connected for daily dial-ins as is the case for the Series 1 boxes. S2 and newer require always-on internet (although S2 and maybe a few others can use a modem instead).


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

To get slightly back on topic, I ordered an OTA from bestbuy.com on Monday. The website said it would be delivered by today. It was not. Tracking information states that UPS delivered the package to the Post Office today. WTF? I don't live or work at the post office. Anyone have a clue why my Tivo is sitting at a post office with no way for me to collect it? I tried calling BB, but they haven't a clue. UPS still shows scheduled delivery for tomorrow, but I am not sure I believe them.


----------



## cp2k (Mar 16, 2004)

They have a program with the Postal Service where they drop some packages and then the post office delivers them yo their final destinations


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## kokishin (Sep 9, 2014)

ncted said:


> To get slightly back on topic, I ordered an OTA from bestbuy.com on Monday. The website said it would be delivered by today. It was not. Tracking information states that UPS delivered the package to the Post Office today. WTF? I don't live or work at the post office. Anyone have a clue why my Tivo is sitting at a post office with no way for me to collect it? I tried calling BB, but they haven't a clue. UPS still shows scheduled delivery for tomorrow, but I am not sure I believe them.


Shippers such as FedEx and UPS are using the post office for final customer delivery on some packages. I presume it's cheaper or more efficient for the shippers. You should still be able to track it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

kokishin said:


> Shippers such as FedEx and UPS are using the post office for final customer delivery on some packages. I presume it's cheaper or more efficient for the shippers. You should still be able to track it.


Until there is a problem with it. Then tracking stops at UPS and FedEx and you can't track it properly with the USPS unless you stick the correct two digit number in front of the original tracking number. I've had issues with this crap twice in the last few weeks. It showed delivered on the FedEx and ups site, but I had no package. Once I entered the proper two digits in front of the tracking number on the USPS site it showed that the package was being sent back to the sender. Of course after an entry that erroneously showed it being delivered. It took over two weeks for the first package to get back to Newegg. Fortunately they had credited me shortly after the screwup


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I can't say I am a fan. Their website said I could have had the box delivered to a store by Thursday or me by Wednesday. I think I'd have been better off getting it delivered to the store.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

It was delivered. I guess I can't complain too much beyond the delivery date changing.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

I see TiVo has already updated the OTA page to include the Amazon and Vudu apps:

http://www.tivo.com/discover/antenna


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Until there is a problem with it. Then tracking stops at UPS and FedEx and you can't track it properly with the USPS unless you stick the correct two digit number in front of the original tracking number. I've had issues with this crap twice in the last few weeks. It showed delivered on the FedEx and ups site, but I had no package. Once I entered the proper two digits in front of the tracking number on the USPS site it showed that the package was being sent back to the sender. Of course after an entry that erroneously showed it being delivered. It took over two weeks for the first package to get back to Newegg. Fortunately they had credited me shortly after the screwup


Yeah, it's a disaster. My TiVo Premiere XL4 (at the time I was in an apartment) got stuck at the USPS because they wouldn't deliver it to my apartment like FedEX and UPS do. Stuff will often get to the USPS in 2 days from halfway across the country and then sit for a day or two more before making the final few miles of it's journey. That system is awful, Amazon should do everything through UPS directly, who actually does their job in a timely and professional manner.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's a disaster. My TiVo Premiere XL4 (at the time I was in an apartment) got stuck at the USPS because they wouldn't deliver it to my apartment like FedEX and UPS do. Stuff will often get to the USPS in 2 days from halfway across the country and then sit for a day or two more before making the final few miles of it's journey. That system is awful, Amazon should do everything through UPS directly, who actually does their job in a timely and professional manner.


There can be a silver lining though. If the item you ordered through Amazon doesn't arrive by the guaranteed delivery date, you can either get the shipping fee refunded or get a free month of Amazon Prime.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There can be a silver lining though. If the item you ordered through Amazon doesn't arrive by the guaranteed delivery date, you can either get the shipping fee refunded or get a free month of Amazon Prime.


Interesting. I guess I'd get a lot of free months. Although I bet their feeble attempt at "delivery" would be considered "on time" even though the package didn't actually get to me until a few days later.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> You're looking at it kind of backwards. They aren't choking anything off. They just never built the fat pipe in the first place, so there's no fat pipe to choke off to a thin pipe. They started with a thin pipe.
> 
> It depends on distance. Some installations can do 4HD, others are limited to 3HD, 2HD, or 1HD. I think they've gotten most of them up to 4HD now, but I'm not 100% sure. Some setups, depending on distance, will slow the internet down when you have 4 HD streams recording, which sucks. It's like a somewhat less bad, but still crappy version of the days when you couldn't be on the 56k modem and the phone at the same time. AFAIK, the limit is always 4 total streams, although you can have more than 4 TVs on at once, as long as some are either watching the same channel as another, or playing back previously recorded content.
> 
> ...


Thank you!!! I got it. That was perfect!

The funny thing is it seems then like OTA is able to deliver more HD signals at once than any pay TV service because theoretically if I had enough tuners and DVR devices there is no limit to the amount of channels I can record/watch in HD at once!

Of course it's impractical because of all the equipment needed and who really needs more than 4 channels unless they are running a sports book?

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> Thank you!!! I got it. That was perfect!
> 
> The funny thing is it seems then like OTA is able to deliver more HD signals at once than any pay TV service because theoretically if I had enough tuners and DVR devices there is no limit to the amount of channels I can record/watch in HD at once!
> 
> Of course it's impractical because of all the equipment needed and who really needs more than 4 channels unless they are running a sports book?


Glad it helped.

But I have to correct you again here. U-Verse is limited to 4 HD streams (actually _I think_ 8 for Gigapower installations that have a GPON ONT feeding U-Verse equipment), and Google Fiber is limited to _I think_ 8, which is really limited by the MoCA bandwidth not the fiber coming into the house. Those are both IPTV, one implemented much better (Google Fiber) than the other (U-Verse).

Let's look at cable though. Comcast and some other providers have all the channels available at the same time. It's just broadcast. If you're on a Comcast system with, say, 120 HD's, and you had 20 Roamio Plus'es, you could record all 120 channels at once. Comcast may not give you 20 CableCards on one account, but that's an arbitrary limit to prevent people from sharing accounts, but that's not a technological limitation of their system. And 120 HD's is way more than OTA can ever have, even when you count foreign language and other crap. Verizon, which for all practical purposes is running a cable system in parallel with internet/IP-VOD and phone on a single piece of fiber, has about 200 HD's in a similar setup, since they don't have to deal with internet, phone, or VOD in the QAM signal. So there, if you had 34 TiVos, you could record everything at once. Again, impractical at many levels, but I'm talking theoretical here.

Now, if you look at TWC, they use SDV. So they might have (total guess here) 50 "slots" that are half a QAM each for, say, 130 HD channels, plus another 70 HDs that are the most popular channels that are linear. Thus, if you had enough TiVos, you could max out those 50 "slots", and only be able to get the 70 that are broadcast linearly plus 50 of the 130 that are on SDV. Their system may also limit the number of SDV slots that one account can get, or somehow prioritize them, since you share those "slots" with everyone else on your node (probably 100-200 subs passed or less on an SDV system). Note that the basic structure that I describe with some linear and some SDV is factually correct, and they do have around 200 HD channels available, but the exact numbers of "slots" and SDV vs. non-SDV channels is an educated guesstimate. They may also combine VOD and SDV "slots", or they may be separate, I'm not really sure.

Satellite is also broadcast, although depending on the provider, and the setup of their multiswitches, it gets really cumbersome and expensive to get above 16 or 32 tuners unless you have multiple dishes, or a system that's built for large MDU's.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's a disaster. My TiVo Premiere XL4 (at the time I was in an apartment) got stuck at the USPS because they wouldn't deliver it to my apartment like FedEX and UPS do. Stuff will often get to the USPS in 2 days from halfway across the country and then sit for a day or two more before making the final few miles of it's journey. That system is awful, Amazon should do everything through UPS directly, who actually does their job in a timely and professional manner.


You need to start filing insurance claims and mail not received complaints for every delayed shipment.

File an insurance claim here:
https://reg.usps.com/login?app=OIC&appURL=https://onlineclaims.usps.com/oic/landing.do

File a mail not received complaint here:

http://faq.usps.com/adaptivedesktop/faq.jsp?ef=USPSFAQ&dest=EmailUs


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> You need to start filing insurance claims and mail not received complaints for every delayed shipment.
> 
> File an insurance claim here:
> https://reg.usps.com/login?app=OIC&appURL=https://onlineclaims.usps.com/oic/landing.do
> ...


That's their policy. They don't do their job properly, and stuff gets delayed. It gets there eventually, or you have to go rescue it. That's the way their horribly broken system works.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

thomasbbb said:


> Best Buy started selling the OTA on their website today -- $49.99
> 
> SKU# 8758098


Best Buy sent an online-only $5 off coupon via email today that is good through 1/15/15.

If there's anything better than a $50 Roamio, it's a $45 Roamio!


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That's their policy. They don't do their job properly, and stuff gets delayed. It gets there eventually, or you have to go rescue it. That's the way their horribly broken system works.


That's an illegal local policy set by a corrupt postmaster. You need to file the insurance claims and mail not received complaints every single time there is a delay to get the problem fixed.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I bought a OTA Roamio this week from a local BestBuy. I have been looking for one every since they were announced. It was the only one that I have ever seen in a store.

But BestBuy says I can't connect to my SD TVs no mater what adapter I buy. I think they are wrong and bought a adapter but haven't tried it yet. 

( I didn't get a coupon so had to pay $54.67. )


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

replaytv said:


> But BestBuy says I can't connect to my SD TVs no mater what adapter I buy. I think they are wrong and bought a adapter but haven't tried it yet.


They are wrong. You just need the A/V breakout cables.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

replaytv said:


> I bought a OTA Roamio this week from a local BestBuy. I have been looking for one every since they were announced. It was the only one that I have ever seen in a store.
> 
> But BestBuy says I can't connect to my SD TVs no mater what adapter I buy. I think they are wrong and bought a adapter but haven't tried it yet.
> 
> ( I didn't get a coupon so had to pay $54.67. )


This maybe?

https://www.tivo.com/shop/detail/av-cable


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> That's an illegal local policy set by a corrupt postmaster. You need to file the insurance claims and mail not received complaints every single time there is a delay to get the problem fixed.


There's nothing illegal about it. That's how their broken system works. That's why I use UPS whenever possible. It was really the seller's fault for using the USPS in the first place when they could have shipped UPS.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> There's nothing illegal about it. That's how their broken system works. That's why I use UPS whenever possible. It was really the seller's fault for using the USPS in the first place when they could have shipped UPS.


They have to deliver all the mail that comes in the morning. They sort all the mail that came in by 7AM and hit the streets by 9AM. Every bit of that mail is required to be delivered, even if they have to stay out late at night.

Many USPS employees are no better than a prison inmate who will continually abuse you if you show any weakness. Filing the complaints that I suggested is the equivalent of having to get in a fight to earn respect. Don't let them get away with disrespecting you with poor service.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> They have to deliver all the mail that comes in the morning. They sort all the mail that came in by 7AM and hit the streets by 9AM. Every bit of that mail is required to be delivered, even if they have to stay out late at night.
> 
> Many USPS employees are no better than a prison inmate who will continually abuse you if you show any weakness. Filing the complaints that I suggested is the equivalent of having to get in a fight to earn respect. Don't let them get away with disrespecting you with poor service.


UPS packages that are drop-shipped aren't really mail either, they are a failure of the seller to use a reliable and trustworthy method of shipping. The USPS also doesn't always deliver the mail in a timely fashion either.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

shwru980r said:


> They have to deliver all the mail that comes in the morning. They sort all the mail that came in by 7AM and hit the streets by 9AM.


No they don't. 1st class mail and Express Mail all have to be delivered the day they come in. Any package without a service level guarantee doesn't have to be delivered that day.

This last mile thing that the USPS does for UPS and FedEx is the bottom of the barrel stuff. They make very little money from it, and they provide no service level guarantee. Basically, they'll deliver it when they deliver it. Period.

UPS and FedEx don't automatically decide which packages to drop at your post office, the shipper does. If you don't like this shipping method, call TiVo and complain.

And based on past issues, certain buildings or even whole neighborhoods can be flagged as pickup only for parcels if there have been enough issues of theft or tampering.

You can thank all of those people that file those insurance claims for that one.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

arrowrand said:


> UPS and FedEx don't automatically decide which packages to drop at your post office, the shipper does. If you don't like this shipping method, call TiVo and complain.


Actually, the shipper was Best Buy. Tivo actually used UPS 2nd day air to ship my Mini replacement.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

ncted said:


> Actually, the shipper was Best Buy. Tivo actually used UPS 2nd day air to ship my Mini replacement.


Noted.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?clk_...TiVo+Roamio+OTA&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc

Buy a Roamio OTA for $49 at BestBuy, sell it the next day for $100 on eBay. How strange is that?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

replaytv said:


> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?clk_...TiVo+Roamio+OTA&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc
> 
> Buy a Roamio OTA for $49 at BestBuy, sell it the next day for $100 on eBay. How strange is that?


I guess that means TiVo underpriced them.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I guess that means TiVo underpriced them.


People on this website say they are buying them for a 'parts box'. I guess that only really means the power supply, chassis, and hard drive, but still they feel that is enough to pay for just those parts. I wonder how much the box is costing Tivo to manufacture? ( or actually, for TiVo to have _someone else_ manufacture. )

For people that want to buy it and use it for the 1/2 hour recording on all tuners, they can use it to avoid watching commercials if they want to shift their viewing by a half hour or less. I use a Premiere in the same way to watch the news every day. I usually have the Premiere tuned to the two news channels I like to watch, so then I can watch them without commercials just by going back to the beginning of the half hour.

Does the OTA have a 'trial' period that you can use it without paying? If it does maybe I will fill it up with yoga and other exercise/stretching shows I watch over and over. Then when the trial runs out it will still be of use to me without a subscription.


----------



## arrowrand (Oct 4, 2011)

replaytv said:


> Buy a Roamio OTA for $49 at BestBuy, sell it the next day for $100 on eBay. How strange is that?


More like just list it for $100 as those seem to all say ended instead of sold.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

replaytv said:


> People on this website say they are buying them for a 'parts box'. I guess that only really means the power supply, chassis, and hard drive, but still they feel that is enough to pay for just those parts. I wonder how much the box is costing Tivo to manufacture? ( or actually, for TiVo to have someone else manufacture. ) For people that want to buy it and use it for the 1/2 hour recording on all tuners, they can use it to avoid watching commercials if they want to shift their viewing by a half hour or less. I use a Premiere in the same way to watch the news every day. I usually have the Premiere tuned to the two news channels I like to watch, so then I can watch them without commercials just by going back to the beginning of the half hour. Does the OTA have a 'trial' period that you can use it without paying? If it does maybe I will fill it up with yoga and other exercise/stretching shows I watch over and over. Then when the trial runs out it will still be of use to me without a subscription.


Hmmmmm, I wonder if you hook up a Roamio OTA unit to a TA while you're doing the initial setup, if it will say that it detects a TA connected and asks you if you also want to setup cable TV as well as your antenna signal, just like it surprisingly and mysteriously did for me when I was testing my Roamio basic with an antenna and left the TA attached (as mentioned in a previous thread I started and surprisingly hardly anyone responded to this shocking news!)

Maybe it can be used for clear QAM in the manner mentioned in the above quoted reply?

PS, also don't forget the Roamio remote you get as a spare part when you buy the OTA.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> UPS packages that are drop-shipped aren't really mail either, they are a failure of the seller to use a reliable and trustworthy method of shipping. The USPS also doesn't always deliver the mail in a timely fashion either.


I know this is OT, but just want to make a quick comment...

Must be a local USPS issue, because the service here beats UPS hands down. I have Amazon prime and used to be constantly frustrated by UPS's delivery time always being between 6-8pm, and packages shipped Thursday not arriving until Monday. With USPS delivering packages, the regular delivery time is around 11am and two day UPS packages usually arrive in just one day.

Also, USPS will ring the bell and hand-deliver packages, while UPS just tosses them in the driveway without ever coming to the door.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dcline414 said:


> I know this is OT, but just want to make a quick comment...
> 
> Must be a local USPS issue, because the service here beats UPS hands down. I have Amazon prime and used to be constantly frustrated by UPS's delivery time always being between 6-8pm, and packages shipped Thursday not arriving until Monday. With USPS delivering packages, the regular delivery time is around 11am and two day UPS packages usually arrive in just one day.
> 
> Also, USPS will ring the bell and hand-deliver packages, while UPS just tosses them in the driveway without ever coming to the door.


I find both USPS and UPS to be perfectly adequate where I live. FedEx Ground however is horrible. As with most things I guess YMMV. I was really just unhappy that it wasn't clear to me how my package was going to get to me. It ended up arriving when UPS said it would, just not when Best Buy said it would when I originally ordered it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Maybe it can be used for clear QAM in the manner mentioned in the above quoted reply?


Sounds like a software bug in that they forgot to block out that part of the software on the OTA. Clear QAM wouldn't require a TA anyways, so that wouldn't make sense on any TiVo, and no TiVo has ever supported ClearQAM without a CableCard.



dcline414 said:


> Must be a local USPS issue, because the service here beats UPS hands down. I have Amazon prime and used to be constantly frustrated by UPS's delivery time always being between 6-8pm, and packages shipped Thursday not arriving until Monday. With USPS delivering packages, the regular delivery time is around 11am and two day UPS packages usually arrive in just one day.


I've never had very good service anywhere in CT from USPS. UPS is always 100% on the ball. FedEX is usually OK, although sometimes if there's bad weather they just give up, whereas nothing will really stop UPS.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

arrowrand said:


> More like just list it for $100 as those seem to all say ended instead of sold.


Those appear to be sold items. What this tells me is it's easy to take advantage of dumb people. Some of the stuff sold on eBay boggles my mind.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jakep_82 said:


> Those appear to be sold items. What this tells me is it's easy to take advantage of dumb people. Some of the stuff sold on eBay boggles my mind.


They probably just aren't aware that the Roamio OTA model exists and think it's just the Roamio basic model.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

arrowrand said:


> No they don't. 1st class mail and Express Mail all have to be delivered the day they come in. Any package without a service level guarantee doesn't have to be delivered that day.
> 
> This last mile thing that the USPS does for UPS and FedEx is the bottom of the barrel stuff. They make very little money from it, and they provide no service level guarantee. Basically, they'll deliver it when they deliver it. Period.
> 
> ...


Anything that comes in by 7 AM must be sorted and sent out for delivery. The carriers then have to deliver all that mail on that day. It sounds like you're being lied to by corrupt postal workers.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> UPS packages that are drop-shipped aren't really mail either, they are a failure of the seller to use a reliable and trustworthy method of shipping. The USPS also doesn't always deliver the mail in a timely fashion either.


If it arrives at the post office by 7 AM, then it must be sorted and sent out for delivery on that day. You're being fed a load of bull by the postal workers.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Sounds like a software bug in that they forgot to block out that part of the software on the OTA. Clear QAM wouldn't require a TA anyways, so that wouldn't make sense on any TiVo, and no TiVo has ever supported ClearQAM without a CableCard. .......


You're not understanding. Yes it's a SW bug apparently, and I know of course that you wouldn't need a TA for clear QAM. The point is, if the TA happens to be connected to the TiVo while you're doing the setup, that is what must trigger the bug and makes it "think" that you want to set it up for cable TV. I didn't do this with an OTA Roamio, I used a base Roamio and it allowed me to set it for BOTH antenna and cable feeds, which it was thought to not be able to do. The limitation is that there's only one RF coax input so you'd have to use an old school RF switch or manually switch the cables and you run the risk of missing recordings, amongst other things.

What I surmised with the OTA was for someone to also test this theory with that unit with a TA plugged in while doing the initial setup and see if the same bug exists and it asks you if you want to set it up for cable TV as well. If it does, you certainly CAN use it for clear QAM if you do a channel scan after the initial setup, just like other TiVos. You won't have guide data and the normal TiVo experience, but you can use it like a basic cable tuner with manual recording and pausing I believe.

I'm really just curious if the OTA unit even has a QAM capable tuner internally.

Here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10289592


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> I'm really just curious if the OTA unit even has a QAM capable tuner internally.
> 
> Here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10289592


The OTA does have a QAM tuner because the Tuner chips are the same as the base Roamio, 4x hybrid ATSC/QAM chips.

I actually couldn't find any hardware differences between the models but I haven't check the back sides yet.

My thread is here:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=521591


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Roamio OTA 3rd-party seller listing have made it to Amazon. Prices range from $79 to $110 plus shipping.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> If it arrives at the post office by 7 AM, then it must be sorted and sent out for delivery on that day. You're being fed a load of bull by the postal workers.


It's the USPS. It's expected to be slow and frustrating. I wouldn't expect anything else.



HarperVision said:


> You're not understanding. Yes it's a SW bug apparently, and I know of course that you wouldn't need a TA for clear QAM. The point is, if the TA happens to be connected to the TiVo while you're doing the setup, that is what must trigger the bug and makes it "think" that you want to set it up for cable TV. I didn't do this with an OTA Roamio, I used a base Roamio and it allowed me to set it for BOTH antenna and cable feeds, which it was thought to not be able to do. The limitation is that there's only one RF coax input so you'd have to use an old school RF switch or manually switch the cables and you run the risk of missing recordings, amongst other things.
> 
> What I surmised with the OTA was for someone to also test this theory with that unit with a TA plugged in while doing the initial setup and see if the same bug exists and it asks you if you want to set it up for cable TV as well. If it does, you certainly CAN use it for clear QAM if you do a channel scan after the initial setup, just like other TiVos. You won't have guide data and the normal TiVo experience, but you can use it like a basic cable tuner with manual recording and pausing I believe.
> 
> I'm really just curious if the OTA unit even has a QAM capable tuner internally.


Oh, yeah, that's totally different from what I thought you were referring to. That is rather odd that the Roamio basic allows such a setup.

However, since TiVo doesn't support ClearQAM anyway, who cares?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

telemark said:


> The OTA does have a QAM tuner because the Tuner chips are the same as the base Roamio, 4x hybrid ATSC/QAM chips. I actually couldn't find any hardware differences between the models but I haven't check the back sides yet. My thread is here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=521591


Cool! B)

I wish I had a BB near me, I would go get one and try it myself.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> ......,. However, since TiVo doesn't support ClearQAM anyway, who cares?


True (sort of) for the OTA, but not for the Base Roamio since you can add a Cablecard and TA.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

jakep_82 said:


> Those appear to be sold items. What this tells me is it's easy to take advantage of dumb people. Some of the stuff sold on eBay boggles my mind.


I'm still amazed that people buy lifetimed Series 2 Tivos. And sellers have learned not to start out the bidding at .99, as the sold price is usually $25 or so, but you put the 'buy it now' price of $75 or higher in some cases, and they will sell for that. Not all will sell, but some will. I really don't understand at all. There are gobs of lifetimed Series 2 on Craigslist for cheap.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dcline414 said:


> I know this is OT, but just want to make a quick comment...
> 
> Must be a local USPS issue, because the service here beats UPS hands down. I have Amazon prime and used to be constantly frustrated by UPS's delivery time always being between 6-8pm, and packages shipped Thursday not arriving until Monday. With USPS delivering packages, the regular delivery time is around 11am and two day UPS packages usually arrive in just one day.
> 
> Also, USPS will ring the bell and hand-deliver packages, while UPS just tosses them in the driveway without ever coming to the door.


Just the opposite here. USPS just throws the package by the door. Never ringing the doorbell. While UPS will ring the doorbell before leaving the package at the door.

At what really annoys me with the USPS, is I will sometimes have a package that is the width of my mailbox. So they stick it in. But the side I have access to is a smaller opening than where the carrier puts the mail . So I need to destroy the box trying to remove it. I've started filing complaints about it when it happens. So hopefully they stop doing it soon.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Just the opposite here. USPS just throws the package by the door. Never ringing the doorbell. While UPS will ring the doorbell before leaving the package at the door.
> 
> At what really annoys me with the USPS, is I will sometimes have a package that is the width of my mailbox. So they stick it in. But the side I have access to is a smaller opening than where the carrier puts the mail . So I need to destroy the box trying to remove it. I've started filing complaints about it when it happens. So hopefully they stop doing it soon.


Shouldn't you be complaining to your landlord?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> True (sort of) for the OTA, but not for the Base Roamio since you can add a Cablecard and TA.


The Base Roamio doesn't support ClearQAM without a CableCard either.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> The Base Roamio doesn't support ClearQAM without a CableCard either.


Actually it does, if you say you'll get a Cablecard later during setup and then after setup is done you run a channel scan under the Channels menu, then add the XXX.X channels in your channel list by check marking them, but that wasn't the point I'm trying to make, which was that you can set it up to do both cable and OTA concurrently on the base model, and they both show in the guide and your channel list, which the OTA isn't "supposed" to do. Limitation being that there's only one RF coax input, as stated previously also.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Shouldn't you be complaining to your landlord?


I guess I am the landlord. It's a condo. USPS is responsible for the mailboxes, not the HOA.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> Actually it does, if you say you'll get a Cablecard later during setup and then after setup is done you run a channel scan under the Channels menu, then add the XXX.X channels in your channel list by check marking them, but that wasn't the point I'm trying to make, which was that you can set it up to do both cable and OTA concurrently on the base model, and they both show in the guide and your channel list, which the OTA isn't "supposed" to do. Limitation being that there's only one RF coax input, as stated previously also.


But they aren't useful, since there's no guide data. It's only useful for troubleshooting CableCard problems on systems that still have ClearQAM channels, which many don't.


----------



## MannyE (Dec 7, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Glad it helped.
> 
> But I have to correct you again here. U-Verse is limited to 4 HD streams (actually _I think_ 8 for Gigapower installations that have a GPON ONT feeding U-Verse equipment), and Google Fiber is limited to _I think_ 8, which is really limited by the MoCA bandwidth not the fiber coming into the house. Those are both IPTV, one implemented much better (Google Fiber) than the other (U-Verse).
> 
> ...


I think I should have mentioned that this seems to be a limit only with AT&T Uverse. It's the main reason I never left DirecTV. Uverse was at the time advertising 4 or maybe 6 tuners (don't remember) of which only two would be HD and the rest would be SD when recording multiple shows (more than two) at the same time. I found that to be unacceptable since with Directv (as you mentioned) I would be able to record (theoretically) a limitless number of channels at once all in HD.

I think they may have improved on that but as late as early this year there were still limits on simultaneous HD streams according to the CSRs that I spoke with.

Sent from my galafreyan transdimensional communicator 100 years from now.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MannyE said:


> I think I should have mentioned that this seems to be a limit only with AT&T Uverse. It's the main reason I never left DirecTV. Uverse was at the time advertising 4 or maybe 6 tuners (don't remember) of which only two would be HD and the rest would be SD when recording multiple shows (more than two) at the same time. I found that to be unacceptable since with Directv (as you mentioned) I would be able to record (theoretically) a limitless number of channels at once all in HD.
> 
> I think they may have improved on that but as late as early this year there were still limits on simultaneous HD streams according to the CSRs that I spoke with.


In most markets, it's 4. DirecTV isn't limited in the same way, since it's broadcast, not IPTV.

It depends on how far you are from the VRAD and whether you're pair bonded or not. I think all GPON installations are now 8HD, but I could be wrong. I think most, if not all pair bonded installed would be 4HD, as would be any single-pair installations at less than 2kft or so. The ~3kft single-pair setups are the worst, since the total amount of bandwidth is pretty low, something like 25mbps total or less.


----------



## mjanssentx (Nov 20, 2014)

Has anybody tried to upgrade the Harddrive in the Roamio OTA?

Is it as simple as the base Roamio with all the same requirements and instructions?

(referring to the Roamio OTA that you get from Best Buy for $49 versus the base Roamio)

Thanks


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I don't see how it would be any different.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> It's the USPS. It's expected to be slow and frustrating. I wouldn't expect anything else.


You've been brainwashed by the no account, shiftless bums at your post office. File the complaints I suggested previously, every time a shipment is delayed and you will notice improved service. Don't let them disrespect you with poor service.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

replaytv said:


> I'm still amazed that people buy lifetimed Series 2 Tivos. And sellers have learned not to start out the bidding at .99, as the sold price is usually $25 or so, but you put the 'buy it now' price of $75 or higher in some cases, and they will sell for that. Not all will sell, but some will. I really don't understand at all. There are gobs of lifetimed Series 2 on Craigslist for cheap.


I think it's better to try and find a cheap Tivo HD or Premiere without service and try to get $99 lifetime service.

If you want to use an S2 for OTA, then you still need to find a Digital converter box and those might cost you an additional $30 - $40. They aren't really worth the trouble anymore.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> You've been brainwashed by the no account, shiftless bums at your post office. File the complaints I suggested previously, every time a shipment is delayed and you will notice improved service. Don't let them disrespect you with poor service.


There is nothing to file a claim about. This is the way the USPS does business, and nothing is going to change that. I will try to get everything shipped UPS whenever possible. UPS is so far ahead of everyone else in pretty much every way.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

mjanssentx said:


> Has anybody tried to upgrade the Harddrive in the Roamio OTA?
> 
> Is it as simple as the base Roamio with all the same requirements and instructions?
> 
> ...


Yes, I upgraded mine with a 2TB WB Green drive. Easy as could be.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 27, 2006)

replaytv said:


> I'm still amazed that people buy lifetimed Series 2 Tivos. And sellers have learned not to start out the bidding at .99, as the sold price is usually $25 or so, but you put the 'buy it now' price of $75 or higher in some cases, and they will sell for that. Not all will sell, but some will. I really don't understand at all. There are gobs of lifetimed Series 2 on Craigslist for cheap.


I kept my series 2 on hand for a very long time because it had the original market differentiator that made Tivo great - A DVD writer. Now the biggest remaining differentiator for me is working with antenna.

Without a DVD writer Tivo still has some advantages over DVRs rented by the cable companies but it isn't head and shoulders above. The time we went with Uverse we put ours on hold and in the closet. It only took a few days to get over the difference in features.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

Bigg said:


> There is nothing to file a claim about. This is the way the USPS does business, and nothing is going to change that. I will try to get everything shipped UPS whenever possible. UPS is so far ahead of everyone else in pretty much every way.


Yep-UPS is awesome-VERY reliable and their tracking system is really good. The USPS is OK but normally slower and last time I checked their tracking system sucked soo bad it wouldnt tell you anything until after the package was delivered. The UPS guy leaves just about anything/everything at my doorstep even if the signature required option is selected by the shipper. Never had a problem with UPS except once about 15 years ago when a package with DVD's got damaged and they promptly replaced the shipment with the seller witout my intervention.

Hmm UPS makes money and the USPS does not.......But I would not want to ship letters/bills though the UPS-it would be way too costly.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

qz3fwd said:


> Yep-UPS is awesome-VERY reliable and their tracking system is really good. The USPS is OK but normally slower and last time I checked their tracking system sucked soo bad it wouldnt tell you anything until after the package was delivered. The UPS guy leaves just about anything/everything at my doorstep even if the signature required option is selected by the shipper. Never had a problem with UPS except once about 15 years ago when a package with DVD's got damaged and they promptly replaced the shipment with the seller witout my intervention.
> 
> Hmm UPS makes money and the USPS does not.......But I would not want to ship letters/bills though the UPS-it would be way too costly.


Quite true. For small things that aren't time sensitive and fit in the mailbox, USPS is way cheaper and good enough for government work, so to speak. If you look at the cost basis of the USPS, they actually are about cash flow neutral year to year, once you take off some of the whacky reverse book-cooking with pension liabilities that Congress has forced them into to make them look like they lose a ton of money, although in terms of costs compared to other countries, a first class letter should really cost more like a dollar to mail instead of the current ~$.50. They must be making up the losses on first class in some of the express shipping or something.


----------

