# Where did all this copy protection come from???



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

I used to only not be able to transfer my HD series three shows to my Series 2. Now I cant transfer HD Tivo to HD Tivo in my own house because they are copy protected. I am in Washington DC and I am pretty sure this just started happening. I know this has been happening to other people for a while, but has anyone had this just start happening or happening incorrectly by mismanagement by vomcast? This is happening on both standard definition channels and HD channels.

Thanks!


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

The cable company is responsible for copy protection on digital channels. Note some content providers (like HBO and Showtime) demand copy protection on their digital channels, so providers are just doing what they are told in that case. In cases where the content provider makes no such demand, it is up to the cable provider to decide whether copy protection is appropriate.


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

I understand that, but am a little perplexed why it has shown up all the sudden. I dont believe there ever to be an instance where I couldnt transfer a show from one HD Tivo to another.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Can you get Verizon FIOS? They don't copy protect anything and reports are their video quality is excellent.

Time Warner protects everything except (legally prohibited) local broadcast channels.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

One reason they do it is because it makes TiVo less competitive with their own DVRs -- none of the cable DVRs offer something like TiVo to Go.


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

No FIOS in DC for another 2-3 years. Although all surrounding areas have it. Just still a little shocked that they implement it all of a sudden. Curios if they are doing it to their non HD series too. Guess I will have to do a test to find out.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Andrewp75 said:


> No FIOS in DC ......


 Huh? Your info at the left says you're in Chicago !


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

Never changed it, guess it is time


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

alansh said:


> One reason they do it is because it makes TiVo less competitive with their own DVRs -- none of the cable DVRs offer something like TiVo to Go.


Cable networks (HBO/SHO) sell DVDs of their popular series and specials. No reason to make it easy for customers to "archive" shows to DVD.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lew said:


> Cable networks (HBO/SHO) sell DVDs of their popular series and specials. No reason to make it easy for customers to "archive" shows to DVD.


But most networks have never asked for copy protection, the cable companies are doing it on their own.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I've noticed recently that while my transfers are working correctly, I cannot transfer any content recorded via digital cable even if it's an SD recording. I'm using TWC in South Carolina.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And that is the cable company's prerogative.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> And that is the cable company's prerogative.


Yes, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It does reduce value in a competing product and create a barrier to competitors in the DVR market and frankly a little bit anti-competitive. But yes, it is legal...for now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Yes, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.


I've found that when people talk about "the right thing to do", they generally mean what they like, rather than what is objectively best for the enterprise within which the decision is being made.



Stormspace said:


> It does reduce value in a competing product


And fosters value in it as well. There is no way to prove which is objectively better for the enterprise, so all we can legitimately think of it as is a wash.



Stormspace said:


> and create a barrier to competitors in the DVR market


Not really.



Stormspace said:


> and frankly a little bit anti-competitive.


Not at all... competitors can do whatever they wish.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> I've found that when people talk about "the right thing to do", they generally mean what they like, rather than what is objectively best for the enterprise within which the decision is being made.
> 
> And fosters value in it as well. There is no way to prove which is objectively better for the enterprise, so all we can legitimately think of it as is a wash.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, increasing shareholder value is not always in the best interests of the consumer. Monopolies are built by cutting off competitors so that only one viable solution is available and while some might argue that monopolies are not illegal, exercising monopoly power is. It's only a matter of time before the cable operators are going to get what's been coming to them for a long time now.


----------



## supersportsfan (Sep 15, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I've noticed recently that while my transfers are working correctly, I cannot transfer any content recorded via digital cable even if it's an SD recording. I'm using TWC in South Carolina.


All of my local HD's are unprotected, except NBC...who can I contact to fix that? Correct me if I am wrong, but THAT is illegal, is it not?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Unfortunately, increasing shareholder value is not always in the best interests of the consumer.


Absolutely. The presumption that a business will place the best interests of the consumer over the best interests of their owners is a mistake.



Stormspace said:


> Monopolies are built by cutting off competitors so that only one viable solution is available and while some might argue that monopolies are not illegal, exercising monopoly power is. It's only a matter of time before the cable operators are going to get what's been coming to them for a long time now.


Actually, the US Court of Appeals recently confirmed that the general trend has been toward the subscription television marketplace being more competitive, not less competitive. They've declared that there is effective competition everywhere now.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

supersportsfan said:


> All of my local HD's are unprotected, except NBC...who can I contact to fix that? Correct me if I am wrong, but THAT is illegal, is it not?


For me. I only have one HD TiVo and two SD's. So, while I might be able to transfer digital HD locals, I cannot due to lack of equipment. Just for me, I've always been able to transfer digital TV to the other TiVo's (S2's) in the house but since the Tuning adapter (Could be the cable cards) was installed I cannot transfer digital channels to the S2's. So, in my estimation it's only a matter for time before cable operators move all content to digital channels except for locals thus forcing us to put cable card devices or cable boxes in every room of the house to get anything other than locals.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

supersportsfan said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but THAT is illegal, is it not?


It is illegal to copy protect OTA broadcast programming.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Absolutely. The presumption that a business will place the best interests of the consumer over the best interests of their owners is a mistake.
> 
> Actually, the US Court of Appeals recently confirmed that the general trend has been toward the subscription television marketplace being more competitive, not less competitive. They've declared that there is effective competition everywhere now.


Only when you factor in satellite, and most articles I've read suggest that argument is specious. Personally I think some lobbiest was paid a lot of money to convince someone of that, just so the cable companies could continue their vile, anticompetitive, nasty ways.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> It is illegal to copy protect OTA broadcast programming.


It's also illegal to copy protect HD locals on a cable network.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

supersportsfan said:


> All of my local HD's are unprotected, except NBC...who can I contact to fix that? Correct me if I am wrong, but THAT is illegal, is it not?


Yes, it's illegal. I would contact the cable company first, as it's likely the setting for NBC is a mistake.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Only when you factor in satellite, and most articles I've read suggest that argument is specious.


The US Court of Appeals disagrees. I think they're more objective.



Stormspace said:


> Personally I think some lobbiest was paid a lot of money to convince someone of that, just so the cable companies could continue their vile, anticompetitive, nasty ways.


So you're accusing federal judges of being convinced to vote a certain way by lobbiests?

Cue the X-Files music.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> The US Court of Appeals disagrees. I think they're more objective.
> 
> So you're accusing federal judges of being convinced to vote a certain way by lobbiests?
> 
> Cue the X-Files music.


Yes. Possibly not paid lobbyists, but yes. They are certainly not experts in the field of communications and had to get their information from someone to make a decision by. Or they are just ignorant, take your pick.

The fact is that moving from cable to satellite service is onerous to the consumer and requires a change of behavior in how one consumes television. There are also large equipment costs associated with switching from one provider to another. Cable has a very low cost associated with switching and are using public right of ways to deliver a signal. Some might say that they should share the lines.

(PS: I don't presume to be more intelligent than these gentlemen, but I do use the product and am not insulated from issues by not using the technology or having enough money to buy my way out of them.)


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

It's true that I know of at least one study in which it was found that the availability of multiple cable providers in the same area brings cable prices down, but the availability of satellite as an alternative to cable had no effect on prices.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Let's test that. We have three terrestrial suppliers here in Burlington (Comcast, RCN and FiOS) and the two satellite services. Anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I've read, but have no statistics to back it up, that cable systems want to compete for high profit customers willing to spend $$$. Competition doesn't necessarily lead to lower rates but might lead to availability of faster internet. Additional channel offerings. More extensive VoD. Better pricing on equipment upgrades like DVRs.

Cable systems don't want to compete for low (or no) profit consumers who don't want to subscribe to much more then expanded basic.

FiOS in NY has decided to compete on product more then price. New packages are slightly more expensive but typically come with faster internet speeds and include channels that used to cost extra.

Bicker--I'm not going to take the time to scan a bill but I'll PM the particulars.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

You know with all the Hate that is spewed on here I would think that you who are not happy with your provider would just change providers. They say the grass is always greener on the other side. There are those people in the world though, who are not happy unless they have something to complain about. I am not pointing the finger at anyone, but in the past when i was not happy with the local provider I got another source.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

+1

And especially with regard to entertainment content.... with Netflix and Amazon Unbox and Target selling DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs... there really is no excuse. Paying for a service you don't think is worth it is ridiculously; by paying for the service you are *ratifying* that is *absolutely is* worth what you're paying for it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> You know with all the Hate that is spewed on here I would think that you who are not happy with your provider would just change providers. They say the grass is always greener on the other side. There are those people in the world though, who are not happy unless they have something to complain about. I am not pointing the finger at anyone, but in the past when i was not happy with the local provider I got another source.


Choice is a great thing when you have it. When you have no choice you complain. Sometimes to your representative, sometimes to the company, or when neither works you complain to disuade others from using that product in the hopes that consumer pressure will change things. Consumer complaints definately changed TWC's plan to implement caps. If no one had complained then all of us on TWC would be screwed.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> And especially with regard to entertainment content.... with Netflix and Amazon Unbox and Target selling DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs... there really is no excuse.


Although I'm not one of the most vehement complainers, I do dislike my cable company and would ditch them given a suitable replacement. While I've been tempted by Netflix and Amazon Unbox, etc., they still aren't quite to the point where they replace cable for me. (I'd need to be able to get ALL the shows I normally watch, preferably in HD.)



> Paying for a service you don't think is worth it is ridiculously; by paying for the service you are *ratifying* that is *absolutely is* worth what you're paying for it.


I can't speak for others, but for me it's worth it or I wouldn't be paying. However, there are different levels of "worth it." There's how I feel about TiVo, which is "They have an outstanding product and great service, I'll gladly pay whatever it costs." Then there's how I feel about my cable company, which is "Well, they're pretty lousy, but they're the best out of the bad alternatives available. I'll grudgingly continue to pay them because it's just barely worth it."


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm really pissed that TWC kill's my TTG fun with their copy protection. I can't help thinking they have made an arbitrary decision that is unfair to me.

However, speaking rationally now, I have to say I agree totally with everything *bicker* has said here -- much as it hurts me to credit such a (self-proclaimed) irritating person.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> However, there are different levels of "worth it."


If your appraisals in this regard are indicative of the general case, that such different levels of "worth it" represent unrealized opportunity by service providers. In other words, if something is worth a lot more than its price, then the supplier failed to properly price their offerings.

So, given your evaluations, again if you're considered prototypical, TiVo is doing a poor job pricing their offerings, while your service provider is doing an excellent job.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> If your appraisals in this regard are indicative of the general case, that such different levels of "worth it" represent unrealized opportunity by service providers. In other words, if something is worth a lot more than its price, then the supplier failed to properly price their offerings.
> 
> So, given your evaluations, again if you're considered prototypical, TiVo is doing a poor job pricing their offerings, while your service provider is doing an excellent job.


So either:

1) *Braniac 5* is not prototypical

(or)

2) TiVo isn't smart enough to set their prices accordingly higher.

I choose 1)


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Andrewp75 said:


> I used to only not be able to transfer my HD series three shows to my Series 2. Now I cant transfer HD Tivo to HD Tivo in my own house because they are copy protected. I am in Washington DC and I am pretty sure this just started happening. I know this has been happening to other people for a while, but has anyone had this just start happening or happening incorrectly by mismanagement by vomcast? This is happening on both standard definition channels and HD channels.


I posted the following (here) in response to someone else's complaint about overuse of copy protection by Comcast:


> FWIW, according to TCF user sinanju, after he complained about rampant use of Copy Once protection on his local Comcast system, Comcast enacted a nationwide policy of not applying copy protections unless the content provider explicitly required it (see this post and this one). I have no idea how you'd reference this policy when arguing with them about it; you can say that you heard that there was such a policy, but there's no way that you can prove that it exists.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> So, given your evaluations, again if you're considered prototypical, TiVo is doing a poor job pricing their offerings, while your service provider is doing an excellent job.


Possibly, but there are other factors to consider apart from whether I'm willing to pay my bill this month. As a happy customer of TiVo, chances are very good that I'll be a customer for a long time and a competitor would have to offer quite a lot to lure me away. With Comcast, I'm likely gone as soon as another cable company enters my market.

On the other hand, Comcast _is_ doing a lot better than TiVo financially... (Although to be fair, I think one of the real reasons is that I'm NOT typical; a lot of people aren't willing to pay as much as I am for TiVo.)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Possibly, but there are other factors to consider apart from whether I'm willing to pay my bill this month. As a happy customer of TiVo, chances are very good that I'll be a customer for a long time and a competitor would have to offer quite a lot to lure me away.............


So, at least in your case, TiVo is building "good will" by charging you less than you value their product, right?

Question is: How much good will this actually do TiVo in the future? Consider two cases:

1) A competitor offers a DVR you consider superior to TiVo's offerings at the same price. How much better can the competitor's product get before you switch to them?

2) A competitor offers a DVR you consider equal to TiVo's product but at a lower price. How much price difference before you switch to the competing product?

The answers vary with the person of course, but I believe most TiVo owners, including those who say they value their TiVo highly, will switch at relatively low price/quality differences. In other words, I doubt there is much actual value to the good will (or whatever you prefer to call it) that TiVo is building with you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I choose 1)


Me too.


----------



## Grumock (Dec 16, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> Choice is a great thing when you have it. When you have no choice you complain. Sometimes to your representative, sometimes to the company, or when neither works you complain to disuade others from using that product in the hopes that consumer pressure will change things. Consumer complaints definately changed TWC's plan to implement caps. If no one had complained then all of us on TWC would be screwed.


I dont know about your situation, but when i had directTV about 5 years ago I never had any problems. Recently though, I spend a lot less time in front of my TV & more time living my life. So all this really has no impact on me.

When you are talking about TWC plans for "CAPS". You mean that half baked idea they had to put a cap on bandwidth usage? If that is what you are talking about I understand that they are still doing it in some markets, so do not be surprised if we hear about it again.


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

So technically if comcast is copy protecting channels at their own discretion then that could be considered monopolistic. However, there is really no way to tell if it is comcast doing it or if they have been ordered by the movie companies. Just to verify things, I have plenty of old HD and SD recordings from the beginning of summer and further back that are not copy protected from HBO, Showtime, etc.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Andrewp75 said:


> So technically if comcast is copy protecting channels at their own discretion then that could be considered monopolistic.


Incorrect. In order for Comcast to be monopolistic, Comcast would have to shoot a couple of satellites out of geostationary orbit...










... and here in Burlington, they'd have to rip out miles and miles of fiber optics.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Andrewp75 said:


> So technically if comcast is copy protecting channels at their own discretion then that could be considered monopolistic. However, there is really no way to tell if it is comcast doing it or if they have been ordered by the movie companies. Just to verify things, I have plenty of old HD and SD recordings from the beginning of summer and further back that are not copy protected from HBO, Showtime, etc.


Uh Oh! *monopoly* is a hot button word -- I'll let *bicker* handle that one!

I'm sure your ComCast provider is not copy protecting most channels because the copyright holders have instructed them to. You should challenge them on this, since it appears from another poster that this is the opposite of their national policy.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> I posted the following (here) in response to someone else's complaint about overuse of copy protection by Comcast:


I can confirm mikeyts' point that comcast isn't as matter of national policy forcing the flag.

I'd call comcast and see if you can get through to someone that understands your issue. I wouldn't expect you to get that from front line CSR's the issue is so complex and only effects such a small group (basically tivo users if I understand)

On my comcast system flagged EVERY digital channel except the rebroadcast locals for quite some time- prior to that they flagged all HD channels (except locals) since at least when the S3's got MRV and I could tell. Since there were only like 8 HD channels back then I'll assume it was day one.

Then when they recently went to kill analog here they REMOVED all the flags except on the premium movie channels. To me that's a reasonable approach to the situation- I understand that legally they can do more if they felt like it, but flagging the artifact ridden digital SD versions of channels that I could transfer weeks before in much better analog quality seemed kind of silly.

So I think that if you get the proper person on the phone (not sure at all how to do that) and talk to them like they are human then you might just get results. Not exactly instantly but i'd think in a matter of days as opposed to weeks.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Incorrect. In order for Comcast to be monopolistic, Comcast would have to shoot a couple of satellites out of geostationary orbit...
> ..........


Certainly not possible with those Nerf Rockets, but maybe the Iranians could whip up something effective for a few billion dollars. 

Now let's see, if we take up a collection amongst disgruntled TiVo cable subscribers.........

I'd consider a small donation.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Andrewp75 said:


> ... However, there is really no way to tell if it is comcast doing it or if they have been ordered by the movie companies. ....


I dont know- nor do i think any of us here knows for sure- but I beleive that aside from perhaps the movie channels NO ONE has required comcast to flag anything (well maybe an RSN or other non- national has). I can't imagine that comcast is allowed to not flag content on my system but the content owner would require them to flag it on yours.

also apparently all the headend equipment of a reasonable vintage is programmed to at least carry forward whatever flag it gets- so HBO et al could just flag their feed directly at their uplink and then every system would automatically be flagging it. If I was HBO and I was worried enough about my content to add a stipulation in all new contract renewals that my channels should be flagged I'd spend the money to add whatever i need to on my ~20 uplinks to just insert the flag at the source and thereby nail ever last system renewed or not. So I'm not even sure I buy this story that the content providers tell comcast to do it. They might and i have no reason besides to think they woudldn't but I'm not certain at all in my own mind.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Certainly not possible with those Nerf Rockets, but maybe the Iranians could whip up something effective for a few billion dollars.
> 
> Now let's see, if we take up a collection amongst disgruntled TiVo cable subscribers.........
> 
> I'd consider a small donation.


isn't it the chinese who play bumper cars with their old satellites?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

dlfl said:


> So, at least in your case, TiVo is building "good will" by charging you less than you value their product, right?


More or less, but I guess my point is not so much about the "good will" as it is that (to me) TiVo has quite a lead in delivering a product and service with a good value for what they charge. To me, the competition is not even close. The cable company, on the other hand, provides a service that I consider barely worth the cost. It would take next to nothing to tip the balance in favor of a competitor.



> Question is: How much good will this actually do TiVo in the future? Consider two cases:


Well, really you're right about this:



> 1) A competitor offers a DVR you consider superior to TiVo's offerings at the same price. How much better can the competitor's product get before you switch to them?


If it was better in a way I cared about, I'd probably switch.



> 2) A competitor offers a DVR you consider equal to TiVo's product but at a lower price. How much price difference before you switch to the competing product?


This is not as clear-cut, especially since I have lifetime service. If I was buying a new DVR and the competition was really and truly equal to TiVo, I'd consider it.



> The answers vary with the person of course, but I believe most TiVo owners, including those who say they value their TiVo highly, will switch at relatively low price/quality differences. In other words, I doubt there is much actual value to the good will (or whatever you prefer to call it) that TiVo is building with you.


Depressingly, you're right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cable company is doing something that is very difficult to get right - charge the maximum amount that won't get me to cancel. As long as they do get that right, they're better off for it, but it's a very fragile arrangement. TiVo, on the other hand, is (again, to me) far ahead of the competition in delivering value for my money - another company might be able to get me to switch, but the existing ones have a lot of catching up to do if they want to make that happen. But if TiVo was charging the absolute most I was willing to pay, the value for the money would be less, and the competition might start looking viable.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> .......Depressingly, you're right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the cable company is doing something that is very difficult to get right - charge the maximum amount that won't get me to cancel. As long as they do get that right, they're better off for it, but it's a very fragile arrangement. TiVo, on the other hand, is (again, to me) far ahead of the competition in delivering value for my money - another company might be able to get me to switch, but the existing ones have a lot of catching up to do if they want to make that happen. But if TiVo was charging the absolute most I was willing to pay, the value for the money would be less, and the competition might start looking viable.


I may have to change my signature to something analogous to *bicker*'s, e.g., "Correct, in a depressing sort of way" 

I even kind of depressed myself with that post. I think the forum is fair game for more than just rational logic, e.g., sharing emotional reactions (as long as it isn't overdone). I think we both have similar feelings about TiVo and cable, i.e., one feels like a lot better deal than the other.

<click> Now we return you to rational logical discussion: I think TiVo and the Cable Cos. are doing pretty much the same thing as far as adjusting their products and prices: trying to maximize profit. That is all I want them to do, provided it's done legallly and ethicallly. <trumpet flourish, and chorus singing a patriotic song> It's .... free enterprise!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Grumock said:


> I dont know about your situation, but when i had directTV about 5 years ago I never had any problems. Recently though, I spend a lot less time in front of my TV & more time living my life. So all this really has no impact on me.
> 
> When you are talking about TWC plans for "CAPS". You mean that half baked idea they had to put a cap on bandwidth usage? If that is what you are talking about I understand that they are still doing it in some markets, so do not be surprised if we hear about it again.


I find that as my children get older I have to have them at home so they can do their homework. I have to be available during these times for assistance(they don't always need my help) and Television is a nice way to pass the time during this period. Also there is a reason my TiVo's have such large HDD's, and that's to hold shows, sometime enitre seasons, until I get the time to watch them.


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

Does anyone with Comcast have no flags on Premium channels?


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

bicker said:


> Let's test that. We have three terrestrial suppliers here in Burlington (Comcast, RCN and FiOS) and the two satellite services. Anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


This is, as they say, "Anecdotal evidence" but we pay about the same for Cable TV (w/all premiums except Showtime), Internet and 2 phone lines as my in-laws do for Cable (with no premiums), and Internet. Our town has RCN and Comcast (but no FIOS), their town (less that 20 miles away and still in MA) is Comcast only.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I would have paid *less *with three services (television, telephone and Internet) than I would have paid with two services (television and Internet), so that's not surprising at all; it's pretty common.

Again, anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I would have paid *less *with three services (television, telephone and Internet) than I would have paid with two services (television and Internet), so that's not surprising at all; it's pretty common.
> 
> Again, anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


But to get the three-for-less deal you have to commit to a one or two year contract, correct? (And no contract for what you have now?)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Correct, that's the way the three-for deals work. That's one of the reason why a like-for-like comparision, town-to-town, is the only interesting way of looking at this.


----------



## dsb411 (Sep 29, 2004)

I'm in Maryland with Comcast, and I cant transfer HBO shows from one HDTivo to another. I have to record HBO shows on all my Tivos (4)?!?! If I want to watch a show I started in my basement and want to finish watching in bed or my family room?.

Its way stupid. 

If this is the way things are going, Tivo needs to give season passes the ability to record on all Tivos on a network.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I think they only ask for a contract for NEW triple play or maybe only certain markets. I have had comcast for ~ 3 years now with triple play the whole while and never have they asked for a contract. My initial deal was before any of the cableco's seemed to have a requirement for a contract but I have had 2 other triple play deals since with no contracts to sign either. 

Bicker- you have a contract up there with all the competition from other wired providers? Maybe that's the trigger? Only some served by my comcast headend can get FIOS (not my area- we're not a verizon service area) and RCN bailed around here years ago (they actually owned the primary cable system sold it and then comcast bought it later.)

Knock on wood- i dont know how I've avoided a contract all this time. If i were comcast I would have asked- I dont think it's unreasonable for pricing that is better than my other options, quality service, and improved offerings on a regular basis that we get here.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dsb411 said:


> I'm in Maryland with Comcast, and I cant transfer HBO shows from one HDTivo to another. I have to record HBO shows on all my Tivos (4)?!?! If I want to watch a show I started in my basement and want to finish watching in bed or my family room?.
> 
> Its way stupid.
> 
> If this is the way things are going, Tivo needs to give season passes the ability to record on all Tivos on a network.


It annoys me, but i dont think it's unreasonable or stupid at all that the premium channels get a little extra protection. I dont think in the real world it stops pirates anymore than not flagging would but thats my opinion.

Bottom line - i suspect more and more will get flagged over time and as you say- Tivo needs to step up and create a way to deal with it. Streaming inside MRV seems to be all that's needed to keep the content proivides happy. Alternatively if Tivo is afriad of having to rely on people to have good enough networks to stream then they should work on setting up MOVE in MRV instead of COPY that they do now. To me 'hive scheduling' would be a distant 3rd choice- jams too many tuners- but setting Tivo Beta search to allow you to set up recording on other boxes seems like a pretty quick way to get much of that done too.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dsb411 said:


> I'm in Maryland with Comcast, and I cant transfer HBO shows from one HDTivo to another. I have to record HBO shows on all my Tivos (4)?!?! If I want to watch a show I started in my basement and want to finish watching in bed or my family room?.
> 
> Its way stupid.
> 
> If this is the way things are going, Tivo needs to give season passes the ability to record on all Tivos on a network.


It is the way cable and content providers have decided to bypass the broadcast flag that was outlawed several years ago, so the only way to change this is going to be via legislation.

edit: 
Doing this to HBO isn't that bad however annoying it may be. What is bad is that some providers are doing this to all digital channels which devalues third party DVRs.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> It is the way cable and content providers have decided to bypass the broadcast flag that was outlawed several years ago, so the only way to change this is going to be via legislation.


The Broadcast Flag was an entirely different thing which explicitly would not have forbidden transfer of content between devices in your home; it was a marking on clear, over-the-air video stating that the IP holder did not want the content transmitted in the clear over the Internet. The BF had nothing whatsoever to do with cable, except as pertains to rebroadcast OTA channels--it could not have been applied to channels like HBO, A&E, etc. Don't expect CCI flags to be outlawed in the same way--the BF legislation got torpedoed not because of its intent, but because it was overreaching, requiring every computer storage (and, I believe, networking equipment) manufacturer to engineer features into all of their products to support it. The FCC has no authority over computer equipment manufacturers whatsoever and were out of line to try to write that into their regulations.

As per CableCARD and DFAST licensing, content marked with the "Copy Once" flag _can_ be transferred, in a "move" operation which would destroy the original copy when the new copy was complete. It could also be streamed in some approved protected fashion. TiVo has not chosen to implement any of that.


----------



## Andrewp75 (Aug 4, 2004)

I really hope that this is something that Tivo is looking to implement and soon. I love Tivo and have for many years, but this could really hurt them. There is no reason why you cant have your show on one computer and two tivos similar to amazon shows.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> ............
> As per CableCARD and DFAST licensing, content marked with the "Copy Once" flag _can_ be transferred, in a "move" operation which would destroy the original copy when the new copy was complete. It could also be streamed in some approved protected fashion. TiVo has not chosen to implement any of that.


According to *bkdtv* in ***this post*** :



> All manufacturers must agree to the CableLabs' DFAST licensing agreement before they can produce a CableCard compatible device. This licensing agreement says that cable content flagged by the provider as "copy one generation" must be saved to the DVR's hard drive as "copy no more," and transfer of "copy no more" content is prohibited. TiVo did not interpret these rules restrictively; these rules are clear and TiVo followed them as written


.
Now that I read *bkdtv*'s statement again, it isn't clear to me why that wording would prohibit a move (distinct from "transfer") operation that ensured only one complete copy existed at any given moment. (?) It seems to hinge on the definition of "transfer". You could argue the move operation includes a transfer, I guess.

You could certainly achieve the spirit of copy-no-more with such a move operation between TiVo's, provided the moved copy retained copy-no-more marking (and the first copy was deleted). I think TTG would be out of the question though, since it would be so easy to defeat or ignore the copy protection in a PC video file.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

mikeyts said:


> The Broadcast Flag was an entirely different thing which explicitly would not have forbidden transfer of content between devices in your home; it was a marking on clear, over-the-air video stating that the IP holder did not want the content transmitted in the clear over the Internet. The BF had nothing whatsoever to do with cable, except as pertains to rebroadcast OTA channels--it could not have been applied to channels like HBO, A&E, etc. Don't expect CCI flags to be outlawed in the same way--the BF legislation got torpedoed not because of its intent, but because it was overreaching, requiring every computer storage (and, I believe, networking equipment) manufacturer to engineer features into all of their products to support it. The FCC has no authority over computer equipment manufacturers whatsoever and were out of line to try to write that into their regulations.
> 
> As per CableCARD and DFAST licensing, content marked with the "Copy Once" flag _can_ be transferred, in a "move" operation which would destroy the original copy when the new copy was complete. It could also be streamed in some approved protected fashion. TiVo has not chosen to implement any of that.


While the broadcast flag is different, the effect on cable systems is the same. You aren't allowed to copy or transfer based on a flag broadcast along with the content. Cable companies and content providers have worked together to build this into devices and unless something changes to make them quit, it's only going to get worse. Expect for more and more shows to get flagged in this way as more content moves to the digital tiers.

It's as I said, it's going to take legislation or the threat of legislation to change this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Andrewp75 said:


> I really hope that this is something that Tivo is looking to implement and soon.


I haven't seen any indications that that is the case.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Just saw in another thread that comcast is eliminating all analog channels in at least one market.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

Andrewp75 said:


> There is no reason why you cant have your show on one computer and two tivos similar to amazon shows.


Unfortunately, this is not the case - there is indeed a reason. The cable card rules (which you must agree to in order to be able to build and sell a cable-card device) explicitly prohibit this; a program marked with the "do not copy" CCI bits can only be on one device, and can not be copied to another device. If you want two copies, you have to record it twice - once on each device.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Unfortunately, this is not the case - there is indeed a reason. The cable card rules (which you must agree to in order to be able to build and sell a cable-card device) explicitly prohibit this; a program marked with the "do not copy" CCI bits can only be on one device, and can not be copied to another device. If you want two copies, you have to record it twice - once on each device.


but tp be clear for those that dont know you can MOVE the content as often as you would like. the cablelabs rules specifically allow that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> but tp be clear for those that dont know you can MOVE the content as often as you would like. the cablelabs rules specifically allow that.


But there seems to be controversy about whether TiVo could legally do this .... see post #61 in this thread.

I would like a link where I could read the actual rules/terms/whatever that apply to this. I looked around cablelabs.com and didn't find anything useful.

Even if TiVo believed they could legally do this, I seriously wonder if they would. I see it as a significant development effort.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Just saw in another thread that comcast is eliminating all analog channels in at least one market.


Which market?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Which market?


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=434369


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> While the broadcast flag is different, the effect on cable systems is the same. You aren't allowed to copy or transfer based on a flag broadcast along with the content. Cable companies and content providers have worked together to build this into devices and unless something changes to make them quit, it's only going to get worse. Expect for more and more shows to get flagged in this way as more content moves to the digital tiers.
> 
> It's as I said, it's going to take legislation or the threat of legislation to change this.


My objection was to your saying that the cable providers are using CCI flags _instead of_ the Broadcast Flag--the CCI flag mechanism existed and was in use long before the Broadcast Flag was imagined (it was part of DTCP, which was first licensed in 1998). The use of CCI in DFAST and CableCARDs was part of the Memo of Understanding on plug-and-play DTV-over-cable signed by the cable MSOs and CE OEMs at the end of 2002 and codified into FCC regs in 2003; the aborted BF regulation wasn't drafted until a year or two later. The BF wasn't designed to be used by cable and they had no need for it, since they already had this.

The use of copy control on cable is not going away; there's little or no legal basis on which to challenge it. IMHO, the rules for using it should be modified. Currently cable providers can apply at least Copy Once protection to virtually everything except rebroadcast over-the-air TV; I believe that it should be used only if a content provider requests it and that FCC regs should be modified to say that. Of course, several content providers would certainly ask for it (HBO/Cinemax, etc), but many wouldn't.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> .........The use of copy control on cable is not going away; there's little or no legal basis on which to challenge it. IMHO, the rules for using it should be modified. Currently cable providers can apply at least Copy Once protection to virtually everything except rebroadcast over-the-air TV; I believe that it should be used only if a content provider requests it and that FCC regs should be modified to say that. Of course, several content providers would certainly ask for it (HBO/Cinemax, etc), but many wouldn't.


:up::up:

Do you agree with bkdtv's interpretation of the DFAST licensing agreement, i.e., there is no way for TiVo to implement a TiVo-To-TiVo move that would not violate the license rules? My apologies if I've incorrectly interpreted *bkdtv*'s statements.

This would not be MRV as currently known, since the recording would only exist on one TiVo at any given time. And TTG would be out of the question, even via moves, since it would be too easy to defeat or ignore the copy protection of a computer file version of the recording.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

dlfl said:


> Do you agree with bkdtv's interpretation of the DFAST licensing agreement, i.e., there is no way for TiVo to implement a TiVo-To-TiVo move that would not violate the license rules? My apologies if I've incorrectly interpreted *bkdtv*'s statements.


No, I don't agree with that (if that's what he meant). From the DFAST Technology License Agreement for Unidirectional Digital Cable Products (at the bottom of PDF page 31):


> 3.5.2 A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product that makes a copy of content marked in the CCI as Copy One Generation in accordance with this Section 3.5 may move such content to a single removable recording medium, or to a single external recording device, only when (a) the external recording device indicates that it is authorized to perform this Move function in accordance with the requirements of this Section, and to copy such Controlled Content in accordance with the requirements of this Section 3.5; (b) such content is marked for transmission by the originating Unidirectional Digital Cable Product as Copy One Generation; (c) the content is output over a protected output in accordance with Sections 2.2 or 2.4 of this Exhibit B; (d) before the Move is completed, the originating Unidirectional Digital Cable Product recording is rendered non-useable and the moved content is marked Copy No More and (e) the device to which the removable recording medium is moved is unable or rendered unable to output the content except through outputs authorized by these Compliance Rules. Multiple moves consistent with these requirements are not prohibited.


There's similar text in the CableCARD Host Interface Licensing Agreement (it's currently difficult to find a copy of either agreement online--I can't find a copy of the CHILA at all).

I believe that TiVo could do that--move a copy of something marked Copy One Gen to another TiVo using an approved protected protocol (DTCP/IP or something else), mark that copy "Copy One Gen" and delete the original copy. It could also stream it in an approved protected fashion; if nothing else, it could transfer it via DTCP/IP with Copy No More protection and buffer it into a temp file for playback.

As someone else pointed out, copying it to a PC is problematic. It would have to be into an encrypted, DRM protected format, which isn't really what people want.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Let's test that. We have three terrestrial suppliers here in Burlington (Comcast, RCN and FiOS) and the two satellite services. Anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


To what end?

'Not that it matters, I suppose:

PREVIOUS BALANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $88.02
MONTHLY CABLE SERVICE
Super Standard Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $59.36

Includes: Basic Reception Service, Standard Service, WGN, TBS
Cable Card . . . . 13.65
Variety Service . 6.50
HDTV Service . . . 6.50
HBO . . . . . . . 13.50
Starz . . . . . . 11.00
Subscription VOD . 0.00
TOTAL $ 110. 51
MONTHLY HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE
Road Runner Service 39.95
TOTAL $39.95
OTHER CHARGES
Franchise Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01
Sales Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.79
State Of Texas Franchise Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.29
FCC Regulatory Fee - Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07
TOTAL $ 18.16
AMOUNT DUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $256.64


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> And especially with regard to entertainment content.... with Netflix and Amazon Unbox and Target selling DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs... there really is no excuse. Paying for a service you don't think is worth it is ridiculously; by paying for the service you are *ratifying* that is *absolutely is* worth what you're paying for it.


Nonsense! One is ratifying that it is *PROVISIONALLY* worth what one is paying for it. "Ridiculous" would be continuing to pay for a service when a better deal comes along, and if a company is habitually significantly over-charging for a product or delivering a product of substantially inferior value, then eventually someone else will very likely come along to provide a better value. I would not be in business if this were not true, as the incumbent made it easy for us to grab customers of theirs by the handfuls because of their lousy product quality and poor customer service. As our principle competition, they continue to be our best employee, and we don't even have to pay them. While we sometimes can deliver service cheaper than our competition, often we are more expensive, but our customers are thrilled to pay more for a superior product. Until we came along, in most markets the customers had no other choice, and doing without was not an option.

When I first moved into the house in which I now live, there was no other option for local phone service than Southwestern Bell. Their prices were hideously high and their service was lousy in the extreme. The very instant a viable competitor came along (Vonage), I dropped SWBC like a bad habit. When later on Vonage also began delivering poor service, I dropped them for another company (SunRocket), as well. When SunRocket went out of business, I gave Vonage another chance. Their service since that time has been acceptable. SWBC (now AT&T) continues to deliver lousy service at high prices, and their customer base is eroding.

When GMC made decent automobiles at a good price, I bought them. Their value was good enough. Unless they come up with a better value than what they are offering now, it is unlikely I will purchase a GM vehicle my next purchase, but if at the time no one else has a better value, then I will purchase a GM vehicle, because in the event the price would be provisionally worth it.

What's more, many purchasing decisions are based upon what is thought to be safe, rather than what is valuable. The old addage is quite true: "No one has ever been fired for selecting IBM as a vendor." A friend of mine worked as a developer in a now bankrupt company. They had a database requirement which went up for selection to one of their VPs. He selected bids from many companies, and eventually selected CDC who offered to produce a solution for $150,000. They were hired and attempted the solution. When it came down to the wire, CDC said they could not deliver the solution for the agreed amount, but could deliver for an additional $65,000. Both CDC and the VP were fired, and the solution was scrapped. The project was given to another VP. The next VP went through the bid process again, and once again the vendors were all saying they could deliver for around $150,000. The VP selected IBM, who set about delivering the solution. Once again it came down to the wire, and IBM also said they could not deliver the solution for the agreed price, but could for an additional $85,000. The company paid the $85,000 and promoted the second VP.

Very little in the world of business is absolute, and value is never absolute. A customer can be extremely happy with his purchase, or just barely happy enough not to drop the service. Suggesting there is no difference between the two is just complete nonsense. I have long been less than thrilled with TWC's performance in terms of their programming, and recent changes they have made have pushed me closer and closer to abandoning their product in favor of their competition. Indeed, at one time there were far more than enough differences between their lineup and their competitor's to justify the considerably higher price, but TWC themselves have eroded that margin so that now there is only a single, solitary channel's difference between my keeping them and dumping them summarily. Should they remove MGMHD or their competition pick it up, it's, "Bye, bye Charlie," for them. Not only does my check to them not "*ABSOLUTELY*" ratify that their service is worth it, it doesn't even suggest that I am not going to disconnect an hour from now in dissatisfaction. It can only at most be inferred that, for the moment at least, their service is sufficient given the cost. Anything more is self-congratulatory nonsense.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mikeyts said:


> As someone else pointed out, copying it to a PC is problematic. It would have to be into an encrypted, DRM protected format, which isn't really what people want.


Actually, I would have been satisfied with that. 'Not thrilled, mind you, but satisfied. I definitely prefer the ability to edit the transferred program, especially since I usually pad the beginning and end to make certain I get the whole program, but I would be willing to accept the hit in storage capacity for the increase in performance allowed by MRV over TTCB. Since neither was afforded, however...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> .........I believe that TiVo could do that--move a copy of something marked Copy One Gen to another TiVo using an approved protected protocol (DTCP/IP or something else), mark that copy "Copy One Gen" and delete the original copy. It could also stream it in an approved protected fashion; if nothing else, it could transfer it via DTCP/IP with Copy No More protection and buffer it into a temp file for playback......


First, thanks for the DFAST agreement link.

Minor correction: The excerpt you quoted says the moved copy should be marked "Copy No More" rather than "Copy One Gen".


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Possibly, but there are other factors to consider apart from whether I'm willing to pay my bill this month. As a happy customer of TiVo, chances are very good that I'll be a customer for a long time and a competitor would have to offer quite a lot to lure me away. With Comcast, I'm likely gone as soon as another cable company enters my market.





dlfl said:


> So, at least in your case, TiVo is building "good will" by charging you less than you value their product, right?
> 
> Question is: How much good will this actually do TiVo in the future? Consider two cases:
> 
> ...


This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. The consumer has no equity in his CATV provider. The consumer has a considerable equity in his TiVo, which must be abandoned to adopt another platform, unless of course the TiVo dies. A new purchaser can be wooed by fairly small differences in cost or features, but an embedded owner usually cannot be swayed so easily.

Heck, I knew a guy who continued to buy 8-track tapes well into the 80s because all his existing music was on 8-tracks,and he didn't want to have to pay to convert all of them to a new format.



dlfl said:


> The answers vary with the person of course, but I believe most TiVo owners, including those who say they value their TiVo highly, will switch at relatively low price/quality differences.


I expect not. I paid almost $1000 for my first S3, and almost $2000 for all three Tivos combined. I'm not about to switch to another platform that costs $800 or $1500 for three, unless it has one bodacious hell of a feature set. Now if they offer to buy back my TiVos at my cost, and hack their units to my specifications...



dlfl said:


> In other words, I doubt there is much actual value to the good will (or whatever you prefer to call it) that TiVo is building with you.


The curve has a definite inflection point. Up to the "knee" region, there is a very substantial value to the "good will" developed among users both potential and existing. At some point, however, the curve inflects, and past that point there are swiftly diminishing returns for greater investments in this respect. Where that curve lies exactly is somewhat variable from buyer to buyer, and there is a definite dichotomy between existing and potential buyers in terms of how far to the right the inflection point lies on average, but there is always value in making customers happy. The tricky question is, "How much value and how much does it cost the company?" At some point the cost of delivering that value exceeds the value itself.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Actually, the US Court of Appeals recently confirmed that the general trend has been toward the subscription television marketplace being more competitive, not less competitive. They've declared that there is effective competition everywhere now.


I haven't been able to find a lot about that decision, do you have a link to more information. The only thing I found was this. Its not the most informative site and I would really like to know more. The article I found didn't say that there was effective competition, it said that a 30% limit on the nations subscribers for a cable company was "arbitrary and capricious". That doesn't rule out a limit, it means that they have to do a study taking into account all competitors and justify a limit if one is indicated. The article said that Comcast has 25% of the nations cable TV subscribers. It should always be a concern if too much power (in this case market share) is in one place.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. The consumer has no equity in his CATV provider. The consumer has a considerable equity in his TiVo, which must be abandoned to adopt another platform, unless of course the TiVo dies. A new purchaser can be wooed by fairly small differences in cost or features, but an embedded owner usually cannot be swayed so easily............


Good point. I should have qualified my questions with "when you decide to replace a TiVo.." (which implies the equity value of the TiVo being replaced is no longer a factor in your decisions).

Beyond that I'm sticking to my original statements. Note I did use some "weasle words" like "most" and "relatively small", which are obviously subject to interpretation.

I'm just saying that when push comes to shove, I don't think the "good will" factor has much weight in the situations I described.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> To what end?


To show, as the US Court of Appeals confirmed, that there is effective competition in all municipalities in the nation.

Here, you'd combine some of the services you subscribe to, to save money, and get a package with two premium services for $58.49 + $39.45. CableCARD is $1.50. HSI is $39.95 or $49.95.

So we pay roughly $30-$40 more than you do per month, even though we have five competitors serving our town.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Nonsense! One is ratifying that it is *PROVISIONALLY* worth what one is paying for it.


That's an inane rationalization for objections. If you are paying for it, you are say it is worth it. The fact that you'd switch to something better if it was offered is ridiculously obvious and non-sequitur. 


lrhorer said:


> What's more, many purchasing decisions are based upon what is thought to be safe, rather than what is valuable.


Another rationalization. Safety has value. You're just trying to squirm out of responsibility for your own decisions, like so many consumers do. It is an indefensible perspective.



lrhorer said:


> Very little in the world of business is absolute, and value is never absolute.


Money is absolute. If you pay money, you've exchanged an incontrovertible marker of value.



lrhorer said:


> Not only does my check to them not "*ABSOLUTELY*" ratify that their service is worth it, it doesn't even suggest that I am not going to disconnect an hour from now in dissatisfaction.


More self-serving rationalization. This is part of what's wrong with consumers in America; refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.

You've done nothing other than prove my points about the worst characteristics of consumers in America. My earlier point still stands, perhaps even more clearly the reality than before, thanks to you diatribe: Paying for a service you don't think is worth it is ridiculous; by paying for the service you are ratifying that is absolutely is worth what you're paying for it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ............So we pay roughly $30-$40 more than you do per month, even though we have five competitors serving our town.


Is there an obvious reaon for this? Higher cost of living in your area?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I would have paid *less *with three services (television, telephone and Internet) than I would have paid with two services (television and Internet), so that's not surprising at all; it's pretty common.
> 
> Again, anyone who wants to please post (or PM) your cable bill and I'll compare it to my Comcast rates.


Road Runner Standard (tests 9+ Mbps D/L).....$44.95
Basic Service..............................................13.72
Standard Service.........................................45.24
Digital Variety Package...................................6.23
Cable Cards (2 ea.)........................................5.08
Taxes and Fees.............................................3.53

Total.......................................................$118.75

No premium channels but a fair number of HD channels.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> To show, as the US Court of Appeals confirmed, that there is effective competition in all municipalities in the nation.





JWThiers said:


> I haven't been able to find a lot about that decision, do you have a link to more information. The only thing I found was this. Its not the most informative site and I would really like to know more. The article I found didn't say that there was effective competition, it said that a 30% limit on the nations subscribers for a cable company was "arbitrary and capricious". That doesn't rule out a limit, it means that they have to do a study taking into account all competitors and justify a limit if one is indicated. The article said that Comcast has 25% of the nations cable TV subscribers. It should always be a concern if too much power (in this case market share) is in one place.


Unless you can come up with something more definitive than what I found and linked to, I think you are overstating what the court of appeals said. They said (as far as I can determine) you can't use an arbitrary number to cap the percentage of market share a single cable company can have. If a non arbitrary was is found to cap that number then that is fine, as far as this ruling goes. That is legally a far stretch from saying that there is effective competition everywhere. Unless its a different case, the case wasn't about if there is effective competition, it was about can the FCC arbitrarily impose a cap on the market share a cable company nationally can have.


----------



## jcaudle (Aug 16, 2004)

Andrewp75 said:


> So technically if comcast is copy protecting channels at their own discretion then that could be considered monopolistic. However, there is really no way to tell if it is comcast doing it or if they have been ordered by the movie companies. Just to verify things, I have plenty of old HD and SD recordings from the beginning of summer and further back that are not copy protected from HBO, Showtime, etc.


Cox copy protects also here in Northern Virginia. However, obviously they are not required to by all these channels since if you are able to get FiOs you they aren't copy protected. Unfortunately I am a couple of miles from FiOs...I don't understand why the cable companies can't come up with a better DVR or have a partnership with Tivo, like RCN just did.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

jcaudle said:


> Cox copy protects also here in Northern Virginia. However, obviously they are not required to by all these channels since if you are able to get FiOs you they aren't copy protected. .......


I've always thought that too, and it may be correct. However, I assume each cable content provider negotiates separately with each cable co. Thus it seems at least possible the copy protection issues could vary between cable cos.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Is there an obvious reaon for this? Higher cost of living in your area?


Not an obvious reason I don't think. If anything, around here the economies of scale are perhaps better. I think it is just random chance, and reflective of the fact that prices aren't necessarily going to be lowered by yet-even-more competition, but rather are driven much more substantially by other factors, because the effect of the already-existing competition is reflected in prices everywhere already and yet-even-more competition won't make a significant difference.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> No premium channels but a fair number of HD channels.


I'm not home right now, but actually we can just reuse the info above since I separated out the cost of the premiums. So you'd just get the $58.49 video package (as mentioned above) and the $49.99 HSI. Add on $3 for the two ? extra CableCARDs. Seems like you'd pay a few dollars more here for what you're getting there.

However, just to be clear: What's in "Variety"?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Andrewp75 said:


> So technically if comcast is copy protecting channels at their own discretion then that could be considered monopolistic. However, there is really no way to tell if it is comcast doing it or if they have been ordered by the movie companies. Just to verify things, I have plenty of old HD and SD recordings from the beginning of summer and further back that are not copy protected from HBO, Showtime, etc.


The act of copy protecting has nothing to do with monopolies. Monopolies are about having a large enough market share to have significant control over a market. If you do a search you will find that bicker and I disagree on if the cable companies have a monopoly or not. The Cable Co's having a monopoly or not, it should be noted that just because one has a monopoly doesn't mean anything is illegal or wrong, it just means that they have significant control over a market.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Unless you can come up with something more definitive than what I found and linked to, I think you are overstating what the court of appeals said.


Perhaps... What they said (check the transcript) was that the FCC was *wrong to ignore satellite as competition for cable*. That's the wording I should have used.



JWThiers said:


> The act of copy protecting has nothing to do with monopolies. Monopolies are about having a large enough market share to have significant control over a market. If you do a search you will find that bicker and I disagree on if the cable companies have a monopoly or not. The Cable Co's having a monopoly or not, it should be noted that just because one has a monopoly doesn't mean anything is illegal or wrong, it just means that they have significant control over a market.


They aren't monopolies, because it is wrong to ignore satellite as competition for cable, and cable has competition in the form of satellite, in every municipality in the nation.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Perhaps... What they said (check the transcript) was that the FCC was *wrong to ignore satellite as competition for cable*. That's the wording I should have used.


Do you have any other source than what I provided? I really would like to see more detailed analysis with quotes from the ruling or better yet the actual ruling (people always put their own spin on things when they analyze it). the last time I looked I couldn't find ANYTHING else.



bicker said:


> They aren't monopolies, because it is wrong to ignore satellite as competition for cable, and cable has competition in the form of satellite, in every municipality in the nation.


I think EVERYONE knows our views. You think competition is the prevailing factor, I think market share is. The article I linked said that congress was concerned about 1 company having too large a market share possible stifling diversity. They were not concerned with competition, they were concerned with the possibility of channels being put out of business because the cable company decided not to cary them.

Imagine if a cable company had 70% of the market and decided to only carry CNN and not Fox News or MSNBC. Or only Fox but not the others. If you can only get your information from 1 place you might as well just have a state run news service and only get the "Official" news. Not a good thing. The intent of the regulation was to prevent that from happening. The Court decided that the number they used was arbitrary and they needed to consider Satellite and Telco's as competition also and what effect does that have on the number. It may well be that after taking that into consideration that they decide 33% or 45% is the point where this becomes a problem they could also decided that 20% is the number, they just have to go back and run the numbers taking all the competition into consideration.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'm not home right now, but actually we can just reuse the info above since I separated out the cost of the premiums. So you'd just get the $58.49 video package (as mentioned above) and the $49.99 HSI. Add on $3 for the two ? extra CableCARDs. Seems like you'd pay a few dollars more here for what you're getting there.
> 
> However, just to be clear: What's in "Variety"?


First: I have 2 cable cards only because they insist they only have s-cards.

I believe I have the minimum digital service -- don't know why they split out the Digital Variety package. Anyway it gives me:
Disney XD
NICJR (formerly Noggin)
PBS Kids Sprout
Discovery Kids
Hallmark
Hallmark Movie Chan. SD & HD
Science Chan. SD & HD
History Int'l
History SD & HD
Military Chan.
Investigation Discovery
BIO
Discovery Health
Fit TV
Planet Green
DIY
Fine Living
Lifetime Real Women
SoapNet
TVOne
Slueth
Chiller
BBC Amer.
Current TV
Logo
Fox Reality
MTV-2
VH-1 Classic
Gospel Music Chan.
Fuse
ESPNU SD & HD
ESPN Classic
ESPNews SD & HD 
Fox Soccer Chan.
Versus
CSPAN 1,2 & 3
Ohio News Network
Word
Iinspiration Network
TBN
Daystar

I get 39 HD channels, including 7 local broadcast. And there are a lot of other SD channels in Basic and Standard (not listed above)

HD channels Smithsonian, MGM, Universal and MAV are NOT included.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Do you have any other source than what I provided? I really would like to see more detailed analysis with quotes from the ruling or better yet the actual ruling (people always put their own spin on things when they analyze it). the last time I looked I couldn't find ANYTHING else.


I had asked you to check the court transcript. I read a billion things a week... I don't keep links to them all. With respect, expecting me go search around for links for things that I read almost a month ago, now, seems a lot like you're just wasting my time.

Regardless, I did it for you.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200908/08-1114-1203454.pdf

And here's the exact quote:

"... it *does not justify ignoring altogether a variable so clearly relevant* and likely to affect the calculation of a subscriber limit  not to mention one the court had directed the agency to consider."​
Relevant additional quotes:

"*Cable operators*, therefore, *no longer have the bottleneck power* over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992."

"The Commissions dereliction in this case is particularly egregious. In the previous round of this litigation we expressly instructed the agency on remand to consider fully the *competition that cable operators face from DBS companies*."

"It is apparent that the Commission either cannot or will not fully incorporate the *competitive impact of DBS and fiber optic companies* into its open field model. We have no trouble concluding, therefore, that vacatur is indicated by the ... factor the seriousness of the [Rules] deficiencies, ... (*vacating regulation as a hopeless cause*)."​
Let's be *real* clear here. The FCC was thinking *just like consumerists*, seeking to impose their own *personal preferences *regarding the control that they would like to have over what businesses offer *instead of* imposing legitimate and justifiable control. They engaged in denial of reality and denial of what was right so much that the court set aside the regulation simply because they had demonstrated that they could not be trusted to regulation the marketplace honestly and with integrity.

The question I have, in general, for the people who disagree with me on these issues is whether or not you, too, insist on being, as the court labeled the FCC in regard to this issue, "a hopeless cause".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I believe I have the minimum digital service -- don't know why they split out the Digital Variety package.


There are a load of channels you listed that are included in a *third *tier of service, here (and apparently, there as well). So if many of those channels aren't interesting to you, you might want to consider dropping that Variety tier, and saving that money.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> I had asked you to check the court transcript. I read a billion things a week... I don't keep links to them all.  With respect, expecting me go search around for links for things that I read almost a month ago, now, seems a lot like you're just wasting my time.
> 
> Regardless, I did it for you.


Sorry if it seems like I wasted your time. I really couldn't find anything when I looked there. When you first mentioned it a month ago I did try to search but couldn't find anything for a day or two but finally heard a mention on a podcast that had show notes that linked to what I found. I then posted a reply to yours asking for help back then but you didn't reply. Now I can read the ruling and decide for myself.

In any case I appreciate the help.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Sorry if it seems like I wasted your time.


And really I couldn't fully accept that that was *your *aim. It is a *very *common rhetorical tactic I see folks use in these forums, but I truly was surprised/disbelieved that *you *were engaging in it. I completely take you at your word in this regard.



JWThiers said:


> Now I can read the ruling and decide for myself.


Absolutely.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> There are a load of channels you listed that are included in a *third *tier of service, here (and apparently, there as well). So if many of those channels aren't interesting to you, you might want to consider dropping that Variety tier, and saving that money.


I'm pretty sure I have the minimum digital service. After thinking about it I believe they use the "Digital Variety" package for channels that are in the minimum digital service but aren't in the minimum analog service (basic + standard). The package seems like a pretty good deal (to me).

What's your conclusion about our relative costs?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Again, there are a load of channels you listed that are included in a third tier of service, here, so that's $73 here for stuff you're paying only $65 for. And your HSI is $5 cheaper. This is why I keep saying that folks need to realize that their prices already reflect the full impact of competition.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> But there seems to be controversy about whether TiVo could legally do this .... see post #61 in this thread.
> 
> I would like a link where I could read the actual rules/terms/whatever that apply to this. I looked around cablelabs.com and didn't find anything useful.
> 
> Even if TiVo believed they could legally do this, I seriously wonder if they would. I see it as a significant development effort.


I posted this in another thread but it fits here too----

Heres the license:
http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License_New.pdf

Specifically says can MOVE the contect from one tivo to another and its pretty simple. Alternately they could STREAM the content as other license holders have apparently implemented (presumable as therie isnt more than one copy in existence at a time this is seen as OK)

From the license:



> A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product that makes a copy of content marked in the CCI as Copy One Generation in accordance with this Section 3.5 *may move such content*


it goes on to explain the specifics  its not rocket science- tico could add some simple logic to MRV to get it to work. Basically the copy is created on the second box but marked as unplayable. (simple logic no idea if the programming would be trivial) Once copy is complete the original is rendered useless. Then the copy can be enabled for playback. You presumable couldnt watch in real time but at least you could get something. THERE would be some significant work to make the transfers to PC's more secure to match the riles.


----------



## E94Allen (Oct 16, 2005)

What if copied from other TiVo are messed up and can't retry it because it is marked as unplayable or something then we are SOL?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Again, there are a load of channels you listed that are included in a third tier of service, here, so that's $73 here for stuff you're paying only $65 for. And your HSI is $5 cheaper. This is why I keep saying that folks need to realize that their prices already reflect the full impact of competition.


Biker,

Why you insist on continuing to post such total nonsense is beyond me. While it is possible it might be true their prices reflect a minimal pricing structure, you have provided absolutely no referecnes from which to draw such an inference. While still not particularly reliable, a vastly better argument would be to compare the cost of these channels with the least expensive provider in the U.S. (which might possibly be satellite). For a reliable and accurate estimate, however, one must obtain the actual cost to the CATV provider of delivering the service and subtract that along with interest, devlopment costs, etc., from the net revenue, resulting in the effective free cash flow. In a competitive environment, the long term free cash flow must be vanishingly small, or else the entity will go out of business. Regardless of pricing, an arena with only a literal handful of players in it is an oligopoly. It is not a competitive arena, no matter what.

That said, in this particular arena, increased local competition does not result in lower prices. It is a myth that competition always lowers prices, and this is a prime example. Locally, the infrastructure costs for a CATV system are the largest single capital cost for the company, by far larger than any other cost. What's more, the infrastructure costs are relatively fixed WRT the penetration in the market. It costs the CATV company nearly the same amount to deliver to 30% of the houses in the city as it does to 90%. The result is that if 60% of the customers seek some other provider, then the remaining 30% have to pick up the tab for all the equipment and maintenance costs, causing the price of the service to skyrocket, unless the CATV company had a completely unreasonable profit margin prior to the loss of customers. Note in the case I have mentioned before (Midwest Video and Community Cablevision), the latter was precisely the case. Having at least one or two wholly independent competitors in the arena prevents what would otherwise be a monopoly from garnering an outrageous profit, but it does not represent a truly competitive environment.

None of this, however, has any bearing on the fact MSOs have been allowed to be formed. Nationaly speaking, they are not monopolies, or even oligopolies. They are just bloated trusts which by existing law should never have been allowed to form. That the FTC and the SEC do not enforce the laws through lax and overly narrow interpretation - and even outright malfeasance - doesn't change the fact no corporate entity should ever have been allowed to exercise any influence outside a single franchise group. The satellite companies are admittedly a little tougher nut, logically speaking, but IMO, the satellite interests should be broken up so that they are completely independent across at the very least state boundaries. Again, all of that said, there just isn't a really good solution to the issues that I can see.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Why you insist on continuing to post such total nonsense is beyond me.


The fact that you are incapable of comprehending the simple business math that I present is not surprising to me.



lrhorer said:


> It is not a competitive arena, no matter what.


The US Court of Appeals believes you're wrong. I'm in good company.

Come back when you get appointed to the Supreme Court. Until then, accept that your legal standing is somewhat less than that of the US Court of Appeals.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Only one cable co (TWC) serves my house while at least two satellite cos. do.
I currently have cable, which has added relative value to me because I can use my TiVo with it. However, if TWC raises their rates very much I will switch to satellite. For me the threshold is probably 10% to 20%. If it weren't for the TiVo factor, it would be only 5% to 10%. Even this is mostly due to inertia because I already have cable and there will be some inconvenience in switching to satellite.

Thus simple common sense, illustrated by my example. says that satellite offers effective competition to cable. Although my example is particular to my house, I strongly suspect very simiilar situations apply in most communities.

It must be true that the (provider-cost) to (customer-value) ratios for all cable and satellite providers are close to the same. Otherwise, the provider with the best ratio could maximize their profit by lowering their prices just enough to attract most customers, thus driving the remaining competitors out of business.

By provider-cost I mean the revenue the provider must get from each customer to feel it is worth staying in business. (I'd rather define it this simple way rather than trying to enumerate all the specific costs involved in supplying the service -- ultimately it is whether the provider feels it's worth staying in business that counts.) For example, if the operator is willing to lose money for a few years to establish market share, this factor is automatically accounted for by my definition.

By customer-value I mean what amount in $$ the customer values the service at.

I find it interesting that this cost/value ratio is apparently very close to the same for Satellite and Cable, given they use fundamentally different service delivery infrastructures.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> The fact that you are incapable of comprehending the simple business math that I present is not surprising to me.


Oh, what a laugh! As is the typical case, when you are presented with a firm refutation of anything you say - often quite an easy task, I must say, BTW - you immediately resort to insults and ad hominem arguments. This is the typical refuge of the incompetent. Evidence suggests you can't even pronounce the names of some of the mathematics classes I have taught to students, but let's just try an extremely simple set of four math problems on for size just to see who has the better math skills, shall we?

A spherical drop of water suspended in mid air at a constant temperature and humidity will evaporate at a rate proportional to its surface area, reducing the volume (and thus the radius) of the drop. Since the surface area is decreasing rapidly as the radius of the drop decreases, the rate of evaporation also drops rapidly. Assuming the drop maintains a perfectly uniform spherical shape as it evaporates and assuming there is no minimum radius for a drop of water, does the drop ever totally evaporate, or does it continue to evaporate forever, getting ever infinitesimally smaller and smaller? Don't guess, and show your work.

We all know solid materials expand as their temperature rises. The classical explanation is the material is made of vibrating molecules whose vibrational amplitude increases as the temperature of the material rises, resulting in larger areas of space between the individual molecules. The math is quite simple, only requiring one to show the amplitude of the vibrations in a classical elastic system increases with the energy. Assume for the moment, however, that matter is not made of individual molecules, but is of a continuous nature. How would one explain mathematically the behavior of a solid material as temperature rises?

Does the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/9... + 1/2^N have a finite value, or an infinite value? Again, don't guess and show your work.

Prove the sum of the interior angles of any five sided flat polygon is equal to 540 degrees.

The last one's a gimme. I had to prove it when I was 15. The others I wasn't expected to answer until my first semester in college, when I was 18. Of course, all three are more than 30 years in the past, so my memory of the actual events is less than sharp, but I definitely still grasp the math, as will any engineer.

Tick-tock, bicker. The clock is ticking. Prove to us you can answer these simple math questions, and then we can talk about somewhat more advanced mathematical topics of which I am quite conversant such as tensor calculus and linear algebra. In the mean time, I don't think anyone on this forum lends any credence to your insult suggesting I can't understand any math you can produce. What's more, I suspect most of the forum participants have noticed one very important fact: you haven't produced any mathematics at all.

A little piece of advice, bicker: don't try to make a 30 year veteran engineer and former physicist look foolish by attacking his math skills. I happen not to be at all adverse to entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.



bicker said:


> The US Court of Appeals believes you're wrong. I'm in good company.


Name the case docket where the U.S. Court of appeals overruled a denial by the SEC or the FTC of a merger or acquisition of a smaller company by an MSO. More importantly, I commented upon what the SEC and FTC have not been doing, not what they have been doing. The court of appeals can't overrule a denial the SEC and FTC never issued.



bicker said:


> Come back when you get appointed to the Supreme Court. Until then, accept that your legal standing is somewhat less than that of the US Court of Appeals.


No, bicker, completely contrary to your arrogant, feudalistic viewpoint, the Supreme Court is in no way superior to any American citizen. The constitution clearly states they and the rest of the government work for us, not the other way around. They are supposed to be completely bound by the laws we make, not us by laws they make. If we dislike the rulings they make, then it is our complete prerogative to change those laws to suit us better. If they do a poor job of interpreting those laws, then it is our complete prerogative to refine them. Finally, you act as if a pronouncement by some group - any group - in the judicial branch is somehow pontificate. It isn't. The number of major rulings made by some body - even the Supreme Court - not later overturned or countermanded by some other court, not later nullified or modified by successive legislation or judicial activity, or not overturned directly by a higher court (except in the case of the Supreme Court, of course) is fairly small. The fact some court might have upheld something approximating your viewpoint is of little or no consequence in a discussion such as this. Or perhaps you think the fact the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that slave trading was legal is relevant, too? Not only do appellate courts frequently make rulings which are later overturned, they also make downright foolish rulings. Or do you think the ruling that separate but equal educational facilities were acceptable for minorities was a brilliant and well informed ruling?

You continually try to avoid answering our pointed, evidentially supported arguments blasting your unsupported and morally reprehensible attitudes by insulting us and desperately hoping we won't notice you haven't a leg on which to stand. You make vague references to ostensibly superior entities' disagreement with our respective points of view. You accuse us of being anti-American, of being unintelligent, and of having a sense of entitlement.

Some of these accusations have in some cases had at least some merit, but the fact is, I have only rarely come across anyone with a greater, more false sense of entitlement than you, and you make it clear to all of us that you find the fundamental American notion of the rights and rectitude of the individual to be anathema, and that those rights should always be subjugated to the rights of the rich to make money a the expense of both the consumer and the individuals who actually create the value in the goods and services ultimately purchased by that money. If there's any one attitude of which America can exceedingly well be rid it is this one. It has fostered hatred, unrest, dissention, and prejudice nearly as much as any other. Perhaps you would be well served to take this attitude somewhere else. I know the rest of us would. I hear there is land available really cheap near Chernobyl.

As to the third item - intelligence - I would be remiss if I claimed you were the most unintelligent person on this forum. Indeed, the evidence would seem to indicate your cognitive (or at least compositional) skills are somewhat above average. That, however, is far less than a stellar recommendation, and your posts have shown you to be intellectually nowhere near the top of the mound in many instances. You definitely have no credentials here which would suggest you have the right to call other people's intelligence into question in comparison to yours. Ironically, you fail to grasp the fact such a comparison frequently would leave you on the short end of the stick.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

E94Allen said:


> What if copied from other TiVo are messed up and can't retry it because it is marked as unplayable or something then we are SOL?


It would certainly be possible with a poor implementation, and in any case nothing is perfect, but it is not terribly difficult to write the code in such a way as to make such an occurrence exceedingly unlikely. In short, it is not terribly difficult to assess the validity of the file on the receiver and relay that assessment to the transmitter. If the file is intact after receipt, it gets trashed completely on the transmitter. If the file has errors, they either get corrected on the receiver or else obliterate the trashed file on the receiver and restore the file's status on the transmitter. The alternative - streaming - never saves the file on the receiver at all. Instead, the receiver calls for segments of the content from the transmitter based upon user input, transfers the data in real time, and displays the data on the receiver's screen without saving the program as an intact file on the hard drive of the receiver.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

bicker said:


> Not at all... competitors can do whatever they wish.


What competitors? These would be the same cable companies that are granted regulated monopolies?

Speaking of which, if I lived in an area with a cable company like TWC I would be the biggest PITA to the public utilities commission with as many friends as I could muster...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> To show, as the US Court of Appeals confirmed, that there is effective competition in all municipalities in the nation.


It shows nothing of the sort. All it shows is I pay one price for one set of services and you pay a different price for another from someone else. If what you state were relevant, then every municipailty would offer the same cost per service as every other, since every municipality has at a minimum two satellite services available.



bicker said:


> Here, you'd combine some of the services you subscribe to, to save money, and get a package with two premium services for $58.49 + $39.45. CableCARD is $1.50. HSI is $39.95 or $49.95.


The package I have is the cheapest available with the services I have. There is no way to save any money and get the services I do.



bicker said:


> So we pay roughly $30-$40 more than you do per month, even though we have five competitors serving our town.


 We do, as well. AT&T, Grande communications, TW Cable, and the two satellite services. So with precisely the same level of competition, yours is different in cost because....? Here, Grande is $59 cheaper than TWC for the same services with the exception of two channels because...?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Oh, what a laugh!


Yes, I am laughing at your inane self-importance.



lrhorer said:


> you immediately resort to insults and ad hominem arguments.


Because that's all you deserve, based on your track record. I've already given your inane comments more credit than their worth.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DocNo said:


> What competitors? These would be the same cable companies that are granted regulated monopolies?


They're not monopolies. You're simply wrong, and your use of this erroneous and emotionally-laden word demonstrates that your comments in this regard are lacking in credibility.

Any company with the ability to build and maintain a terrestrial network, or launch a satellite, can get such a license. There is practically no exclusivity left.



DocNo said:


> Speaking of which, if I lived in an area with a cable company like TWC I would be the biggest PITA to the public utilities commission with as many friends as I could muster...


And do you, like lrhorer, think that you're so much better than everyone else that the fact that the franchising authority has not taken the actions you would want to take must mean that there is no one as good as you are among those folks who are subscribers?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> That's an inane rationalization for objections. If you are paying for it, you are say it is worth it.


So apparently you have no idea at all what the words "absolute" and "rationalization" mean. I am not rationalizing anything whatsoever. I am merely recognizing the simple fact that no consumer's acceptance of the terms of a deal are absolute. Just because the customer was satisfied with the terms of a deal last month does not in any way imply he will even bother to consider the same deal this month. Conversely, this month he might be positively thrilled to be offered a deal he would have considered ridiculous last month, or even yesterday.



bicker said:


> The fact that you'd switch to something better if it was offered is ridiculously obvious


In which case it is ridiculously obvious you made a completely moronic statement. Under no definition of the word "absolute" can your statement be reconciled with the fact the customer - any customer - may be on the very edge of being completely dissatisfied with the transaction and in fact may even be completely dissatisfied with the transaction after the fact. Not only does it not both to consider the simple fact that expectations and market conditions change, but it also fails to recognize the simple fact that the execution of the contract may not meet the expectations of the buyer. This is true whether the buyer and / or the seller are individuals or corporate entities. Yes, it is possible the expectations of the buyer may be unreasonable, but it is definitely not always the case. In many cases the contractor fails to meet the letter of the contract. We have fired quite a few contractors for that very reason. We paid them for the work they did do, because it is ethical to do so, as well as usually being required by the contract and sometimes by law, but those payments in no way at all implied "absolute" anything.



bicker said:


> Another rationalization.


Not but that is another stupid statement by... you.



bicker said:


> Safety has value.


Obviously, I tried to pose too complex a scenario for you to comprehend, and then failed to hold your hand when presenting it. The decision in this context holds no safety for the company. It holds safety for the individual, without regard for the needs of the company. Any VP making such a decision knows, just as the second VP in the scenario I presented, that choosing IBM holds no risk for the VP himself, regardless of how disastrous it is for the company.



bicker said:


> You're just trying to squirm out of responsibility for your own decisions, like so many consumers do.


I think perhaps you really need to seek medical help. There is nothing in my post suggesting any such thing. I have never once in my adult life ever tried to squirm out of any responsibility, and my actions in this forum support that. When I make a bad decision or a mistake, I own up to it immediately and publicly. The fact I may be only barely satisfied enough to continue to pay for a service and the fact I recognize there is a difference between a person who is just barely satisfied with his service and one who is extremely satisfied with his service is in no measure whatsoever an indication of a weak sense of responsibility. It just means I am not a complete idiot.



bicker said:


> It is an indefensible perspective.


Your blathering nonsense and failure to support your position with even a single example or a single logical construct is what is indefensible. So, if there is "absolutely" no difference between a perfectly satisfied customer and a barely satisfied customer, and the customer's paying for the product means the service is "absolutely" worth the cost, then why do large companies spend many hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on satisfaction surveys? Do said satisfaction surveys have just one question one them - "Are you absolutely satisfied with the product?" No, they have several, perhaps even dozens of questions. What's more, most don't have a simple "satisfied" vs. "unsatisfied" answer, but typically five or even ten levels of satisfaction for each question. Clearly they understand that of which you are apparently incapable of understanding: There is a big difference between a customer who is well satisfied with a product and one who has just made his very last payment, never again to be a customer because of dissatisfaction with the product.



bicker said:


> Money is absolute. If you pay money, you've exchanged an incontrovertible marker of value.


Are you trying to get into the book of records for having made the stupidest business statement in history? No artificial construct of any sort is ever incontrovertible, and money is perhaps the least absolute thing on earth. It's value wavers literally from second to second, is highly liquid across national or even state boundaries, and varies from entity to entity. A deal which is positively glorious this morning may be completely disastrous this evening. An amount of money which may be the difference between prosperity and complete financial ruin for one entity may be a trifling consideration for another. Money absolute? Tell that to the people in pre-Nazi Germany or in the Confederate States of America immediately after the American Civil War. Tell it to the people buying and selling Gold and Silver futures, or trading in international currency.



bicker said:


> More self-serving rationalization. This is part of what's wrong with consumers in America; refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.


It is the furthest thing on Earth from failing to take responsibility for an individual (or any entity) to realize and own up to the fact they made a bad deal. By your (lack of) logic, there is no such thing as a bad deal, and anyone who claims they paid more for a service than they discovered it was worth is being irresponsible.



bicker said:


> You've done nothing other than prove my points about the worst characteristics of consumers in America.


How about it, members of the forum? Did I prove American consumers are irresponsible or did I merely prove that bicker enjoys making idiotic statements and insulting people?



bicker said:


> My earlier point still stands, perhaps even more clearly the reality than before, thanks to you diatribe: Paying for a service you don't think is worth it is ridiculous; by paying for the service you are ratifying that is absolutely is worth what you're paying for it.


Here we go, again. Endlessly repeating nonsense like a crazed jockey frantically beating a lame horse doesn't make the nonsense true. If you want to provide support for your position, then provide examples and demonstrate logical or mathematical relationships. All you have done so far is spew a lot of hot air. Don't think we haven't noticed.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Yes, I am laughing at your inane self-importance.


Answer my simple math problems, bicker, or shut up. You can't squirm past the fact we've proven you haven't a clue.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> They're not monopolies. You're simply wrong, and your use of this erroneous and emotionally-laden word demonstrates that your comments in this regard are lacking in credibility.


Answer my simple math problems, bicker, or shut up. You can't squirm past the fact we've proven you haven't a clue.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> But there seems to be controversy about whether TiVo could legally do this .... see post #61 in this thread.


Legally they could do anything they like in this respect, but they might risk losing the CableCard certification, which would be a disaster.



dlfl said:


> Even if TiVo believed they could legally do this, I seriously wonder if they would. I see it as a significant development effort.


Not at all. The mechanisms are already in place and functional on the TiVo. It would require almost no development whatsoever, other than a very small UI change, which TiVo does all the time.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> <tons of self-serving idiocy>


And this is what you do whenever you're trying to defend the indefensible. You essentially *defecate *on a thread, if you don't get an unrebutted soapbox for your *I want Give me* perspective. Your selfishness apparently knows no bounds.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

CHILDREN.... Don't make me pull this forum over. I will....

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Right, wrong or indifferent. Be respectful and stop the name calling.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Too late. The outrageous nature of some of the things he said cannot be unsaid. He's off-the-rails and simply will not allow there to be a discussion of the reality of business and our nation's laws.

He *wants* he *wants* he *wants*, and what he wants is apparently *all *that matters to him. I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

enough...


----------

