# Questions about setting up service with Comcast Cable



## TivoFan (Feb 22, 2000)

Apologies if this is the wrong forum to post this in...

We're buying a house and setting up our cable service and I am trying to make sure that we get everything set up to work with the Tivos correctly. We have two Series 2 units.

Question 1: Is there anything I need to know about setting up Comcast with my Tivos? 

Question 2: Some of their packages include a "high-def box". Will I need any special equipment to make this work with our Tivos?

Question 3: One of the packages that Comcast has offered me includes their HD DVR, which I don't think we need, but it is somewhat attractive as it includes all the premium channels... The sales rep I spoke to said it would still work with our Tivo as it would function just like a high-def box. Is this true? Is there any issue I need to be aware of?


Thanks for any help guys!


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Who is your provider now? The S2 will need a Comcast box in order to work in most of their systems (and will only have one working tuner). Moving may be a great excuse to up the ante to a digital box, and thus able to enjoy the HD you are likely going to be paying for.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Not a Comcast customer but personally believe you would be in better shape renting cable cards and upgrading to a Roamio and have Minis for other rooms. Since you are just moving in, invest in ethernet wiring (which isn't expensive) and have a solid system.

As it appears you understand and value your series 2 TiVos but, the newest series 5 Roamio is many times better than anything Comcast can offer and in the long run, cheaper. The solution you describe is hang the old series 2 off Comcast tuner boxes, you won't be able to enjoy TiVo in HD or enjoyed the freedom of having 6 tuners on the Roamio Plus /Pro not to mention the addtional TiVo Stream or if you can't run ethernet, you can use the existing coax to network by Moca.

Only downside might be that tuner adapters might be required but with the right contacts, if there's a problem, most seem to be able to overcome such. Comcasters will have to chime in on that.


----------



## TivoFan (Feb 22, 2000)

eboydog said:


> Since you are just moving in, invest in ethernet wiring (which isn't expensive) and have a solid system.


Probably not an option right now. We currently network over the powerline using some plug in adapters, and I think we'll just bring those along with us.



eboydog said:


> Not a Comcast customer but personally believe you would be in better shape renting cable cards and upgrading to a Roamio and have Minis for other rooms.


Which would require purchasing a Roamio, a mini, and paying the Tivo monthly fee. Seems a little pricey as I already have Tivos with lifetime service.



eboydog said:


> As it appears you understand and value your series 2 TiVos but, the newest series 5 Roamio is many times better than anything Comcast can offer and in the long run, cheaper. The solution you describe is hang the old series 2 off Comcast tuner boxes, you won't be able to enjoy TiVo in HD or enjoyed the freedom of having 6 tuners on the Roamio Plus /Pro not to mention the addtional TiVo Stream or if you can't run ethernet, you can use the existing coax to network by Moca.


HD isn't a concern for me... I don't actually have a TV capable of displaying HD, nor do I think it would really make much of a difference to me. Six tuners would be a much more attractive draw, but again that requires buying a new unit, and I don't think that's in the budget right now. I had to Google Tivo Stream to figure out what that was, but it apparently is another device I'd have to buy.

MY main concern right now is just to get our existing equipment up and running under Comcast. Getting a newer model is something we're not looking at right now. I just want to make sure I don't choose a package that won't work with Tivo or that I know ahead of time any equipment that might be required to make Tivo work with Comcast.

Thanks


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

FYI:

Depending on your S2s, you will likely be going from 4 tuners down to two. Picking up a used [lifetime] S3 or THD for a few hundred dollars will allow you to retain your tuner count and avoid renting those comcast boxes. If a box is included in a package, you'll get a credit.


----------



## TivoFan (Feb 22, 2000)

jrtroo said:


> FYI:
> 
> Depending on your S2s, you will likely be going from 4 tuners down to two. Picking up a used S3 or THD for a few hundred dollars will allow you to retain your tuner count and avoid renting those comcast boxes. If a box is included in a package, you'll get a credit.


I'm not sure what THD is... But if I buy a series 3 unit to avoid the rental fee on the Comcast box, I lose my current lifetime plan on my series 2 unit, and have to pay a monthly Tivo fee on the series 3 unit. And the monthly rental on the comcast box is less than the monthly Tivo fee.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

It is a flavor of the S3 line. Lifetime on a S2 is not worth that much anymore, so not a lot of loss there, though you could certainly find a buyer to offset the cost of a newer box. Note: I meant a lifetime S3 is a few hundred, I revised to be more clear. 

Have you used a comcast dvr? Pain.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

I have to agree that the TiVo hardware is too expensive, while it's part of their income plan it would seem to me there is a cosiderable markup and profit as I'm sure the cost of a Roamio Plus is many time less than it's retail price.

Given monthly or lifetime service fees, TiVo would attract more new subscribers if they priced the initial hardware better. TiVo is it's worst enemy to its self.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Definitely move to a DVR with a digital tuner, either one provided by Comcast or a TiVo. The TiVoHD TCD652160 with lifetime service can be purchased used for around $200 shipped now, eBay is a pretty good place to buy since eBay guarantees you get what is described. A used TiVo Premiere is probably a better idea and a bit more expensive but either should work well enough.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

eboydog said:


> I have to agree that the TiVo hardware is too expensive, while it's part of their income plan it would seem to me there is a cosiderable markup and profit as I'm sure the cost of a Roamio Plus is many time less than it's retail price.
> 
> Given monthly or lifetime service fees, TiVo would attract more new subscribers if they priced the initial hardware better. TiVo is it's worst enemy to its self.


TiVo's profit margin on hardware sales last quarter was only around 6%.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

eboydog said:


> I have to agree that the TiVo hardware is too expensive, while it's part of their income plan it would seem to me there is a cosiderable markup and profit as I'm sure the cost of a Roamio Plus is many time less than it's retail price.
> 
> Given monthly or lifetime service fees, TiVo would attract more new subscribers if they priced the initial hardware better. TiVo is it's worst enemy to its self.


TiVo has historically lost money on the hardware, attempting to recoup the loss and make a profit with services and ads. I haven't paid any attention to Roamio Plus and Pro prices but feel certain that your statement "the cost of a Roamio Plus is many time less than it's retail price" is not accurate. I did pay attention to previous models, manufacturing cost and sales prices, and know TiVo lost money on hardware sales.

I understand as a general concept, TiVo is trying to break even on the hardware now, probably a good business decision since profits from operations for TiVo have been very rare.


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Actually, even premieres with lifetime can be found for just a little over $200 plus shipping. With more used Roamios hitting the market , lifetime premieres are getting much cheaper. You have to be patient but goods deals are out there.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Do not get an HD box unless you want to pay the monthly "HD Technolog" fee.

One full SD box is probably included in your package. Use that for one of the TiVos. You should investigate to see if a DTA will give you access to all of the channels you want and if it does, use it for the other TiVo.

You'll need some way to control the box. For the full box either an IR blaster or. if you can get the right model (it's an older Motorola but I don't remember the exact model #), you may be able to use the serial connection.

For the DTA, there is a cable available to connect the IR out of the TiVo to the IR in of the DTA.


----------



## 9300170 (Feb 21, 2003)

I agree with everyone that upgrading to a new TiVo would give you the best TV experience, but if you decide to stick with your two Series 2 TiVo's, here's what you'll need from Comcast:
1. A standard definition receiver or DTA for each TiVo.
2. Working IR blasers for the TiVos.
3. After Comcast installs the cable boxes, youll need to set up the TiVo's, run guided setup, and choose control of cable box options.

It'll work, but it is kind of a pain.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This thread is a soup of good advice and misinformation!

I am a Comcast subscriber in CT with a TiVo, and I have also set up and used a Series 2 TiVo (2004-2011 pre digital conversion), Motorola Comcast DVR with Multiroom DVR, and Windows Media Center Edition.



eboydog said:


> Not a Comcast customer but personally believe you would be in better shape renting cable cards and upgrading to a Roamio and have Minis for other rooms. Since you are just moving in, invest in ethernet wiring (which isn't expensive) and have a solid system.
> 
> As it appears you understand and value your series 2 TiVos but, the newest series 5 Roamio is many times better than anything Comcast can offer and in the long run, cheaper. The solution you describe is hang the old series 2 off Comcast tuner boxes, you won't be able to enjoy TiVo in HD or enjoyed the freedom of having 6 tuners on the Roamio Plus /Pro not to mention the addtional TiVo Stream or if you can't run ethernet, you can use the existing coax to network by Moca.
> 
> Only downside might be that tuner adapters might be required but with the right contacts, if there's a problem, most seem to be able to overcome such. Comcasters will have to chime in on that.


You're mostly right on. IMHO, the OP probably doesn't need to pull CAT-6. I'm a huge proponent of anyone doing so, but for TiVos, it not needed at all. MoCA is more than enough for TiVo. For computer, Ethernet is the way to go, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.

Comcast does NOT use TAs, and most, if not all areas by now, support Xfinity On Demand. I could list many reasons I hate Comcast, but their TiVo support is excellent in the whole scheme of things.



TivoFan said:


> Probably not an option right now. We currently network over the powerline using some plug in adapters, and I think we'll just bring those along with us.


I have a pair of them running, and they SUCK. Soon as I move, they are going away in favor of something more robust (hopefully I will own a house, in which case, I will be buying a few thousand feet of CAT-6 for my computer network, and sticking with MoCA for the TiVos, but that's neither here nor there).

The 4-tuner Premieres, Roamio Plus/Pros, and Minis have MoCA, which is a much better way to go, and it's a lot more reliable than powerline. And older 2-tuner units, as well as Roamio Basics can have it added via MoCA adapters.



> Which would require purchasing a Roamio, a mini, and paying the Tivo monthly fee. Seems a little pricey as I already have Tivos with lifetime service.


Lifetime is available for the Roamios and Minis. I have 3 Minis and a Premiere XL4 all on Lifetime. I also own my modem and router. No equipment fees on Comcast, just the Double Play package I subscribe to.



> HD isn't a concern for me... I don't actually have a TV capable of displaying HD, nor do I think it would really make much of a difference to me. Six tuners would be a much more attractive draw, but again that requires buying a new unit, and I don't think that's in the budget right now. I had to Google Tivo Stream to figure out what that was, but it apparently is another device I'd have to buy.


TiVo Stream is totally irrelevant to this discussion, as it's not required for a functional setup of anything, and the Roamio Plus/Pro have it built in anyways.

HD is the standard, and it has been for several years now. If you care that little about TV, don't waste your $80/mo+ for cable in the first place. Or get an HDTV.



> MY main concern right now is just to get our existing equipment up and running under Comcast. Getting a newer model is something we're not looking at right now. I just want to make sure I don't choose a package that won't work with Tivo or that I know ahead of time any equipment that might be required to make Tivo work with Comcast.


The bottom line is that Series 2 TiVos were pretty much obsoleted when Comcast finally killed off analog somewhere in the 2008-2011 timeframe (depending on market, it might have been '09 or '10 before they started in Philly). Yes, you can theoretically blast a box, and hopefully have it work semi-reliably or you might get really lucky and be able to have your local cable office find some ancient box in a dark corner of their warehouse that still has RS-232C serial control. However, you'd still be stuck with single-tuner SD boxes with limited capabilities compared to what's out there today.

Thus, I couldn't recommend such a bubble gum and shoe-string kludge to anyone in this day in age when HD 4-, 5-, and 6-tuner DVRs with multiroom capability are the norm. Even for a very light TV user who only wants OTA, something like Simple.TV or Tablo would work a lot better, and support HD.

I'd recommend a Roamio Pro/Mini setup with Lifetime, which is the ultimate DVR combo, and has no extra monthly fees. Used S3's or Premieres would be a second, but then you lose the seamless MRV (although you'd have the ability to transfer unprotected channels, and be able to stream everything on the Premieres), and you'd have to start paying $7/mo for each additional CableCard, which adds up quickly after buying a bunch of dual-tuner boxes.



Chris Gerhard said:


> Definitely move to a DVR with a digital tuner, either one provided by Comcast or a TiVo. The TiVoHD TCD652160 with lifetime service can be purchased used for around $200 shipped now, eBay is a pretty good place to buy since eBay guarantees you get what is described. A used TiVo Premiere is probably a better idea and a bit more expensive but either should work well enough.


Yup. Definitely move to something with QAM tuners!



tarheelblue32 said:


> TiVo's profit margin on hardware sales last quarter was only around 6%.


Is that with or without service? If it's without service, then that's great, since the device costs $400-$500 more once you add the required service package, on top of a DVR that "costs" somewhere in the $200-$600 range... And it gets even better for TiVo with the Minis, where they "cost" $99, and it costs another $150 just to get the required service for them.



lpwcomp said:


> Do not get an HD box unless you want to pay the monthly "HD Technolog" fee.
> 
> One full SD box is probably included in your package. Use that for one of the TiVos. You should investigate to see if a DTA will give you access to all of the channels you want and if it does, use it for the other TiVo.


An HD TiVo may or may not be charged the extra HD fee, depending on the location. In some areas, the fee is an equipment fee (not changed to TiVo users), and in some areas, it is a programming fee (charged to TiVo users).

That's terrible advice at this point. The OP should get TiVo(s) with built-in QAM tuners.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Is that with or without service? If it's without service, then that's great, since the device costs $400-$500 more once you add the required service package, on top of a DVR that "costs" somewhere in the $200-$600 range... And it gets even better for TiVo with the Minis, where they "cost" $99, and it costs another $150 just to get the required service for them.


That's without service, so yeah it's pretty good. It looks like their gross margins on service fees is around 62%.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> HD is the standard, and it has been for several years now. If you care that little about TV, don't waste your $80/mo+ for cable in the first place. Or get an HDTV.


 I take it you don't care about the actual content as long as it _*looks*_ nice. You apparently cannot grasp the concept of people who have enough monthly income to afford cable but _*cannot*_ currently afford to buy new equipment.



Bigg said:


> An HD TiVo may or may not be charged the extra HD fee, depending on the location. In some areas, the fee is an equipment fee (not changed to TiVo users), and in some areas, it is a programming fee (charged to TiVo users).


The OP mentioned getting an HD box _*from Comcast.*_



Bigg said:


> That's terrible advice at this point. The OP should get TiVo(s) with built-in QAM tuners.


I was addressing the OP's desire to continue to use his current TiVo 2s on Comcast and I told him the least expensive way to do that. I wasn't "advising" him on anything. You OTOH, more or less "advised" him to "do it _*MY*_ way or don't do it at all".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's without service, so yeah it's pretty good. It looks like their gross margins on service fees is around 62%.


WOW. Those are amazing margins! And here I was, thinking they were losing money on the hardware. Silly me. Their margins, without subscriptions, are double that of some consumer electronics!



lpwcomp said:


> I take it you don't care about the actual content as long as it _*looks*_ nice. You apparently cannot grasp the concept of people who have enough monthly income to afford cable but _*cannot*_ currently afford to buy new equipment.


I do care about content, but if it looks like total crap, then it's not worth watching. If someone can't afford a couple of TiVo boxes, they shouldn't be shelling out the big bucks for cable.



> The OP mentioned getting an HD box _*from Comcast.*_


The OP mentioned TiVos as well. In the case of an HD box from Comcast, yes, one way or another, there is the HD fee there.



> I was addressing the OP's desire to continue to use his current TiVo 2s on Comcast and I told him the least expensive way to do that. I wasn't "advising" him on anything. You OTOH, more or less "advised" him to "do it _*MY*_ way or don't do it at all".


It's pretty clear that analog and SD are dead technologies at this point. Yes, you can keep legacy hardware working, in a strict sense of working, but it's not going to work well, or create an outcome that makes any sense given the technological landscape today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I also answered the OP's question about how it is technically possible to run a Series 2, and explained why it was the wrong question to be asking in the first place. It is an incomplete, and almost inaccurate answer to not explain why running a Series 2 TiVo is a bad idea at this point in the game. Although that should be obvious from the get-go...


----------



## dbattaglia001 (Feb 9, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's without service, so yeah it's pretty good. It looks like their gross margins on service fees is around 62%.


And that service gross margin, while looking relatively high, needs to cover marketing, G&A, and R&D activities to allow for periodic software updates to the boxes. Without the legal settlements, they'd be losing money as a whole.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dbattaglia001 said:


> And that service gross margin, while looking relatively high, needs to cover marketing, G&A, and R&D activities to allow for periodic software updates to the boxes. Without the legal settlements, they'd be losing money as a whole.


That's true, except though they did show a positive $8 Million net income for last quarter compared to a $10 Million loss for the same quarter last year, and I think that is without taking into account any legal settlement money. So it looks like they have at least turned a corner.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I do care about content, but if it looks like total crap, then it's not worth watching. If someone can't afford a couple of TiVo boxes, they shouldn't be shelling out the big bucks for cable.


So. Get something good enough for you or do without. That's one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read, and that's saying a lot for the TCF. Who the hell are you to tell someone how to allocate their limited resources and what constitutes an objectively acceptable viewing experience. Or are you just completely clueless and simply cannot imagine a situation wherein someone has a certain amount of disposable monthly income but no COH or at least none that they are willing to part with to acquire new equipment.



Bigg said:


> The OP mentioned TiVos as well. In the case of an HD box from Comcast, yes, one way or another, there is the HD fee there.


He only "mentioned" TiVos in the context of HD when he asked whether or not his existing TiVos would work with a Comcast HD box or Comcast HD DVR.



Bigg said:


> It's pretty clear that analog and SD are dead technologies at this point. Yes, you can keep legacy hardware working, in a strict sense of working, but it's not going to work well, or create an outcome that makes any sense given the technological landscape today.


It's pretty clear that you have no idea that people can have priorities other than yours and can wish to have "something" rather than nothing if the "something" is all they can afford.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I also answered the OP's question about how it is technically possible to run a Series 2, and explained why it was the wrong question to be asking in the first place. It is an incomplete, and almost inaccurate answer to not explain why running a Series 2 TiVo is a bad idea at this point in the game. Although that should be obvious from the get-go...


And Bigg manages to break his own record for arrogance.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> So. Get something good enough for you or do without. That's one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read, and that's saying a lot for the TCF. Who the hell are you to tell someone how to allocate their limited resources and what constitutes an objectively acceptable viewing experience. Or are you just completely clueless and simply cannot imagine a situation wherein someone has a certain amount of disposable monthly income but no COH or at least none that they are willing to part with to acquire new equipment.


The OP could get Comcast's less crappy X1 system. At least it provides a basic level of modern functionality, like multi-room HD recording. Heck, even the older WH-DVR system using the DCX3400 (on Moto systems) does that. Series 2 TiVos do not. However, it still boils down to the point about why someone is paying a bunch of money for cable TV if they are that strapped for cash (and somehow buying a house too?). It just doesn't add up.



> He only "mentioned" TiVos in the context of HD when he asked whether or not his existing TiVos would work with a Comcast HD box or Comcast HD DVR.


Whatever.



> It's pretty clear that you have no idea that people can have priorities other than yours and can wish to have "something" rather than nothing if the "something" is all they can afford.


I loved our Series 2 TiVo back in the day. It was amazing. It was great. But the ship has long since sailed on those days. Those days are over. Calling a Series 2 TiVo "something" in this day and age is a big stretch at best. If that TiVo ever gets resurrected from it's bad hard drive, it would be a geek project for a toy, it certainly has no useful function at this point.

The ship sailed away from SD in the 2008-2011 timeframe. Really, around 2008 was the golden age of HD. It was a standard and pretty much fully commoditized by 2011. It's now 2014. Technology progresses. Deal with it. Even my 81-year-old grandmother recently got an HD cable box.



lpwcomp said:


> And Bigg manages to break his own record for arrogance.


Sorry if you don't like reality. The ship has sailed for HD and multi-tuner DVR systems a long time ago.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg,

It's still a matter for you of "if you can't afford to scrap your current equipment and buy and/or rent HD equipment, don't bother cause it isn't worth watching"* and "if you can't afford HD, then you can't afford cable at all and shouldn't be spending any of your limited disposable income on it"

* Actually, you seem to think that very little of it is worth watching at all but HD makes some of it tolerable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Bigg,
> 
> It's still a matter for you of "if you can't afford to scrap your current equipment and buy and/or rent HD equipment, don't bother cause it isn't worth watching"* and "if you can't afford HD, then you can't afford cable at all and shouldn't be spending any of your limited disposable income on it"
> 
> * Actually, you seem to think that very little of it is worth watching at all but HD makes some of it tolerable.


There is some good stuff out there, but since the 2008-2011 timeframe, everything is produced for viewing on an HDTV in one way or another, such that watching stuff on a non-HDTV provides a significantly inferior experience. That's why a couple years ago, we finally got rid of the remaining analog TVs in the fleet, to go all-HD.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> There is some good stuff out there, but since the 2008-2011 timeframe, everything is produced for viewing on an HDTV in one way or another, such that watching stuff on a non-HDTV provides a significantly inferior experience. That's why a couple years ago, we finally got rid of the remaining analog TVs in the fleet, to go all-HD.


The thing is, there is a vast difference between obsolete/inferior and unacceptable. The former is presumably objective. The latter is completely subjective.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's true, except though they did show a positive $8 Million net income for last quarter compared to a $10 Million loss for the same quarter last year, and I think that is without taking into account any legal settlement money. So it looks like they have at least turned a corner.


No, each quarter currently includes some $30 million of legal settlement money that they already received a while back but are recognizing quarterly as income. It's being accounted for under the "technology revenue" category. They still have a ways to go to making a profit operationally.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

CrispyCritter said:


> No, each quarter currently includes some $30 million of legal settlement money that they already received a while back but are recognizing quarterly as income. It's being accounted for under the "technology revenue" category. They still have a ways to go to making a profit operationally.


Ah okay, that makes sense. I wasn't sure what the "technology revenue" line item was on their financial statements. I wish they would just use more accurate language like "legal settlement revenue". So yeah, without that "technology revenue" they would still be operating at a loss ever quarter.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

tivofan: Comcast has a lot of box types. These are the common categories:
a) SD DTA
b) HD DTA
c) SD Box
d) HD Box
e) HD DVR
f) HD X1

You'll have to check the extra box prices in your market, but you'll likely want to gravitate to A or C for your Tivos. In some parts of the country the DTA's are free.
A) connects to the Tivo via Coax and IR blasters
C) adds Composite connectors and rarely a serial port
The other major difference is the DTA's are limited to what channels (no premiums) it can receive, but the SD Box is not restricted that way. People's reports vary on this point so it's something you should try out (esp since the DTA is so cheap)

Regarding the HD Box and others, alot if not all of Comcast equipment has a Coax or A/V out so should be workable if need be. When you see the rental prices though, if the more advanced boxes are going to cost more, there's no benefit in your setup.

Regarding the HD DVR, it can also watch Live TV, but if you get this box, you would run this to your TV directly. There's no reason to plug it into a Tivo.

I'm not familiar with Comcast plans, but all this discussion about HD boxes starts to make it sound like you're paying for an extra something you're not going to use.

A question worth exploring later, is there anyway to reenable the Dual Tuner, but the discussion would be drawn out.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If you do get a DTA to feed one of the TiVos, you should also consider getting one of these:



Should be much more reliable than an IR blaster.

Note: I've never used one myself. My sole remaining operational Series 2 is being fed by a full SD box controlled via serial cable.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Do not get an HD box unless you want to pay the monthly "HD Technolog" fee.
> 
> One full SD box is probably included in your package. Use that for one of the TiVos. You should investigate to see if a DTA will give you access to all of the channels you want and if it does, use it for the other TiVo.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. I helped my mom set up her Tivo S2 this way. She has a Comcast Motorola cable box on the set with her Tivo and a DTA on her other set (without a Tivo, she only watches live TV on that one). In our area, the 1st Comcast outlet is free (so the cable box is free on the first Tivo) and there's a nominal charge on the 2nd outlet (the DTA - I can't remember how much it is) She doesn't care about watching HD so it works for her.

You don't need an HD box if you only have SD (analog) TV's.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

lpwcomp said:


> If you do get a DTA to feed one of the TiVos, you should also consider getting one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've used one for several months now with a DTA, hasn't failed me once.


----------



## bmeacham2 (Jun 7, 2012)

Is something like this cable available for a premiere and a slingbox HD Pro?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bmeacham2 said:


> Is something like this cable available for a premiere and a slingbox HD Pro?


No. I don't know of *any* TiVo has the necessary remote IR sensor input.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

bmeacham2 said:


> Is something like this cable available for a premiere and a slingbox HD Pro?


Slingbox should have used Tivo's network remote. No extra hardware required.

If you're viewing from a PC, you can still run your own remote if you setup NAT traversal.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

telemark said:


> Slingbox should have used Tivo's network remote. No extra hardware required.


That would have required adding code to the Slingbox s/w.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> The thing is, there is a vast difference between obsolete/inferior and unacceptable. The former is presumably objective. The latter is completely subjective.


Sort of subjective. The whole industry has determined that HD is the standard. And even what's obsolete isn't exactly clear. Comcast has to support all sorts of legacy crap that customers attach to their systems, even though obviously it would be dumb to do anything more than offer basic support for antiquated obsolete systems, since the people with those systems are usually low value customers anyways.



telemark said:


> tivofan: Comcast has a lot of box types. These are the common categories:
> a) SD DTA
> b) HD DTA
> c) SD Box
> ...


Do they still have SD DVRs? It would stupid to still be deploying them at this point, but knowing Comcast, they have some in a corner somewhere...



javabird said:


> I agree with this. I helped my mom set up her Tivo S2 this way. She has a Comcast Motorola cable box on the set with her Tivo and a DTA on her other set (without a Tivo, she only watches live TV on that one). In our area, the 1st Comcast outlet is free (so the cable box is free on the first Tivo) and there's a nominal charge on the 2nd outlet (the DTA - I can't remember how much it is) She doesn't care about watching HD so it works for her.
> 
> You don't need an HD box if you only have SD (analog) TV's.


Translation, you need an HDTV to be able to enjoy Comcast services with either a TiVo or Comcast's X1 DVR.

Not only does SD look like crap, but theirs looks that much worse. My system doesn't have ESPNU HD, and man, ESPNU games look like crap. There is nothing you can do to make SD look good.

DTAs are $2/mo. We returned our two before they started charging and just kept the two HD/DVR boxes, since the DTAs were so rarely used. If all you want is news or baseball or something on a tertiary TV while you're doing something else and not really looking at the TV, DTAs are OK, otherwise they are completely worthless.



lpwcomp said:


> That would have required adding code to the Slingbox s/w.


Yeah, it would actually have made sense. It's an open spec TiVo published basically for Crestron, but anyone can use it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Translation, you need an HDTV to be able to enjoy Comcast services with either a TiVo or Comcast's X1 DVR.
> 
> Not only does SD look like crap, but theirs looks that much worse. My system doesn't have ESPNU HD, and man, ESPNU games look like crap. There is nothing you can do to make SD look good.
> 
> DTAs are $2/mo. We returned our two before they started charging and just kept the two HD/DVR boxes, since the DTAs were so rarely used. If all you want is news or baseball or something on a tertiary TV while you're doing something else and not really looking at the TV, DTAs are OK, otherwise they are completely worthless.


And that is all totally subjective. What is intolerable to you is acceptable to others, especially given *their* available choices and priorities. Just because someone makes choices that differ from the ones you made doesn't make them illogical or wrong. What *would* be illogical is for someone to drastically alter their priorities based on the fact that _*you*_ couldn't tolerate the situation otherwise.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> And that is all totally subjective. What is intolerable to you is acceptable to others, especially given *their* available choices and priorities. Just because someone makes choices that differ from the ones you made doesn't make them illogical or wrong. What *would* be illogical is for someone to drastically alter their priorities based on the fact that _*you*_ couldn't tolerate the situation otherwise.


What would be logical is for the OP is get with the program and get HD.

Not sure what the exact right word for it is, but SD picture quality is objectively poor. No subjectivity there.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> What would be logical is for the OP is get with the program and get HD.
> 
> Not sure what the exact right word for it is, but SD picture quality is objectively poor. No subjectivity there.


So logic dictates that the OP scrap his existing equipment and spend a lot of money acquiring all new equipment to meet your standards. Plus possibly increasing his cable bill. Either that or do without. That's not logical, just stupid.

Your "logic" apparently consists of the following: "Once HD became available, I realized that SD is unwatchable. I cannot believe I put up with this crap all of those years. Since I find it unacceptable, it must be unacceptable to everyone. Therefore, everyone should acquire HD equipment. All SD channels should be eliminated. Especially those that are carrying programming that has no need for HD, like old movies and TV shows. They're just cluttering up the airwaves and using up cable bandwidth. Bandwidth that could be used for more of the stuff that _*I*_ like."


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> So logic dictates that the OP scrap his existing equipment and spend a lot of money acquiring all new equipment to meet your standards. Plus possibly increasing his cable bill. Either that or do without. That's not logical, just stupid.
> 
> Your "logic" apparently consists of the following: "Once HD became available, I realized that SD is unwatchable. I cannot believe I put up with this crap all of those years. Since I find it unacceptable, it must be unacceptable to everyone. Therefore, everyone should acquire HD equipment. All SD channels should be eliminated. Especially those that are carrying programming that has no need for HD, like old movies and TV shows. They're just cluttering up the airwaves and using up cable bandwidth. Bandwidth that could be used for more of the stuff that _*I*_ like."


It's perfectly logical. If someone cares so little about their TV that they are still using ancient SD equipment, then clearly they don't care enough to be shelling out the big bucks to have cable in the first place. And likewise, if they can't afford to drop a grand or two on TiVo hardware, then they probably shouldn't be blowing $80/mo on cable TV.

Yes, actually SD channels should be eliminated. It would save a lot of wasted bandwidth used in duplicating channels that are already available in HD. Unfortunately, that would be expensive for Comcast and gang, as there are still a lot of SD boxes out there that would have to be replaced. Although it might make sense to kill all the SD channels that the DTAs can't get so that they can continue to support SD boxes and DTAs, but require an HD box for the additional SD channels.

Most old moves were shot on film, and have since been scanned at 4k or 8k, so they have plenty of resolution for HD. Heck, Netflix has Ghostbusters available in 4k.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> It's perfectly logical. If someone cares so little about their TV that they are still using ancient SD equipment, then clearly they don't care enough to be shelling out the big bucks to have cable in the first place. And likewise, if they can't afford to drop a grand or two on TiVo hardware, then they probably shouldn't be blowing $80/mo on cable TV..


Just totally, completely wrong.

Not everybody is a 24 year-old Yuppie in Boston. People other than you have to make hard choices, and they make different choices than you. I'm glad you've never had to make those sorts of choices about your TV, but you're an outlier.

10 years ago almost everybody was using SD equipment, most were paying for cable, and most were enjoying it. Just because they might enjoy it more in HD now doesn't mean that SD TV is not offering the same basic enjoyment now that it was then. Do you claim that the entire TV industry 10 years ago was worthless because nobody was enjoying it?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's perfectly logical. If someone cares so little about their TV that they are still using ancient SD equipment, then clearly they don't care enough to be shelling out the big bucks to have cable in the first place. And likewise, if they can't afford to drop a grand or two on TiVo hardware, then they probably shouldn't be blowing $80/mo on cable TV.


That's got to be one of stupidest statements I've ever read. When you made the decision to replace all of your equipment, If you didn't factor in cost, opportunity cost, COH, cash flow, etc., then you're either a fool or you have more money than you know what to do with. In any case, *WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT IS OR ISN'T ACCEPTABLE AND HOW THEY SHOULD ALLOCATE THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME?* Get over yourself. You are not the esthetics czar.

Someone who thinks so highly of themselves is in desperate need of a reality check.



Bigg said:


> Yes, actually SD channels should be eliminated. It would save a lot of wasted bandwidth used in duplicating channels that are already available in HD. Unfortunately, that would be expensive for Comcast and gang, as there are still a lot of SD boxes out there that would have to be replaced. Although it might make sense to kill all the SD channels that the DTAs can't get so that they can continue to support SD boxes and DTAs, but require an HD box for the additional SD channels.


Are you really that oblivious to the fact that there are channels that are only available in SD and that converting them to HD would eat up _*more*_ bandwidth?



Bigg said:


> Most old moves were shot on film, and have since been scanned at 4k or 8k, so they have plenty of resolution for HD.


Do you have an actual source you can cite to back up that claim? If not, I'll just consider it a case of "you can prove anything if you get to make up your data".



Bigg said:


> Heck, Netflix has Ghostbusters available in 4k.


You think _*Ghostbusters*_ qualifies as _*old*_? That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Virtually all movies destined for theater projection were shot on or printed to film; until a recent Digital revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...assic-movies-ever-look-the-same-again/265184/

The main body of SD only video material is a range of years of classic TV.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

telemark said:


> Virtually all movies destined for theater projection were shot on or printed to film; until a recent Digital revolution.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...assic-movies-ever-look-the-same-again/265184/
> 
> The main body of SD only video material is a range of years of classic TV.


What I was questioning was this claim:


> ..and have since been scanned at 4k or 8k,...


The following from the article to which you linked puts the lie to that claim:



> Only a fraction of repertory titles have been transferred to Digital Cinema Packages


----------



## bmeacham2 (Jun 7, 2012)

Back to the point of this thread....Would it be possible that THIS series 2 cable could work with a premiere and a slingbox HD Pro? 
Any thoughts?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bmeacham2 said:


> Back to the point of this thread....Would it be possible that THIS series 2 cable could work with a premiere and a slingbox HD Pro?
> Any thoughts?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

They're asking if the special cable (IR control cross over) could be used between a Slingbox and a Premiere.

Since the Premiere does not have a IR input bypass, the answer is No.

If you hack these together, maybe. But it has not been done before.
https://www.tivo.com/shop/detail/ir-adapter


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

telemark said:


> They're asking if the special cable (IR control cross over) could be used between a Slingbox and a Premiere.


If that is truly the case, then my confusion is twofold.

A. The actual "point of this thread" has nothing to do with his question.

B. I already answered it.



telemark said:


> If you hack these together, maybe. But it has not been done before.
> https://www.tivo.com/shop/detail/ir-adapter


Shouldn't even attempt it unless you know what you are doing and if you do know what you're doing, probably better off building a cable from scratch.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

lpwcomp said:


> Shouldn't even attempt it unless you know what you are doing...


I agree, if you don't know how to do it already, not worth trying.

*bmeacham2:
*Slingbox clients don't need integrated control. 
You'd be better served by getting one of the Network Tivo remotes working.

wmcbrine makes one for laptops:
http://wmcbrine.com/tivo/

I made one for web server / browsers:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=518695

There's a slew of them in the iphone and Android store.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Just totally, completely wrong.
> 
> Not everybody is a 24 year-old Yuppie in Boston. People other than you have to make hard choices, and they make different choices than you. I'm glad you've never had to make those sorts of choices about your TV, but you're an outlier.
> 
> 10 years ago almost everybody was using SD equipment, most were paying for cable, and most were enjoying it. Just because they might enjoy it more in HD now doesn't mean that SD TV is not offering the same basic enjoyment now that it was then. Do you claim that the entire TV industry 10 years ago was worthless because nobody was enjoying it?


Content is now produced for HD viewing, so clinging on to obsolete equipment and refusing to upgrade to the current standards will provide a highly sub-par viewing experience. Content produced for SD viewing was fine in an SD world. Times have changed. Move on.



lpwcomp said:


> That's got to be one of stupidest statements I've ever read. When you made the decision to replace all of your equipment, If you didn't factor in cost, opportunity cost, COH, cash flow, etc., then you're either a fool or you have more money than you know what to do with. In any case, *WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT IS OR ISN'T ACCEPTABLE AND HOW THEY SHOULD ALLOCATE THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME?* Get over yourself. You are not the esthetics czar.


The decision at this point is cable or no cable, cable just is HD. We live in an HD, digital world. Get with the program or get out.

Someone who thinks so highly of themselves is in desperate need of a reality check.



> Are you really that oblivious to the fact that there are channels that are only available in SD and that converting them to HD would eat up _*more*_ bandwidth?


That's an idiotic statement, since I never said to up-convert SD channels. SD-only channels would still be SD, and channels available in HD would only be available in HD. People stuck in 2004 with SDTVs could have HD boxes that downconvert. However, almost all channels are available in HD now, even though not all MSOs provide them all in HD.



> Do you have an actual source you can cite to back up that claim? If not, I'll just consider it a case of "you can prove anything if you get to make up your data".


HUH? It is well known that film was the standard for a long time.



> You think _*Ghostbusters*_ qualifies as _*old*_? That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.


It's 30 years old. That's way old in terms of movies that people are buying/renting/watching.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The decision at this point is cable or no cable, cable just is HD. We live in an HD, digital world. Get with the program or get out.


Comcast offers a basic cable without any HD (they just use the DTA box), low price low quality, but a good option for some low income people, or people that only have TV for young kids.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Content is now produced for HD viewing, so clinging on to obsolete equipment and refusing to upgrade to the current standards will provide a highly sub-par viewing experience. Content produced for SD viewing was fine in an SD world. Times have changed. Move on.


How extremely arrogant of you.

I asked you a direct question that you avoided answering. Rephrasing:
Do you claim that the SD experience today is substantially worse than the SD experience of 10 years ago? Are there fewer shows in less quality available? If it was worth having cable 10 years ago for SD programming, why is it suddenly not worth it today?

NOBODY is arguing with you that the HD experience is not better than the SD experience, but you keep on pretending that's what we're claiming. Different folks get different things out of TV, and some of them get very different things than you. Is it really worthwhile paying substantial amounts of money for HD if all your family watches are shows for young kids?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Comcast offers a basic cable without any HD (they just use the DTA box), low price low quality, but a good option for some low income people, or people that only have TV for young kids.


You can get CableCard, HD, or HD-DVR with basic service. It might take some persistence, but it can be done... You probably can't get X1 with that tier, but a basic HD-DVR would probably be fine if you only have 5 channels anyways... The tier and channel selection has little to do with what equipment you can get.



CrispyCritter said:


> How extremely arrogant of you.
> 
> I asked you a direct question that you avoided answering. Rephrasing:
> Do you claim that the SD experience today is substantially worse than the SD experience of 10 years ago? Are there fewer shows in less quality available? If it was worth having cable 10 years ago for SD programming, why is it suddenly not worth it today?


Yes. The SD experience today is a show produced in HD for an audience watching in HD that is down-converted, either chopped or barred, and then over-compressed. The SD experience in the pre-2008 era (pre-2005 for the early HD channels) was an experience designed for the medium and transmission available at that time. We live in an HD, mobile, always-on world, and devices and services that don't do those things (in the appropriate contexts) are not going to offer a good experience, even if they did in the past.



> NOBODY is arguing with you that the HD experience is not better than the SD experience, but you keep on pretending that's what we're claiming. Different folks get different things out of TV, and some of them get very different things than you. Is it really worthwhile paying substantial amounts of money for HD if all your family watches are shows for young kids?


Yes. We live in an HD world, HD is cheap, fully commoditized, and widely available. There is no excuse for staying with SD in an HD world.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Yes. The SD experience today is a show produced in HD for an audience watching in HD that is down-converted, either chopped or barred, and then over-compressed. The SD experience in the pre-2008 era (pre-2005 for the early HD channels) was an experience designed for the medium and transmission available at that time. We live in an HD, mobile, always-on world, and devices and services that don't do those things (in the appropriate contexts) are not going to offer a good experience, even if they did in the past.


Balony. I watched SD (on our "exercise" TV) up until last year. What you say is just false. You seem to have no experience yourself in these matters - what are you basing your claims on? Please give your evidence.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yes. We live in an HD world, HD is cheap, fully commoditized, and widely available. There is no excuse for staying with SD in an HD world.


My adult son and his wife record on SD because they want a few thousand hours of record time, I don't think they need that, but who am I to fight them over their choice of how they want to record, they have a HDTV and a HD TP with a cable card and don't care, SD is for them. If you want I will give you their E-Mail address so you can tell my kids off for using SD recordings.


----------



## DancyMunchkin (Jul 7, 2014)

Bigg said:


> There is no excuse for staying with SD in an HD world.


And why would someone need an 'excuse' to stay with SD?

No one needs to justify their purchasing decisions to you.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Balony. I watched SD (on our "exercise" TV) up until last year. What you say is just false. You seem to have no experience yourself in these matters - what are you basing your claims on? Please give your evidence.


Yes, I actually do. There was a transition period a few years back here too, and yeah, the SDTV looked horrible with content that was produced in an HD world for an audience using HDTVs. Now my parents have two HDTVs and my roommates and I have 4 HDTVs (two small and two big).



lessd said:


> My adult son and his wife record on SD because they want a few thousand hours of record time, I don't think they need that, but who am I to fight them over their choice of how they want to record, they have a HDTV and a HD TP with a cable card and don't care, SD is for them. If you want I will give you their E-Mail address so you can tell my kids off for using SD recordings.


That's pretty pathetic, especially considering that you have a great TiVo setup with a virtually bottomless pit of storage.



DancyMunchkin said:


> And why would someone need an 'excuse' to stay with SD?
> 
> No one needs to justify their purchasing decisions to you.


Because HD is standard now.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's pretty pathetic, especially considering that you have a great TiVo setup with a virtually bottomless pit of storage.
> .


So now your calling my son and his wife pathetic for recording in SD when they could record in HD, I can't find the words to insult you that I can put into this Forum, you would think my kids were hurting you or hurting someone. What resolution they want to watch in their home on their TV is *NOT* your business to criticize. (unless you are a guest in their home, and that would never be)
You are one arrogant SOB, and a tech snob


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

Come on guys, agree to disagree and walk away. 

Its apparent that you each hold different views and I doubt no one is going to change the other's mind on this whole HD/SD "discussion".


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Yes, I actually do. There was a transition period a few years back here too, and yeah, the SDTV looked horrible with content that was produced in an HD world for an audience using HDTVs. Now my parents have two HDTVs and my roommates and I have 4 HDTVs (two small and two big).


So your claim now is that the difference in horribleness between watching in SD shows produced 10 -30 years ago and watching in SD shows produced now, is enough to take all the enjoyment out of watching modern shows but not the old shows (since there obviously was lot of enjoyment people got watching SD 10 years ago)?

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. I could tell no real difference between the two on my SD setup; they both looked poor. I don't know what kind of physical setup you had that made such a tremendous difference in horribleness; it must have been pretty strange.

People get enjoyment out of different things. You have no business telling folks that their choice is wrong, unless you know precisely what they actually value (and here, they obviously don't value video quality highly).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> So now your calling my son and his wife pathetic for recording in SD when they could record in HD, I can't find the words to insult you that I can put into this Forum, you would think my kids were hurting you or hurting someone. What resolution they want to watch in their home on their TV is *NOT* your business to criticize. (unless you are a guest in their home, and that would never be)
> You are one arrogant SOB, and a tech snob


I also complemented your TiVo setup and called it a "bottomless pit".

I'm not a snob, I just have standards.



CrispyCritter said:


> So your claim now is that the difference in horribleness between watching in SD shows produced 10 -30 years ago and watching in SD shows produced now, is enough to take all the enjoyment out of watching modern shows but not the old shows (since there obviously was lot of enjoyment people got watching SD 10 years ago)?


Shows produced for HD viewing on an HDTV in an HD world look like crap in SD.



> People get enjoyment out of different things. You have no business telling folks that their choice is wrong, unless you know precisely what they actually value (and here, they obviously don't value video quality highly).


Some people may not value watching TV. If they don't, then maybe once of the government-coupon converter boxes hooked up to an old analog TV and an antenna is enough for once in a blue moon viewing. That's fine. But if someone values TV enough to pay for cable, then they should do it right and view it in HD. It's not about valuing or not valuing, it's about half-assing things.


----------



## DancyMunchkin (Jul 7, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Because HD is standard now.


Bigg's isn't worth the trouble.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Shows produced for HD viewing on an HDTV in an HD world look like crap in SD.


I didn't expect you to have any other opinion. But I didn't ask that and you know I didn't ask that. You're ducking the question.

i asked are the new shows were sufficiently worse than the old shows in SD to make the old shows worth watching and the new shows not worth watching?

We have 5 TVs in the house, and only gradually moved to HD (2 TVs were SD, one with a TiVo Series 2 attached, as of a year and a half ago). Absolutely, shows were better in HD. But that doesn't mean that we didn't enjoy the shows in SD. I care more about HD than my wife - the most used TV was the Series 2 TiVo connected SD set in her sewing room. We've watched a lot of SD shows (both new and old, without a major difference between them), and they can still be enjoyed, contrary to what you seem to be claiming.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> I didn't expect you to have any other opinion. But I didn't ask that and you know I didn't ask that. You're ducking the question.
> 
> i asked are the new shows were sufficiently worse than the old shows in SD to make the old shows worth watching and the new shows not worth watching?


Yes. Shows produced for a 480i format look much better in 480i than shows produced for 1080i or 720p or 1080p and shown in 480i. Also, the SD channels are compressed to heck now that the cable cos are trying to make room for HD, HSI, VoIP, VOD, security, etc.


----------

